Tag: stress

Performance, Authenticity & Stress

Online After-Work Session
Performance, authenticity and stress
📅 May 28 | 16:00–17:30 CET
💻 Online
💰 Price: €35

How can we perform without losing ourselves?
Why do achievement and ambition so often lead to stress, exhaustion and inner pressure?

This online after-work session explores the relationship between authenticity, performance and psychological flexibility. Drawing on existential philosophy, mindfulness and contemporary performance psychology, we will investigate how to cultivate a more sustainable and meaningful approach to work and achievement.

Topics include:

  • why authenticity is essential for sustainable performance
  • how stress often emerges through disconnection from personal values
  • the difference between control and presence
  • attention, flexibility and meaning in professional life
  • how to perform without constant inner pressure

The session is relevant for leaders, therapists, consultants, educators and anyone interested in creating a more grounded and authentic way of working and living.

The format includes short presentations, reflections and open dialogue.

← Back

Thank you for your response. ✨

Autenticitet, performance & stress

Gå-hjem-møde online
Autenticitet, performance og stress
📅 26. maj kl. 16.00–17.30
💻 Online
💰 Pris: 250 kr.

Hvordan kan vi præstere uden at miste os selv?
Og hvorfor oplever så mange, at performance i dag er tæt forbundet med stress, selvkritik og udmattelse?

Dette online gå-hjem-møde undersøger forholdet mellem autenticitet, præstation og psykologisk fleksibilitet. Med inspiration fra eksistentiel filosofi, mindfulness og moderne performancepsykologi vil vi undersøge, hvordan man kan skabe en mere bæredygtig måde at arbejde, lede og leve på.

Vi kommer blandt andet ind på:

  • hvorfor autenticitet er afgørende for langvarig performance
  • hvordan stress ofte opstår gennem fremmedgørelse fra egne værdier
  • forskellen mellem kontrol og nærvær
  • opmærksomhed, fleksibilitet og mening i arbejdslivet
  • hvordan man kan præstere uden konstant indre pres

Mødet er relevant for ledere, konsulenter, terapeuter, undervisere og andre, der ønsker at arbejde mere frit, nærværende og meningsfuldt.

Der vil være korte oplæg, refleksioner og mulighed for dialog.

← Back

Thank you for your response. ✨

Finding Purpose: Hvordan passion former succes

“Wisdom is knowing I am nothing.
Love is knowing I am everything.
Between the two my life moves.”
— Nisargadatta Maharaj

Finding Purpose – hvordan passion og mentale færdigheder former succes

Sidste udkald for denne workshop, der finder sted lørdag den 22. december!

Finding Purpose – Hvordan passion og mentale færdigheder former performance og velvære

En to-timers workshop, der undersøger, hvad der sker, når præstation ikke kun handler om resultater, men om mening, nærvær og indre motivation. Med afsæt i sportspsykologi, opmærksomhed og erfaring fra eliteidræt arbejder vi med mentale færdigheder, der styrker både performance og menneskelig velvære.

I workshoppen arbejder vi med:

• Hvordan passion og formål stabiliserer performance
• Hvorfor stress ofte er fravær af nærvær
• Hvordan mentale færdigheder kan trænes uden hårdhed
• Hvordan vi præsterer bedst, når vi handler i overensstemmelse med det, der betyder noget

Workshoppen kombinerer:
– filosofi
– psykologi (ACT og mindfulness)
– korte refleksionsøvelser
– guidet meditation og bøn

Alt præsenteret i et sprog, der kan mærkes og bruges i hverdagen.

Praktisk
🗓 Lørdag d. 20. december
⏰ 10.00–12.00
💰 Pris: 195 kr.

Tilmelding & betaling

Tilmelding sker ved betaling af det fulde beløb til:

La Caixa – Finn Janning
IBAN: ES45 2100 0887 5701 0062 1746
BIC/SWIFT: CAIXESBBXXX

Du modtager bekræftelse og praktisk information efter betaling.

Hvem kan deltage?

Workshoppen er åbent for alle.

Underviser

Finn Janning er filosof (PhD) og mindfulnesslærer (Master, Zaragoza Universitet) med mange års erfaring i kontemplativ praksis. Hans arbejde forener vestlig filosofi, buddhistisk meditation og kristen hjertebøn — tre traditioner, der på hver deres måde åbner veje til klarhed, mod og indre frihed.

