# 3. Don’t waste your energy This section is all about energy and time. We look at four main factors: how much attention you can actually use each day, how quick your reactions are, how often you make mistakes, and how long it takes you to get back on track after being interrupted. All the numbers here come from direct measurements — either from lab experiments or from tracking large groups of people over time (observational studies). These figures are not converted into life expectancy or mortality rates. Most items in this section carry a B evidence grade; that’s just how this field works, and it doesn’t make the recommendations any less valid. Item 20 deals with what to expect when dealing with police, doctors, or bank tellers; it cites laws rather than experimental data, so its grade is C. Items 15 (treating pessimistic thoughts as symptoms) and 23 (treating the belief that “others expect me to be perfect” as a symptom) use mortality and suicide‑risk figures that follow a different calculation method than the rest of this section, so they’re not compared with the other numbers here. ### 1. Turn off non‑essential notifications and keep your phone out of sight while working - Cost: No cost at all. It takes just a few minutes to adjust the settings, and hardly any willpower is required. - In plain terms: Even if you don’t look at or touch your phone when it rings, your performance on attention‑related tasks still drops. The drop is roughly the same as when you actually answer calls or send messages. Another scenario: even when the phone sits on the desk and you resist the urge to glance at it, the amount of mental capacity available still decreases. The more dependent a person is on their phone, the greater this drop tends to be. - Benefit: Merely receiving a notification — without looking at or interacting with the phone — noticeably impairs performance on attention tasks. The degree of impairment is comparable to actually answering calls or sending messages. These findings come from laboratory studies involving university students. Two additional experiments also show that even when participants successfully refrain from looking at their phone, having it nearby still reduces their available mental resources; this effect is strongest among heavy phone users. - Evidence grade: B - Sources:Stothart, Mitchum & Yehnert (2015). The attentional cost of receiving a cell phone notification. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance. ；Ward, Duke, Gneezy & Bos (2017). Brain Drain: The Mere Presence of One's Own Smartphone Reduces Available Cognitive Capacity. Journal of the Association for Consumer Research. - Notes: All of these results are based on single‑task experiments conducted in a lab setting. No research has examined how these effects accumulate over days or weeks in real‑world conditions. For jobs where immediate responsiveness is essential, it may be advisable to allow notifications only from a limited set of contacts. ### 2. Keep a fixed wake-up time, even on weekends - Cost: No cost involved. Sticking to this on weekends requires a bit of willpower. - In plain terms: For the top 20% of students with the most irregular sleep schedules, their circadian rhythm runs roughly 2.5 hours later than that of the top 20% with the most regular schedules. This is equivalent to living with a persistent jet lag. Moreover, students with more consistent sleep patterns tend to achieve better academic results. - Benefit: Sixty-one university students tracked their sleep patterns over 30 days. The group with the least regular schedules had a circadian rhythm that lagged by about 2.5 hours compared to the most regular group — specifically, the time when melatonin starts secreting was 00:08 versus 21:32 for the latter. The period when they felt most sleepy also occurred roughly 1.8 hours later. Additionally, greater sleep regularity correlated with better academic performance, with a correlation coefficient of r = 0.37. - Evidence grade: B - Sources:Phillips et al. (2017). Irregular sleep/wake patterns are associated with poorer academic performance and delayed circadian and sleep/wake timing. Scientific Reports. - Notes: This is the sole study on this topic, with a relatively small sample size and no control groups. Researchers estimate that these circadian differences stem mainly from varying daily exposure to natural light. Therefore, maintaining a fixed wake-up time works best when paired with exposure to morning sunlight. For tips on how to recover after occasional late nights, see Section 2, Item 39: the recommended approach is to go to bed earlier that very night rather than sleeping in until noon the following day. ### 3. Getting 7 to 8 hours of sleep each night — don’t settle for just 6 hours - Cost: No cost at all. You simply need to set aside 1–2 extra hours each day for sleep. Going to bed earlier requires a bit of willpower. - In plain terms: After two full weeks of getting only 6 hours of sleep each night, brain performance drops to a level equivalent to going two full nights without any sleep at all. The tricky part is that people don’t notice this effect themselves. Their self-rated sleepiness only rises during the first few days and then plateaus — people sleeping 6 hours report the same level of fatigue as those sleeping just 4 hours. In other words, the belief that “6 hours of sleep is enough for me” is actually a symptom of chronic sleep deprivation. - Benefit: In a randomized controlled trial, 48 healthy adults aged 21–38 were asked to get just 6 hours of sleep per night for 14 consecutive days. Their cognitive performance steadily declined, eventually reaching levels comparable to those seen after two full nights of total sleep loss. Meanwhile, their self-reported sleepiness only increased at first and then remained largely unchanged. There was no difference in self-rated fatigue between the 6-hour and 4-hour sleep groups. Additionally, a meta-analysis of 70 studies found that acute sleep deprivation (lasting no more than 48 hours) leads to a moderate drop in simple attention (effect size g = -0.776) and a much smaller decline in reasoning accuracy (g = -0.125). - Evidence grade: A - Sources:Van Dongen, Maislin, Mullington & Dinges (2003). The cumulative cost of additional wakefulness. Sleep. ；Lim & Dinges (2010). A meta-analysis of the impact of short-term sleep deprivation on cognitive variables. Psychological Bulletin. - Notes: The most important takeaway is that “not feeling sleepy” is not proof that you’ve gotten enough sleep. People who regularly sleep just 6 hours simply get used to the state, but their actual performance does not improve. The results from the meta-analysis