中新网北京5月16日电(记者 上官云)由于某件不确定的事情太过担心，情绪波动说来就来，脑子里泛起种种骚动的念头……最近，有关“焦虑”的话题登上了热搜。

焦虑情绪是怎么爆发的？一样平常生涯中，我们应该怎样缓解焦虑情绪？带着这些问题，记者采访了中国?科学?院心理研究所研究?员、二级心理咨询师王葵博士。

王葵诠释，焦虑的情绪症状一样平常各人都较量熟悉，如太过担心、主要、恐惧等
；认知症状则包括注重力不可集中、脑子中泛起种种骚动的念头等。

同时，她给出了不少举行自我调解、缓解焦虑情绪的要领，如正念冥想、深呼吸手艺、身体扫描、肌?肉松开手艺等，适度?运动也可以有用缓解焦虑情绪。

焦虑的体现有哪些？

首先来相识一个问题：什么是焦虑？

谈到焦虑时，人们往往有差别的所指。王葵称，焦虑有时指一类精神障碍，如普遍性焦虑、社交焦虑等。别的，通俗人群中也会泛起焦虑症状。焦虑的症状包括情绪症状、认知症状、躯体症状和行为倾向性。

焦虑的情绪症状一样平常各人都较量熟悉?，如太过担心、主要、恐惧等。她诠释，着实焦虑还?有躯体症状，好比颤抖、口干、心跳加♀快、出汗之类。

而焦虑的认知症状，则包括注重力不可集中、脑子中泛起种种骚动的念头等。王葵说，在焦虑的行为倾向中，最显着的可能就是关于诱发焦虑的事物或者场景的回避倾向。

虽然每小我私家?都体会过焦虑，可是人与人之间体?验到的焦虑的频?率和强度可能纷歧样。

她指出，现实生涯中，我们往往能视察到，一些人会更容易吐露出焦虑情绪。关于那些?容易?焦虑的人，从学术上，我们就说?对方的焦虑特质较量显着。

焦虑情绪是怎样爆发的？

着实，从现实生涯来说，焦虑爆发的缘故原由很重大。

“种种社会因素、情形因素和小我私家的状态都会导致焦虑的爆发，现实生涯中，被评估、被伶仃、负性生涯事务、压力、康健问题等都会导致焦虑的爆发。”王葵说。

她举例道，“被评估”包括一样平常生涯中不那么正式的评估：学生还不会做某道数学题，却突然被先生点名，要求其上台写出解题思绪，那也是被评估的场景，也会引发相关的焦虑。?

“一些一经的履历，如童年期的创伤也可能导致个体容易焦虑。别的，扑面临未来的不确定性的时间，好比结业之后究竟是找事情照旧读研等等，也可能会导致焦虑。”她诠释道。

因此，每小我私家的生涯中都会或多或少的保存焦虑情绪。但王葵以为，在一定水平上说，焦虑的爆发是很正常的。焦虑也未必是一种“坏”情绪，任何一种情绪都有信号功效。

“好比考试就要来了，担心考试效果不如意，会爆发焦虑。这种焦虑会推动一个学生去起劲备考，从而取得不错的效果。因此这种焦虑是顺应性的。”她说。

?然而，当焦虑的强度太大，或者一连的时间过长，就会给个体带来较量大的负↙面影响。太强的焦虑会展现出破?坏性的一?面，这个时间就需要实时举行自我调解。

怎样举行自我调理？

怎样缓解焦虑情绪？对此，王葵的回覆是，一些自我调理的要领好比正念冥想、深呼吸手艺、身体扫描、肌肉松开手艺等，都是有用???的。

她体现，好比运用身体扫描这一要领时，可以找一个清静的地方，选择一个恬静的姿势坐下或者躺下，轻轻闭上眼睛，用意识去“扫描”身体的各个部位，每个部位停留几秒钟。

至于“扫描”的顺序，可以是从上到下，如头顶、额头、眼睛……再到足部?
；也可以是从下往上，或者选择任何自己喜欢的顺序。

一样平常来说，“身体扫描法”坚持五分钟左右就能取得不错的效果，这个要领关于入睡难题，也有用
；也可以适度加入体育磨炼，无论散步、跑步照旧打球，都能够缓解焦虑情绪。