The Wisdom of Leadership and the Courage to Be Vulnerable

We live in a culture of performance: business, sports, and education all expect leaders to be strong, certain, strategic, and always in control. Yet the paradox of high performance is this: striving to be invulnerable can make us fragile.

Neuroscience and sports psychology (for example, acceptance and commitment therapy) show that anxiety, perfectionism, and fear of mistakes shrink cognitive flexibility and creativity. The more we obsess over results, the more our attention collapses into the future. This focus makes us less present with what is happening now. As mental performance coach Graham Betchart puts it: “Stress is the absence of presence.”

This is not a new idea. Long before modern psychology, philosopher Simone Weil described attention as the most radical form of presence. She argued that attention is not controlling the world, but consenting to it. True attention, she wrote, requires self-emptying: standing unprotected in front of reality, without illusion or defense. Vulnerability is the precondition for wisdom.

Read the rest in Psychology Today.

Rethinking Ethics in Psychology

Ethics is always about values. In psychology, as in most professions, students are often taught to approach ethics through three frameworks: 

  1. Virtue ethics (What kind of person should I be?)
  2. Deontology (What duties must I follow?)
  3. Utilitarianism (What outcome will maximize the good?)

Each offers a way of defining “the good.” These approaches remain useful, helping psychologists clarify responsibilities, make difficult decisions, and justify their reasoning. Yet each framework risks being used as a strategic, rhetorical tool to back a predetermined position. The same action can be rationalized as duty, optimal outcome, or virtue, shifting the focus from genuine ethics to self-justification. 

What if we made attention—the genuine act of perceiving and staying present in situations—the starting point of ethics, rather than rules or outcomes?

Ethics as Attention

The philosopher Simone Weil wrote, “Attention is the rarest and purest form of generosity.” For Weil, paying attention is already an ethical act. It means suspending assumptions long enough to notice what is truly happening. This matters as much in the consulting room as in the classroom. 

A psychologist who pays close attention can tell when silence means something, when irritation masks fear, or when something important goes unsaid. No code of ethics tells you how to respond in these moments. Paying attention is the ethical act. In contrast, when we rely too heavily on abstract frameworks, we risk skipping over this important stage of perception. We rush to categorize, justify, or resolve. Ethics then becomes about defending an action rather than sensing what a situation is calling for. 

To clarify the distinction: morality is about judgment—applying universal principles consistently. Ethics, as I am proposing, focuses on responsiveness—actively perceiving a specific situation and considering how best to respond. Morality asks, “What should I do in general?” Ethics asks, “What is happening here, and how can I respond now?” This shift seems small, but it is significant. Morality gives answers and often shuts down possibilities. Ethics, as attention, keeps things open and starts with not knowing. Psychologists need this, because much of their work happens in situations without easy answers.

The Problem of Comparison

Professional psychology education often focuses on outcomes and comparisons: Who has the most clients? Whose intervention is “evidence-based”? Who secures the most funding? Accountability matters, but this culture of comparison can narrow our focus. We start to value what is visible, measurable, and ranked. This comes at the expense of the subtler textures of human life. In therapy, this pressure can lead clinicians to measure “progress” only by symptom checklists. They may miss the more fragile forms of growth—such as trust, presence, and shared silence—that defy easy measurement. When ethics becomes only compliance or output, it grows too thin. It cannot handle the complexity of real psychological life.

article continues after advertisement

Small Practices of Ethical Attention

What might it look like to cultivate ethics as attention in psychology? Here are some simple practices:

  • Reflective journaling: After sessions, clinicians can note what was said, what they felt, what they avoided, or what unsettled them. Attention grows by noticing what escapes immediate explanation.
  • Naming subtle ruptures: Instead of ignoring the slight withdrawal of a client or the tension in a supervision meeting, name it gently: “I noticed some silence after I said that—what was it like for you?”
  • Suspending judgment: Rather than deciding too quickly what a behavior “means,” stay with the ambiguity: “Something feels important here, but I’m not sure yet what it is.”

These are not alternatives to ethical codes. They are complements. Codes set the minimum. Attention sustains the depth.

Becoming Present

For psychologists, ethics means more than preventing harm or avoiding misconduct. It means being present with the people and situations you face. It means noticing when something matters, even if no rule was broken. 