apply to staying awake for an entire night; there is only one randomized controlled trial supporting the idea that consistently getting less than 6 hours of sleep has any real negative impact. ### 4. Avoid caffeine after 2 p.m - Cost: No cost involved. People accustomed to drinking coffee in the afternoon must summon some willpower to abstain. - In plain terms: Consuming a large cup of coffee containing 400 mg of caffeine 6 hours before bedtime reduces measured total sleep time by over 1 hour, yet personal sleep logs show no difference. To avoid any impact on sleep, a regular cup of coffee (107 mg of caffeine) must be consumed at least 8.8 hours prior to bedtime; for those going to bed at 11 p.m., 2 p.m. marks the cutoff point. - Benefit: Intake of 400 mg of caffeine 6 hours before sleep results in a measurable reduction of 1.1–1.2 hours in total sleep time compared to placebo consumption. Multiple studies combined via meta-analysis indicate that caffeine on average shortens total sleep duration by 45 minutes and lowers sleep efficiency — the proportion of time spent actually asleep while in bed — by 7%. - Evidence grade: A - Sources:Drake, Roehrs, Shambroom & Roth (2013). Caffeine effects on sleep taken 0, 3, or 6 hours before going to bed. Journal of Clinical Sleep Medicine. ；Gardiner et al. (2023). The effect of caffeine on subsequent sleep: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Sleep Medicine Reviews. - Notes: The sole study by Drake utilized a relatively high caffeine dose of 400 mg, equivalent to roughly two or three cups of coffee, and was conducted in a single laboratory setting. Individuals with slower caffeine metabolism must adhere to an even earlier cutoff time. This recommendation complements the third item, which advises aiming for 7–8 hours of sleep nightly. ### 5. Batch-process emails and messages a few times per day - Cost: No monetary cost. However, it takes some time to explain to colleagues how often you’ll be checking messages. It also requires a bit of willpower to resist the urge to check them constantly. - In plain terms: The same group of participants was studied over two weeks. During the week when they limited email checks to just three times per day, their daily stress levels dropped noticeably compared to the unrestricted week — while the total number of emails sent and received stayed the same. Without any limits, people checked their emails an average of 15.5 times per day. - Benefit: In a two-week self-controlled trial involving 124 adults, those who limited email checks to three times daily experienced significantly lower daily stress than when they checked freely (effect size: Cohen’s d = 0.37). The overall volume of emails received and replied to did not differ between the two conditions. Without restrictions, participants checked emails 15.5 times per day on average. - Evidence grade: B - Sources:Kushlev & Dunn (2015). Checking email less frequently reduces stress. Computers in Human Behavior. - Notes: Only one study has examined this approach, showing a modest effect size. It measured stress levels rather than actual work output. No direct research exists on limiting instant messaging checks; this recommendation is extrapolated from similar email studies. ### 6. When doing tasks that require continuous thinking, keep out even brief interruptions - Cost: No cost at all. Just close the door, put on headphones, or hang a “Do Not Disturb” sign. - In plain terms: Even a brief interruption lasting 2.8 seconds on average doubles the chance of errors in subsequent steps of a sequential task. An interruption of 4.4 seconds triples that error rate. Field observations also show that it takes an average of 25 minutes to return to the interrupted task, with two other unrelated tasks squeezed in during that time. People who get interrupted do finish tasks faster, but they report higher levels of stress, frustration, effort, and time pressure. - Benefit: On average, a 2.8-second interruption doubles the error rate for sequential tasks, while a 4.4-second interruption triples it. This finding comes from lab experiments. Another study observed 24 office workers (information professionals) in real-world settings. They switched topics every 11 minutes on average, and 57% of those topic switches were interrupted. It took them 25 minutes and 26 seconds on average to get back to the interrupted task, with 2.26 other tasks added in between. A separate experiment with 48 participants showed similar results: interrupted workers completed tasks faster, but reported significantly higher stress, frustration, effort, and time pressure. - Evidence grade: B - Sources:Altmann, Trafton & Hambrick (2014). Momentary interruptions can derail the train of thought. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General. ；Mark, Gonzalez & Harris (2005). No task left behind? Examining the nature of fragmented work. CHI 2005. ；Mark, Gudith & Klocke (2008). The cost of interrupted work: More speed and stress. CHI 2008. - Notes: The field study mentioned above categorized interruptions into two types: those caused by others approaching the worker, and those initiated by the worker themselves. Simply closing the door blocks only the first type of interruption. To handle the second type, combine this tip with Tip 1 (turn off non-essential notifications) and Tip 5 (batch-process messages). ### 7. Do one thing at a time — don’t reply to messages while in a meeting - Cost: No cost at all. It does take a bit of willpower to resist replying to messages during a meeting. - In plain terms: Every time you switch tasks, your reaction time slows down and errors become more likely. People who regularly keep multiple screens open at once don’t actually get better at multitasking; in fact, they perform worse on task-switching tests. - Benefit: Switching between tasks clearly slows reaction time and raises the chance of mistakes. This conclusion comes from a review of multiple studies. One lab study involved university students. Those who frequently use several types of media at the same time are known as heavy media multitaskers. They’re more easily distracted by unrelated things and unrelated memories, and they also perform worse on task-switching tests. - Evidence grade: B - Sources:Monsell (2003). Task switching. Trends in Cognitive Sciences. ；Ophir, Nass & Wagner (2009). Cognitive control in media multitaskers. PNAS. - Notes: Exactly how much extra effort task-switching requires varies a lot depending on the task, so no single number can be given here. The Ophir study compares people at one single point in time, so it’s hard to tell whether multitasking makes attention worse, or whether people