Hi! Yes :) I think a good framework for working on anxiety on your own is Self-Compassion Therapy (SCT). I like SCT for existential anxiety in particular because its success doesn't hinge on your ability to change your external circumstances and it doesn't presuppose your degree of worry is disproportionate relative to the "actual threat" posed by the object of your worry. Here are some exercises published by Kristin Neff, a well-regarded self-compassion researcher/practitioner: https://self-compassion.org/self-compassion-practices/. There are also lots of Mindfulness-Based Stress Reduction (MBSR) guided meditations online, e.g., https://www.jeffersonhealth.org/conditions-and-treatments/mindfulness-based-stress-reduction/mindfulness/mbsr-guided-practices--I'd look into the body scans to start, as anxiety often manifests as muscle tension and intervening on muscle tension can indirectly alleviate anxiety.

If you have access to insurance coverage for therapy, I would additionally recommend looking into Emotion-Focused Therapy (EFT) and Cognitive Behavioural Therapy (CBT). I'm partial to EFT overall for most clinical presentations, though I like CBT for social anxiety as I think social exposures can be quite powerful.

Outside of targeted mental health interventions, I'd recommend making time for loved ones, community, fun, creative play, exercise, etc. and limiting exposure to anxiety-provoking stimuli where possible. This may be obvious but it's easy to forget about the basics.

It was definitely relevant! Thank you for the link--I think introducing this idea might assist communication in some of my relationships.

This is really useful information; thank you! I think I will change my approach to presenting my own research based on this comment. I have a limited biology background, but would love to watch a presentation of yours sometime.

This is always a good reminder :) Thank you!

I find it bizarre and surprising, no matter how often it happens, when someone thinks my helping them pressure-test their ideas and beliefs for consistency is anything except a deep engagement and joy.  If I didn't want to connect and understand them, I wouldn't bother actually engaging with the idea.  

I feel like I could have written this (and the rest of your comment)! It's confusing and deflating when deep engagement and joy aren't recognized as such.

It's happened often enough that I often need to modulate my enthusiasm, as it does cause suffering in a lot of friends/acquaintances who don't think the same way as I do.

I've tried the same with mixed effectiveness. In in-person contexts, nonverbal information makes it much easier to determine when and how to do this. I've found it's more difficult online, particularly when you don't know your interlocutor--sometimes efforts to affirm the connection and points of non-contention are read as pitying or mocking. I imagine this is partially attributable to the high prevalence of general derision on social media (edit: and of course partially attributable to faulty inference on my part).

It's so interesting how everyone seems to have gotten different messages from this! I found this story helpful and wouldn't cut out the length. I found I resonated most with Mr. Humman in terms of his values.

Some (of many) things I liked that Mr. Humman said:

None of us are strictly better than any other.

All of us are weaker in some places, and stronger in others; so nobody has the right to look down on anyone else.

"Oh, well," Mr. Humman said, "I had really hoped more to hear of where you felt my own play was strong, or clever -- the same sort of perspective that I offered you."  Mr. Humman kept any felt offense out of his voice; Humman was aware that not everyone could be as adept as he himself was, at social graces.

"...no matter how many fancy words you use, they won't be as complicated as real reality, which is infinitely complicated.  And therefore, all these things you are saying, which are less than infinitely complicated, must be wrong."

"Intelligence is not a single line on a single spectrum," declared Mr. Humman.  "Reality is far more complicated."

"But of course," Mr. Humman continued, "all of that only matters under very artificial conditions imposed from outside, or as a contrived setup.  In real life, we both have time to think and avoid obvious blunders before we move, so there is not a very great difference in real life.  The reason I think it's fair to say that I'm genuinely better at chess than a 5-year-old is that the 5-year-old is probably having trouble remembering some of the rules, and hasn't learned all of the key ideas, like forks and skewers and pawn formations.  But once you learn all those key ideas and get some practice with them, what else could there be to learn?"

Something I liked that Socratessa said:

"Uh, hi," the woman said gingerly to Mr. Humman, when she saw him at the grocery.  "I heard you had a bad experience today.  I hope it didn't crush your soul too much -- or, uh, actually, I should say, uh, we don't have to talk about it if you don't wanna."

It would have been even better if Socratessa had said:

"Hi. I heard you had a bad experience today. Do you want to talk about it? I care about you and am interested in your experience."

More generally, I wish Socratessa had been written with a little more depth of character (in particular: curiosity, sincerity). She sounds scared about the future and like she is looking for certainty and approval. I wonder what would have happened if she had expressed empathy for Mr. Humman after he shared he felt invalidated by Mr. Assi. I wonder what would have happened if they had that conversation about politics. In a different story, I can imagine her and Mr. Humman being friends.

One theme I've been thinking about recently is how bids for connection and understanding are often read as criticism. For example:

Person A shares a new idea, feeling excited and hoping to connect with Person B over something they've worked hard on and hold dear.

Person B asks a question about a perceived inconsistency in the idea, feeling excited and hoping for an answer which helps them better understand the idea (and Person B).

Person A feels hurt and unfairly rejected by Person B. Specifically, Person A feels like Person B isn't willing to give their sincere idea (and effort to connect) a chance, so shuts down and labels Person B as an idea-hater.

Person B feels hurt and unfairly rejected by Person A. Specifically, Person B feels like Person A isn't willing to give their sincere question (and effort to connect) a chance, so shuts down and labels Person A as a question-hater.

This seems like a huge source of human suffering, and I have been Person A and Person B in different interactions. Does anyone else resonate with this? Do you see things differently?

Awesome! I unfortunately can't initiate DMs on here but if you send me one I will respond :-)

Hey Cole! I also went through a period of feeling pretty worried about s-risks, and have recently come out the other side. If you'd like someone to talk to, or even any advice re: any materials you might find helpful for coming to accept/loosen the grip of fear and anxiety, my inbox is open (I'm a clinical psych PhD student and have lots of resources for existential/humanist therapy, compassion-focused therapy, CBT, DBT, etc.). I've probably read a lot of what you're worried about, so you don't need to worry about having any hazardous effect on me :)

Also, I'd love to learn more from you about your research! I like your posts.

Thank you so much for your response! That's a great point; I've now added links. If this doesn't resonate with people I will try again with more universal concepts :) I appreciate the feedback!