别的，王葵强调，“若是有须要，可以实时追求心理咨询。”(完)

• 2020年后，其适用规模进一步扩大至情形犯法领域
• 　　本报北京12月9日电（记者焦翔）9日，中国非洲人民友好协会建设60周年庆
  ；疃韵呱舷呦孪嗔档姆椒ň傩。第十三届天下政协副主席、中国非洲人民友好协会会长李斌出席并致辞。第十届、十一届天下政协副主席、中国非洲人民友好协会前会长阿不来提·阿不都热西提，人民日报社副总编辑、中国非洲人民友好协会副会长方山河，中国人民对外友好协会会长林松添，以及中联部、外交部等有关部委代表，中国非洲人民友好协会理事，非洲国家驻华使节和中非各界代表约200人加入活动。
• SEOUL, South Korea — Rex W. Tillerson, the new secretary of state, offered the diplomatic understatement of the month on Saturday when he told the sole reporter he permitted on his airplane: “I’m not a big media press access person. I personally don’t need it. ” Perhaps, by breaking with a of past practice and flying off without the regular State Department correspondents on board, Mr. Tillerson was hoping to continue to operate in a style that worked well for him as chief executive of Exxon Mobil. In that job, he could negotiate complex oil and gas deals behind closed doors and then inform his board of directors and shareholders afterward. Certainly, his predecessors at the State Department have all wished for more time, space and secrecy to work through some of the world’s knottiest problems. The North Korea crisis that dominated this trip is a prime example of one that, if mishandled, could easily veer into war. Yet long experience teaches that foreign policy is rarely made in the kind of bubble that Mr. Tillerson wants. Maybe John Hay had that luxury as secretary of state under Presidents William McKinley and Theodore Roosevelt, when the United States was just emerging as a global power. But in the modern era, everyone from Dean Acheson to John Kerry has found that superpower diplomacy abhors a news vacuum. When America’s top diplomats create one, adversaries and allies usually fill it with their own narrative of events, their own proposals, their own accounts of encounters with Washington. Sure, there have occasionally been secret deals — Henry Kissinger’s mission to China when he was President Richard M. Nixon’s national security adviser, for example — but they are rare. And American diplomats generally have little luck presenting the world with faits accompli. Both at home and abroad, public diplomacy is about persuading the world that a particular solution is in the global interest, not just the American interest. And that often means building an argument while the diplomacy is in progress, or else risking a loss of influence and control of the narrative. That, and ego, are usually what make a secretary of state a “media press access person. ” Mr. Tillerson got a brief taste of this reality even before beginning his somewhat rocky first outing in Asia. China tried to box him in by reviving an old proposal for a “freeze” of North Korea’s nuclear and missile programs in return for an freeze of all military exercises with South Korea. It is one of those ideas that sound eminently sensible at first hearing. Who would oppose a diplomatic timeout for North Korea’s nuclear and missile tests, which are escalating toward demonstration of an intercontinental ballistic missile that could splash down off Seattle or Los Angeles? After all, that’s how diplomacy with Iran began six years ago, ultimately leading to a nuclear deal that, love it or hate it, took an apparently imminent military conflict and defused it for a decade or so. Doing something similar with North Korea is an idea that some American proliferation experts embrace as the option on a menu of nothing but bad options. At a brief news conference in Seoul, Mr. Tillerson did use the words “imminent threat” to describe the North Korean program, and accurately noted that a freeze “would leave North Korea with significant capabilities that would represent a true threat, not just to the region, but to American forces. ” But other than that, he never grappled with the Chinese arguments in favor of their proposal — which left the door open for his Chinese counterpart to restate his case in Beijing. As a senior South Korean official told me after Mr. Tillerson’s meeting, “there are South Korean politicians” — including one or two who could become president after a snap election next month — “who may find the Chinese approach preferable to the risk of a conflict. ” The Chinese example here is a small one, but it is telling. In past administrations, the State Department would have used the long flight to Asia to give reporters a sense of its arguments and strategy. The secretary of state would have wandered back to the press seats on the plane and offered, on “background,” the administration’s thinking about the major issue of the