with poorer attention skills simply prefer to multitask. ### 8. Avoid glowing screens one hour before bed; if you must, read paper books or e-ink devices instead - Cost: No cost involved. Giving up phone use one hour before bed requires willpower, especially when fighting long-standing habits. - In plain terms: Reading from glowing screens before bed delays sleep onset by roughly 10 minutes compared to reading paper books. It also lowers melatonin production by 55%. The next day, the body’s internal clock shifts more than 1.5 hours later, making mornings harder and requiring extra time to feel fully awake. - Benefit: In controlled lab experiments, the same participants were tested under both conditions (cross-over design). Those reading from glowing e-readers fell asleep about 10 minutes later than those reading paper books (25.7 minutes versus 15.8 minutes). Their nighttime melatonin levels dropped by 55%, and their circadian rhythm shifted by over 1.5 hours — melatonin secretion started at 22:31 instead of 21:01. This resulted in greater morning sleepiness and a longer recovery time to full alertness. - Evidence grade: B - Sources:Chang, Aeschbach, Duffy & Czeisler (2015). Evening use of light-emitting eReaders negatively affects sleep, circadian timing, and next-morning alertness. PNAS. - Notes: The study involved a small number of participants and was conducted under tightly controlled lab conditions. Real-world effects may be smaller given typical phone brightness and usage patterns. The study did not evaluate how much nighttime screen modes actually help. ### 9. Go to bed at a set time — avoid staying up late for games, short videos, or porn - Cost: No monetary cost. The real challenge is overcoming the habit of “just one more episode.” The easiest solution is to keep phones out of the bedroom. - In plain terms: In 2025, Chinese people slept an average of 6.97 hours per night, with an average bedtime of 12:10 a.m. Those who used phones or tablets before bed were more than twice as likely to get insufficient sleep and 2.7 times more likely to feel drowsy during the day. Even simply having such devices in the bedroom — without using them — produced similar results. Thus, keeping phones out of the bedroom is the simplest way to improve sleep. - Benefit: In 2025, Chinese residents averaged 6.97 hours of nighttime sleep, with an average bedtime of 12:10 a.m. (Chinese Sleep Research Society). Compared to people who did not use portable devices before bed, those who did were 2.17 times more likely to get insufficient sleep (OR 2.17), 1.46 times more likely to suffer poor sleep quality (OR 1.46), and 2.72 times more likely to feel daytime drowsiness (OR 2.72). Even merely having devices in the bedroom without use yielded similar odds: 1.79, 1.53, and 2.27 respectively (OR 1.79/1.53/2.27). These figures come from a combined analysis of 20 concurrent surveys involving 125,198 children and adolescents. Another concurrent study of 844 adults aged 18–94 found that those who used phones after turning off the lights took longer to fall asleep, spent less time actually asleep in bed, and felt more fatigued during the day. - Evidence grade: B - Sources:Carter et al. (2016). Association Between Portable Screen-Based Media Device Access or Use and Sleep Outcomes. JAMA Pediatrics. ；Exelmans & Van den Bulck (2016). Bedtime mobile phone use and sleep in adults. Social Science & Medicine. ；中国睡眠研究会 (2026). 2026 中国睡眠健康研究白皮书（福建省卫健委转载健康报报道）. ；Grubbs JB 等 (2018). Pornography Problems Due to Moral Incongruence: An Integrative Model with a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Archives of Sexual Behavior. （备注里的争议方之一）；Prause N, Pfaus J (2015). Viewing Sexual Stimuli Associated with Greater Sexual Responsiveness, Not Erectile Dysfunction. Sexual Medicine. （备注里的争议方之二） - Notes: This recommendation is somewhat controversial. The overall risks of chronic sleep deprivation are covered in section 3 of this chapter (aiming for 7–8 hours of sleep per night). Currently there is no reliable evidence linking porn to reduced energy or cognitive ability in the general population. One meta‑analysis suggests that so‑called “porn problems” often stem from a mismatch between personal beliefs and behavior rather than from the content itself. Another study of 280 men found no correlation between the amount of time spent watching porn and erectile function during sexual activity with a partner. This recommendation specifically addresses how porn consumes sleep time. The figures of 6.97 hours and 12:10 a.m. are taken from a Health News report republished by the Fujian Provincial Health Commission, as no official release from the Chinese Sleep Research Society was found at the time of writing (September 2026). ### 10. Don’t make major decisions or send important messages late at night - Cost: No cost at all. You simply postpone these tasks until after you’ve woken up. - In plain terms: People who stayed awake for 49.5 hours were asked to take part in risk decision experiments. When well-rested, they quickly learned to avoid high-risk options; after sleep deprivation, they repeatedly chose high-risk choices instead. The older a person is, the more pronounced this effect becomes. This study looked at the extreme scenario of two consecutive sleepless nights; it did not directly test how much impact a few fewer hours of sleep would have, but the overall trend supports postponing important decisions until the next day. - Benefit: Thirty-four healthy participants completed the Iowa Gambling Task after going 49.5 hours without sleep. This task is a standard way to measure risk decision making. When well-rested, they quickly learned to steer clear of high-risk options; after sleep loss, they opted for high-risk choices far more often. Older participants showed a stronger response to this effect. This is the only study of its kind to date. The total number of participants was 34. - Evidence grade: B - Sources:Killgore, Balkin & Wesensten (2006). Impaired decision making following 49 h of sleep deprivation. Journal of Sleep Research. - Notes: The research focused on the extreme case of two nights of continuous sleep deprivation. There is no direct data on how ordinary people fare after staying awake until 2 a.m. The advice to avoid sending messages late at night is based on the authors’ personal experience (rated as Grade C evidence); it is perfectly fine to send such messages the following day instead. ### 11. Take a 10‑minute nap in the afternoon — don’t sleep half an hour - Cost: It costs nothing. Just set aside 10 minutes and find a place where you can lie down or recline. - In plain terms: A 10‑minute nap gives an immediate boost of alertness that lasts about two and a half hours. A 5‑minute nap provides almost no benefit, while a 20‑minute nap only starts to help after roughly half an hour. Sleeping 30 minutes brings on sleep inertia — you’ll feel groggy right after waking, making performance worse than if you hadn’t napped at all. - Benefit: After a night of insufficient sleep, a 10‑minute nap quickly reduces drowsiness, fatigue, and improves energy and mental performance; some of these effects persist for up to 155 minutes. A 5‑minute nap yields virtually no benefit, and the advantages of a 20‑minute nap appear only after 35 minutes. A 30‑minute nap first causes sleep inertia, so performance is actually poorer right after waking, before any improvement occurs. - Evidence grade: B - Sources:Brooks & Lack (2006). A brief afternoon nap following nocturnal sleep restriction: Which nap duration is most recuperative? Sleep. - Notes: Only one laboratory study exists, and its participants were healthy young adults. If you can’t fall asleep, there’s no need to force it; there’s no research showing any benefit from simply lying down with eyes closed for 10 minutes. Naps longer than an hour have been linked to higher mortality and increased risk of coronary heart disease — see Section 2, Item 38 (keep naps under 30 minutes). 〔37〕 ### 12. Using earplugs or finding a quiet room for memory-heavy tasks in open offices - Cost: Earplugs cost just a few dozen yuan. Booking a quiet meeting room takes some time and effort. - In plain terms: When background noise rises from 39 dB to 51 dB, people remember fewer words, feel more tired, and are less motivated to work. Watching nature videos with sound during breaks helps restore energy far better than continuing to endure office noise. - Benefit: Students working in simulated open offices showed similar effects: at 51 dB LAeq background noise, they recalled fewer words, rated themselves as more fatigued, and felt less inclined to keep working. Viewing nature videos with audio during breaks also boosted their energy levels more effectively than listening to river sounds or office noise alone. - Evidence grade: B - Sources:Jahncke, Hygge, Halin, Green & Dimberg (2011). Open-plan office noise: Cognitive performance and restoration. Journal of Environmental Psychology. - Notes: Only one laboratory study exists on this topic. Among all noise types, speech that can be clearly understood has the greatest negative impact on performance. White noise headphones may help mitigate this effect, but they were not tested in this research. ### 13. Do not work more than 49 hours per week - Cost: You might earn less in overtime pay. You may also need to put in effort to negotiate with your supervisor. - In plain terms: Records from British munitions factories during World War I show that when workers kept weekly hours under 49, output rose in direct proportion to the time spent working. Once they exceeded 49 hours, the growth rate began to drop. Output from workers putting in 70 hours per week was practically identical to that of those working 56 hours — those extra 14 hours yielded no additional results. In total, this data covers a period spanning 100 years. - Benefit: Data from British munitions factories in World War I demonstrates that output rises steadily with working hours up to 49 per week. After that threshold, the rate of growth slows. Peak output is reached at roughly 63 hours. At 70 hours, output remains essentially the same as at 56 hours, meaning those extra 14 hours are wasted effort. - Evidence grade: B - Sources:Pencavel (2015). The Productivity of Working Hours. The Economic Journal. - Notes: These figures come from factories a century ago where most workers were women performing manual labor. This threshold may differ for cognitive work; the authors themselves note that other occupations could have higher or lower limits. What is reliable, though, is the overall trend: beyond a certain point, adding more hours yields almost no extra output. The specific figure of 49 hours is not proven. ### 14. When you notice yourself endlessly replaying a distressing memory, do something hands‑on instead - Cost: No cost at all. The hard part is first recognizing that you’re stuck in this loop – a skill that takes practice. - In plain terms: Endlessly dwelling on the same bad memory won’t yield any answers. It only deepens depression, cements negative thoughts, makes it harder to solve problems or take action, and can drive away friends who’d otherwise listen. As soon as you realize you’re stuck in this cycle, get busy with a physical task. - Benefit: A review of multiple studies shows that repetitive rumination on distressing events worsens depression. This pattern, known as rumination, also strengthens negative thinking and weakens problem‑solving abilities. It hampers real‑world action and can alienate supportive people. It is linked to anxiety, binge eating, alcohol misuse, and self‑harm. - Evidence grade: B - Sources:Nolen-Hoeksema, Wisco & Lyubomirsky (2008). Rethinking Rumination. Perspectives on Psychological Science. - Notes: This is the hardest item in this section to quantify; the review only provides general direction. “Doing something else” reflects the author’s own approach. The literature supports one core idea: diverting attention is better than staying trapped in rumination. No research has compared which specific activities work best. ### 15. Treat thoughts like “things will definitely get worse” as symptoms, not as facts - Cost: No cost involved. The hard part is viewing such thoughts as symptoms rather than as objective truths. - In plain terms: In a 20-year twin study, each additional step up on a pessimism scale correlated with a roughly 13% higher risk of dying during that period, and a roughly 20% higher risk of dying from cardiovascular disease. Conversely, higher optimism scores did not bring any comparable benefits. Thus, the focus should be on reducing pessimism, not on simply “being more positive.” - Benefit: This study followed 2,978 twins aged 50 or older in Australia for an average of 20 years; 1,068 of them died over that time. For each standard deviation increase on the pessimism scale, the relative risk of death rose by about 13% (hazard ratio 1.134). The 95% confidence interval for this figure is 1.065–1.207, with a p-value of 8.85×10⁻⁵. Cardiovascular mortality rose by roughly 20% (hazard ratio 1.196; 95% CI 1.045–1.368; p=0.0093). No link was found between pessimism and cancer mortality. Similarly, higher optimism scores showed no meaningful association with mortality rates. - Evidence grade: B - Sources:Whitfield JB, Zhu G, Landers JG, Martin NG (2020). Pessimism is associated