day. Mr. Kissinger was a master of this spin James A. Baker III, Colin L. Powell, Condoleezza Rice and Hillary Clinton were no novices, either. And often, it is more than spin: It is a way for the secretary to test whether an idea has a longer than the plane ride. “It’s not about access. It’s about context,” John Kirby, who has served as spokesman for both the Pentagon and the State Department and is considered one of the best at navigating the process, wrote on Twitter in response to Mr. Tillerson’s declarations. Mr. Kirby is right: The most important paragraphs in most articles about diplomatic news are the explanatory ones that lay out the administration’s strategy and assess whether it is tenable in light of history, or the facts on the ground, or other realities that the secretary of state may not want to discuss. As Mr. Kirby himself has noted, State Department correspondents work a bit differently from those at the White House. They do not often shout their questions, and television cameras are absent from many of the most important briefings. “Many have covered the beat for decades,” he noted over the weekend. “They know the complexities, the history. ” (Not all of us took the “decades” part as a compliment.) The group that has covered the State Department is heavy with former foreign correspondents and war correspondents who have lived around the world, have sources in foreign capitals and write books about the global challenges the country faces. Their conversations have been known to run to wonkish topics like deterrence theory. So it might not be surprising that Mr. Tillerson doesn’t want them in the back of his airplane, talking to his staff and probing how the new administration’s approach to North Korea and China might differ from what predecessors tried. As he said in that interview with the one journalist he brought along — a reporter from the Independent Journal Review, a website that had never covered a State Department trip before — Mr. Tillerson has something more in mind. “I view that relationship that I want to have with the media, is the media is very important to help me communicate not just to the American people, but to others in the world that are listening,” Mr. Tillerson was quoted as saying. “And when I have something important and useful to say, I know where everybody is, and I know how to go out there and say it. ” There is something to be said for his approach. Clearly, Mr. Tillerson wants to shake up the foreign policy elite, and that starts with a press corps that feeds in the very swamp this administration says it wants to drain. He also says he is saving money by using a smaller plane (though news organizations pay steeply for each employee who flies with the secretary). This early in Mr. Trump’s tenure, many policy decisions have not yet been debated thoroughly within his administration, so as Mr. Tillerson noted on Saturday, there is not much for him to say. And there would be considerable risk in getting out ahead of his sometimes mercurial boss. (That boss, Mr. Tillerson conceded, went ahead and posted a Twitter message complaining that “China has done little to help!” without running it past him first.) Yet there is something else that Mr. Tillerson’s policy forgoes: the often useful symbolism of top American officials’ being seen to travel with a free and intrusive press asking questions that leaders do not want to hear. When Mr. Kerry was in Bahrain last year, the visit gave the State Department press corps a chance to publicly interrogate his very uncomfortable Bahraini counterpart about some specific human rights abuses in the country. (“I’m glad you asked that,” Mr. Kerry told correspondents later on his plane, making it clear that he knew local reporters could not have done so.) When President Abdel Fattah of Egypt barred the State Department press pool last year, the State Department itself lodged an objection. None of those considerations mattered much when Mr. Tillerson traveled on behalf of the world’s largest oil company. As he said, he personally did not need reporters then, and he doesn’t now. But as secretary of state, he now has 320 million shareholders, and many of them have a stake in how he conducts America’s business around the world.
• 1、在庵罗树园中，选择5位力士时，迦叶、弥勒和持世力士这3个是必选的，其他2个可以随便。
• In your opinion, why do Western Governments continue to support old leaders and despotic regimes and to destabilize others according to their interests under the pretext of ""human rights"", ""democracy"", etc.? Who gave them this right?