with greater all-cause and cardiovascular mortality, but optimism is not protective. Scientific Reports, 10, 12609. - Notes: This finding remains somewhat controversial. It is purely observational and no subgroups were defined. Some argue that illness might precede and cause heightened pessimism; the authors counter that if that were true, pessimism should also correlate with cancer mortality. Nevertheless, other unmeasured factors could still be at play. Importantly, optimism does not offer any protective effect, so there is no need to force oneself to “think positively.” What matters is refraining from treating pessimistic expectations as accurate forecasts of the future. ### 16. Cut back on draining relationships and learn to say no to unwanted requests - Cost: No monetary cost. In the short term, this may cause social friction and possibly lead to losing some relationships. It also takes considerable willpower to actually say no. - In plain terms: The harm caused by a draining person is greater and more consistent than the benefits brought by a supportive one. That is why it makes sense to first reduce such relationships before trying to add healthier ones. - Benefit: A survey of 120 widowed women aged 60–89 found that unpleasant interactions showed a stronger and more consistent link to lower psychological well‑being than pleasant ones. In other words, the negative impact of a draining person outweighs the positive effects of a supportive one. - Evidence grade: C - Sources:Rook (1984). The negative side of social interaction: Impact on psychological well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. - Notes: The study group is quite specific, and the questionnaire was administered only once, so no cause‑and‑effect sequence can be determined. It measures overall happiness rather than energy levels. The author includes this example as a speculative inference. There is no objective definition of what counts as a “draining” relationship; each person must judge that for themselves. ### 17. Walk away when angry; treat the other person as weather, not an enemy - Cost: No cost at all. You must resist the urge to retort on the spot, turn around and leave, then decide later whether to address the situation. This takes some practice. - In plain terms: Reframing what just happened or trying to see things from the other person’s perspective can genuinely lower emotional intensity; the latter approach works especially well. Simply suppressing emotions has no effect. Additionally, people who punish those who offend them end up dwelling on the incident far longer afterward; those who do not retaliate move on more quickly. People also tend to overestimate how satisfying revenge actually is. - Benefit: A meta-analysis combining 306 separate experiments shows that reframing events (cognitive reappraisal) yields a moderate effect size of d = 0.36 on emotional intensity. Viewing things from the other person’s perspective produces an even stronger effect, d = 0.45. Distraction yields d = 0.27. Simply suppressing emotions has virtually no effect, with d = -0.04. Three other experiments likewise reveal that people who punish offenders keep thinking about them far longer; those who refrain from retaliation move on more quickly. People consistently overestimate how gratifying revenge truly is. - Evidence grade: B - Sources:Webb TL, Miles E, Sheeran P (2012). Dealing with feeling: A meta-analysis of the effectiveness of strategies derived from the process model of emotion regulation. Psychological Bulletin. ；Carlsmith KM, Wilson TD, Gilbert DT (2008). The paradoxical consequences of revenge. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. - Notes: The portion of this analysis dealing with emotional intensity — not energy expenditure — shows effects ranging from small to moderate. Because only one experiment addresses the issue of revenge, the overall grade is B. The “empty boat” parable originates from Zhuangzi’s “Mountain Trees”: one remains calm when an empty boat bumps into them, but becomes angry when a boat carrying people does the same; the impact is identical in both cases. This is purely an analogy, not empirical evidence. If actual harm has occurred, following the legal procedures outlined in Sections 8 and 9 is far less costly than reacting impulsively on the spot. ### 18. Best low-cost actions when you’re feeling down: move, get sunlight, stick to a schedule, talk to someone, call 12356 - Cost: Costs little to nothing. Just a few brisk walks, runs, or strength workouts each week. Spend time outdoors in daylight. Keep a regular sleep schedule. When you’re feeling stuck, give someone a call. - In plain terms: According to a meta-analysis of 218 randomized trials, brisk walking and running produce the strongest benefits for depression, with yoga and strength training also helpful — the greater the intensity, the better the effect. Sunlight therapy works very well for seasonal depression and also helps with non‑seasonal cases. Online self‑guided cognitive‑behavioral therapy programs are effective; having a therapist guide you makes them even better, especially if your symptoms are moderate to severe. When you’re feeling overwhelmed, dial 12356 first. - Benefit: This meta-analysis combined data from 218 randomized controlled trials involving 14,170 participants; the control group performed other activities. Compared with them, walking or running lowered depression scores by g = -0.62 (95% CI -0.80 to -0.45). Yoga produced g = -0.55 and strength training g = -0.49; higher intensity further improved outcomes. Pooled data from multiple light‑therapy studies showed an effect size of 0.84 (0.60–1.08) for seasonal depression and 0.53 (0.18–0.89) for non‑seasonal cases. Another analysis aggregated individual‑patient data from various studies on internet‑based cognitive‑behavioral therapy; both self‑guided and therapist‑supervised programs outperformed controls, with therapist guidance yielding better results for moderate‑to‑severe depression (PHQ‑9 score >9). The 12356 hotline provides nationwide psychological support for at least 18 hours each day. - Evidence grade: A - Sources:Noetel M 等 (2024). Effect of exercise for depression: systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. BMJ. ；Golden RN 等 (2005). The efficacy of light therapy in the treatment of mood disorders: a review and meta-analysis of the evidence. American Journal of Psychiatry. ；Karyotaki E 等 (2021). Internet-Based Cognitive Behavioral Therapy for Depression: A Systematic Review and Individual Patient Data Network Meta-analysis. JAMA Psychiatry. ；国家卫生健康委 (2024). 关于应用"12356"全国统一心理援助热线电话号码的通知（国卫医政函〔2024〕259 号）. - Notes: These measures serve as adjuncts for mild‑to‑moderate depression. Individuals with moderate‑to‑severe depression or suicidal thoughts should seek professional care; they may also call 12356 first (see Section 1, Item 25). Most exercise trials involve relatively few participants and cannot employ the placebo blinding used in drug studies. Light‑therapy research available up to 2003 also includes limited sample sizes. The advice to “stick to a schedule” and “talk to someone” reflects the authors’ experience rather than specific published evidence. Remember, even a ten‑minute walk counts as “getting active” for someone dealing with depression. ### 19. Treat police officers, doctors, and bank tellers as rule‑following workers, not as archetypes: paperwork and deadlines — not emotions — drive results - Cost: No expense involved. You only need to adjust your expectations and the sequence of actions. The first step is to resist the urge to “convince the other party with logic.” - In plain terms: Children tend to think “police exist to catch bad guys; doctors exist to heal people.” Adults should instead view these professionals as employees bound by job rules, paperwork, deadlines, and oversight. How friendly they are has little bearing on whether your task gets done or how quickly. What matters is obtaining receipts, noting deadlines, and filing appeals through proper channels — not winning an intellectual debate. - Benefit: Switching to this approach means moving from “pleading, getting angry, and reiterating your grievances” to “handling paperwork, tracking deadlines, and appealing via official routes.” The time saved comes from eliminating endless back‑and‑forth discussions and mental re‑processing. This is a one‑time mindset shift rather than a daily time‑saving trick. The deadlines themselves serve as concrete checkpoints, all clearly stated in official documents. For public‑security cases, the investigation period may not exceed 30 days; for especially complex cases, an extension of another 30 days can be granted with higher‑level approval. If a complaint is dismissed, the notification must be delivered within three days; the complainant may request a review within seven days, after which police must issue a decision within 30 days. A further appeal to a higher authority can be filed within another seven days. - Evidence grade: C - Sources:公安部 (2020). 公安机关办理刑事案件程序规定（公安部令第 159 号修正后，第一百七十一、一百七十八、一百七十九条）. ；公安部 (2013/2019 修正). 公安机关办理行政案件程序规定（公安部令第 125 号、第 149 号）. - Notes: Grade C is assigned because there is no scholarly source supporting the premise that “many people treat front‑desk staff as archetypes rather than ordinary workers.” The only evidence lies in the rules themselves: deadlines, paperwork, and appeal mechanisms are all explicitly codified. All figures cited here originate from Article 39 in Section 8, which outlines procedures following a police report. This entry does not promise to “guarantee success” by following the rules, nor does it address “unfriendly attitudes” on the part of officials. It merely shifts expectations and the initial course of action. The same logic applies to bank tellers and government service windows: their actions are documented, subject to review, and accountable for errors. Therefore, the proper steps are to keep receipts, request written confirmations, and file complaints through official channels — rather than speculating about whether someone might “take advantage” of you. Legitimate priorities are laid out in law; for example, emergency care is allocated based on medical severity, not on first‑come‑first‑served order (see Article 8 in Section 24 on triage). If you wish to thank a doctor who helped you, send a thank‑you letter or leave a satisfaction rating as described in Article 12 of Section 24. Offering gifts to law‑enforcement personnel to “get better service” constitutes bribery, a crime with severe statutory penalties (see Article 40 in Section 8). Any obvious discrimination should be reported and monitored, not imitated as an unwritten norm. ### 20. Don’t make “how others are doing” a daily habit: set limits on apps that show peers’ updates or turn them off - Cost: This costs nothing. Setting time limits or deactivating an account takes just a few minutes. The real challenge is resisting the urge to open these apps again later on. - In plain terms: People who habitually compare themselves to others online tend to feel worse emotionally and have lower self‑esteem. Meta‑analysis of over 36,000 participants shows a moderate correlation between upward social comparison and poorer psychological outcomes. Correlation does not equal causation, but randomized trials back this link: after four weeks without Facebook, participants reported a slight rise in happiness. Another study limited three major platforms to 10 minutes per day; after three weeks, loneliness and depression both declined. The trade‑off? Knowledge of current events also dropped during those four weeks of abstinence. - Benefit: The combined results of 54 independent studies — 94 effect sizes and a total N of 36,583 — analyzed via a three‑level random‑effects model reveal that upward social comparison correlates with poorer mental health (average r = 0.330, 95% CI 0.289–0.370). Specific effects include higher fear of negative evaluation (r = 0.438), anxiety (0.382), depression (0.306), lower happiness (0.268) and lower self‑esteem (0.263). Life satisfaction increased by 0.12 standard deviations, while happiness rose by 0.08 standard deviations. Age, cultural background and data collection year do not alter this link. In a randomized trial of 2,743 U.S. Facebook users, 61% would accept a four‑week suspension at a cost of under $102; those in the suspension group gained 0.09 standard deviations in overall life satisfaction. Compared with typical psychological interventions (which raise happiness by ~0.34 SD and cut depression by ~0.23 SD), this effect is roughly 25–40% of that magnitude. After the trial ended, former suspension users still spent 0.31 fewer standard deviations per day on Facebook. Even after the trial ended, former suspension users still spent 12 fewer minutes per day on Facebook. A smaller trial of 143 college students showed similar benefits after limiting three platforms to 10 minutes daily. Additionally, knowledge of current affairs declined by 0.19 standard deviations, and political polarization fell by 0.16 standard deviations as a result of reduced app usage. - Evidence grade: A - Sources:Lei Y, Hu S, Sun Y, Zheng L (2026). "Looking up" linked to feeling down: a meta-analysis of online upward social comparison and psychological maladjustment. Frontiers in Psychology. ；Allcott H, Braghieri L, Eichmeyer S, Gentzkow M (2020). The Welfare Effects of Social Media. American Economic Review, 110(3), 629–676. ；Allcott H, Braghieri L, Eichmeyer S, Gentzkow M (2019). The Welfare Effects of Social Media. NBER Working Paper No. 25514（本条引用的具体数字按这一版逐字核对，刊出版的摘要不含数字）. ；Hunt MG, Marx R, Lipson C, Young J (2018). No More FOMO: Limiting Social Media Decreases Loneliness and Depression. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 37(10), 751–768. - Notes: The correlation findings merely indicate that these patterns tend to appear together; they do not prove causation. The randomized trials do suggest causal links, but they involve U.S. participants prior to the 2018 midterm elections, so applying the results directly to Chinese users is a stretch. The undergraduate trial involved only 143 subjects, limiting its statistical power. Overall effect sizes remain modest, so cutting off these apps alone will not resolve all emotional issues. This advice targets usage aimed at monitoring how others are faring; it does not apply to staying in touch with family, seeking information or job hunting. If strict limits prove hard to maintain, start by disabling push notifications, “people you may know” suggestions and homepage recommendations. For broader screen‑time management, see sections 4.15 and 4.16 (hard caps on short‑video apps and scrolling news). When feeling down, consider the actions outlined in section 19 (exercise, sunlight and regular sleep). For those seeking identity through purchases, see section 6.23; those striving to “move up a social rung” should review section 6.24. ### 21. When you feel like “everyone saw me make a fool of myself,” cut that estimate in half - Cost: No cost at all. It simply requires asking yourself once, when you’re nervous: “Did they really see it?” - In plain terms: Imagine someone wearing an embarrassing T‑shirt into a room full of people. On average, they estimate that 46% of onlookers can identify who the shirt depicts; the actual figure is only 23%, exactly half as much. When they wear a T‑shirt of their own choosing that they consider decent, the estimate jumps to 48% while the true rate drops to just 8% — a six‑fold difference. Other studies show that after a conversation, people consistently underestimate how much their partner likes them. Thus, the belief that “I messed up and everyone noticed” is itself an over‑estimate; cutting it in half still leaves it too high. - Benefit: Experiment 1: Participants donned T‑shirts featuring Barry Manilow’s portrait and entered rooms with other subjects. On average, they predicted that 46% of observers would correctly name the figure on the shirt; the actual correct rate was 23%, precisely double the estimate. Subtracting the observed rate from the predicted one yields an average over‑estimation of 23 percentage points (95% CI 9–38). Excluding two sessions with only two or three observers leaves a difference of 27 points (11–43). Experiment 2: Participants wore T‑shirts they personally selected as “positive.” Their average prediction was 48%, whereas the true recognition rate fell to 8%, a six‑fold gap. Across three additional contexts — strangers paired for conversation, college roommates, and adult workshop participants — people systematically under‑estimated both how much their interlocutor liked them and how much they enjoyed the talk. The authors term this the “liking gap.” It appears in conversations of any length and persists for months among new roommates. - Evidence grade: B - Sources:Gilovich T, Medvec VH, Savitsky K (2000). The spotlight effect in social judgment: An egocentric bias in estimates of the salience of one's own actions and appearance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78(2), 211–222. ；Boothby EJ, Cooney G, Sandstrom GM, Clark MS (2018). The Liking Gap in Conversations: Do People Like Us More Than We Think? Psychological Science, 29(11), 1742–1756. - Notes: Grade B reflects that all studies were conducted in laboratory or campus settings with relatively small sample sizes, involving wearing shirts or chatting with strangers. There is no direct evidence that these findings apply to situations such as being discussed by colleagues or making a mistake in a meeting. The numbers merely indicate the direction and approximate magnitude of over‑estimation; they do not provide a fixed multiplier you can apply. This advice is not meant to imply that others’ opinions are irrelevant. In genuine evaluation contexts — interviews, defenses, assessments, or medical evaluations — judgments are real and should be taken seriously. It specifically addresses that everyday feeling of “everyone is watching me”; the real opponent here is your own estimation bias. ### 22. Treat “others expect me to be perfect” as a symptom, not a fact - Cost: No cost involved. The hard part is viewing this thought pattern as something that needs addressing rather than as an accurate reflection of others’ actual expectations. - In plain terms: The correlation between the feeling of “people around me expect me to be perfect and will reject me if I fail” and suicidal thoughts is 0.28. When the phrasing changes to “I myself expect myself to be perfect,” the correlation drops to just 0.10. The real risk does not come from having high standards per se, but from perceiving those standards as being imposed by others. Even after accounting for pre-existing suicidal thoughts, the former feeling still helps predict an increase in such thoughts over time. - Benefit: A comprehensive meta-analysis was conducted using data from 45 studies involving 11,747 participants — including undergraduates, medical students, community members, and psychiatric patients — analyzed via a random-effects model. The weighted average correlation with suicidal thoughts is as follows: for perfectionistic concerns (a composite of socially prescribed perfectionism, fear of making mistakes, self-doubt, and perceived gaps between personal performance and standards), r = .28 (95% CI .24–.32; based on 42 studies with 7,936 participants). Socially prescribed perfectionism alone also shows r = .28 (.25–.32; 30 studies, 3,640 participants). Perfectionistic striving — which reflects self-directed perfectionism and personal standards — has a lower correlation of r = .10 (.07–.13; 31 studies, 4,588 participants). Parental criticism correlates at r = .20 (.11–.29). Regarding suicide attempts, perfectionistic concerns correlate at r = .12 (.07–.17; 15 studies, 5,275 participants), while socially prescribed perfectionism shows r = .19 (.08–.29; 8 studies, 689 participants). Even after adjusting for pre-existing suicidal thoughts, socially prescribed perfectionism still shows a modest positive link to later increases in suicidal thoughts; no such link is observed for self-directed or other-oriented perfectionism. - Evidence grade: B - Sources:Smith MM, Sherry SB, Chen S, Saklofske DH, Mushquash C, Flett GL, Hewitt PL (2018). The perniciousness of perfectionism: A meta-analytic review of the perfectionism-suicide relationship. Journal of Personality, 86(3), 522–542. - Notes: This item is graded B because most included studies relied on single-time surveys, making it hard to establish temporal sequence. The correlation strength is moderate (r ≈ .28), accounting for only a few to ten percent of total variance. Since the outcomes measured are suicidal thoughts and attempts rather than actual mortality, the overall benefit is rated as limited due to reliance on surrogate endpoints. The authors themselves note that the data on perfectionistic concerns and suicide attempts may suffer from publication bias, with studies showing weaker or null results less likely to be published; even after accounting for such missing studies, the overall trend remains unchanged. This recommendation does not oppose setting high standards; rather, it emphasizes where those standards originate and whether failure to meet them leads to feelings of personal worthlessness. Similar to the idea discussed in Item 15 — viewing pessimistic expectations like “things will definitely get worse” as symptoms — this pattern can also be addressed clinically. If you or someone you know is experiencing suicidal thoughts, call 12356 immediately and remove any means of self-harm, as outlined in Section 1, Item 25. For guidance on how to respond when someone close expresses such thoughts, refer to Section 8, Item 15. Information on depression screening for children can be found in Section 30, Item 8. ### 23. When angry, don’t try to vent by smashing things, punching a bag, or going for a run — first calm your body down - Cost: No cost at all. When you’re angry, try a few minutes of activities that slow your heart rate: breathe slowly, sit down, and quiet your mind. It’s hard to resist the urge to vent right then and there. - In plain terms: Activities that rev up the body — like punching a bag, throwing things, or going for a run — generally don’t help you cool off. On the other hand, techniques that calm the body, such as slow breathing, mindfulness, and meditation, noticeably reduce anger and the urge to lash out. - Benefit: A meta-analysis of 154 studies involving 184 sample groups and 10,189 participants shows that calming techniques like deep breathing, mindfulness, and meditation lower both anger and aggression. The effect size was g = -0.63, with a 95% CI ranging from -0.82 to -0.43. This result held true across genders, races, ages, and cultures. In contrast, activities that increase physical arousal — such as punching a bag, jogging, or cycling — showed virtually no effect; their effect size was g = -0.02, with a 95% CI from -0.13 to 0.09. The authors conclude that neither venting anger nor going for a run is an effective way to defuse it. - Evidence grade: A - Sources:Kjærvik SL, Bushman BJ (2024). A meta-analytic review of anger management activities that increase or decrease arousal: What fuels or douses rage? Clinical Psychology Review. - Notes: These findings measure anger and aggression, not overall energy levels. The authors categorize the time spent on calming activities as “minutes saved from dealing with fallout after an argument.” Immediate techniques you can use right now include the “circular sighing” method described in Section 22, Item 9, and “stepping away when angry” in Section 24, Item 18. Running isn’t useless in the long run — it helps ease low mood, as noted in Section 22, Item 7 (“When feeling down, go for a walk or run”). It simply isn’t a good short-term fix for anger. While angry, avoid driving, sending messages, or making important decisions. If someone is physically attacking you, leave the scene and call the police; your priority then is safety, not emotional regulation — see Section 8, Item 43 (“If you’re being abused”). ### 24. Writing down thoughts and feelings about a troubling issue over several days can be helpful, but don’t expect it to cure anything - Cost: This costs nothing. Typical practice in studies is to write 3–4 times, each session lasting 15–20 minutes. Write about something that bothers you and express your deepest thoughts and feelings. - In plain terms: Writing about upsetting matters generally provides a small benefit on average, though the results are inconsistent. Two meta-analyses found no effect at all. Since it costs almost nothing, it’s worth trying. However, if emotional problems are severe, it should not replace professional medical care. - Benefit: One meta-analysis combined data from 146 randomized studies in which participants wrote or spoke about personally important topics. On average, the effect was positive and statistically significant, though very small (effect size r = .075). Another meta-analysis limited to randomized controlled trials found no significant effects on either physical or mental health across 30 trials. For 16 trials involving cancer patients and survivors, there were no significant improvements in psychological, physical, or quality-of-life outcomes; the effect size for psychological outcomes was g = 0.04, with a 95% confidence interval ranging from –0.06 to 0.14. - Evidence grade: B - Sources:Frattaroli J (2006). Experimental disclosure and its moderators: a meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin. ；Mogk C, Otte S, Reinhold-Hurley B, Kröner-Herwig B (2006). Health effects of expressive writing on stressful or traumatic experiences - a meta-analysis. Psycho-Social Medicine. ；Zachariae R, O'Toole MS (2015). The effect of expressive writing intervention on psychological and physical health outcomes in cancer patients--a systematic review and meta-analysis. Psycho-Oncology. - Notes: This approach remains controversial. Proponents point to the 146-study meta-analysis showing a small positive effect, while critics cite two meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials that found no significant benefits. The recommended frequency and duration of writing sessions come from the original experimental designs, as summarized in Mogk’s meta-analysis. This method is included here because it requires virtually no expense or time and can be done alone. It may be useful when someone has no one to talk to about their problems. The time-based measurement used here reflects how authors categorized effort levels. If writing becomes increasingly distressing, stop and dial 12356, as described in Section 1, Item 25.