Ethics is about more than compliance; it is about who we are becoming. It challenges us to ask not just “What should I do?” but “Who am I becoming through my actions?”

Frigørende samtaler

Hvis noget kendetegner det menneskelige liv i dag, er det – generelt set – forvirring, fravær af engagement og højere værdier, tilsidesættelse af tilværelsens dybere mening og en udbredt ensomhed. Alt dette ledsages af de velkendte konsekvenser: angst, depression, uro, stress, neuroser og det øvrige psykologiske landskab, vi allerede kender til.

Derfor – hvis du …

  • føler dig fortabt,
  • lider af angst eller uro,
  • har eksistentielle spørgsmål eller tvivl, du ikke kan finde svar på,
  • er fanget i en afhængighed og ikke forstår, hvad den dækker over,
  • kæmper med søvnløshed, frygt eller oplever et vist kaos i dit liv,
  • bærer på en diffus skyldfølelse,
  • lever i et hjem med hyppige konflikter,
  • ikke ved præcis, hvad der sker med dig, men føler dig fanget i utilfredshed eller vrede,
  • er i tvivl om din rolle eller identitet, fx i forhold til køn eller de krav, som det moderne liv stiller,
  • føler dig trist, umotiveret og følelsesmæssigt belastet.

Kort sagt: Hvis du føler, at du har brug for at forstå eller frigøre dig fra noget, der forhindrer dig i at leve et liv, der er værd at leve med en rimelig grad af autencitet og frihed, er jeg overbevist om, at jeg kan hjælpe dig – ikke som endnu en almindelig psykoterapeut, men som en filosof med fokus på praktisk visdom.

Ofte er nogle få frigørende samtaler tilstrækkeligt. Hver session varer 50 minutter og koster 1000 kr. Jeg tilbyder udelukkende online samtaler, hvilket gør det enkelt og fleksibelt at skabe et nærværende og trygt rum – uanset hvor du befinder dig.

Hvis du er nysgerrig, så tag kontakt, og vi finder et tidspunkt, der passer dig 

← Back

Thank you for your response. ✨

The Myth of Instant Knowledge

For decades, economics has been about distributing scarce resources: first labor, then knowledge—both could be capitalized and turned into value. But what happens when knowledge is no longer scarce? When artificial intelligence, with a single click, offers answers to almost anything?

We are standing at the threshold of a new era—one that challenges not just the foundations of economics but also the role of time, creativity, and humanity itself. If everything can be answered instantly, what happens to the questions that require time, depth, and reflection?

AI is often celebrated as a catalyst for creativity and innovation. But in psyhotherapy, I frequently witness the opposite: clients losing touch with the patience and vulnerability required to think clearly, to heal, and to change. Even though AI may make us more knowledgeable, it does not make us wiser.

Instead, it amplifies the illusion of control and distances us from our very humanness, our vulnerability—that same vulnerability that reminds us of our mortality and opens the door to wisdom. Wisdom is born of experience, missteps, and the time it takes for insight to mature. It cannot be rushed—only lived and felt.

Ironically, artificial intelligence reveals an ancient truth: All intelligence is, in some sense, artificially crafted, shaped, and directed. Intelligence is not something we possess, but something we participate in. It’s not a static ability, but a dynamic process that unfolds through time, attention, and experience.

So, what can AI do, and what does it do to us?

AI can expand our horizons, but also reduce us to what the algorithm permits. Social media promises connection but often breeds division. It promises community, yet isolates us in echo chambers. Algorithms reflect our habits and emotions, reinforcing what we already know and closing us off to the unknown, the foreign, and the different.

The French sociologist Pierre Bourdieu called this habitus—the invisible structures that govern our dispositions and everyday choices. Algorithms intensify this mechanism, locking us deeper into our own patterns. When data takes over our emotions, we risk losing the freedom to think anew, feel differently, and act otherwise.

Here, philosophy offers an alternative: a poetic form of thinking that disrupts the obvious. Originally bound to poetry, philosophy generates the new. As Friedrich Nietzsche reminds us, the self is not a fixed core but an interpretation in constant motion. The poetic lies in the courage to challenge, in doubt, in the unexpected.

In fact, I would go so far as to say that therapy is a poetic practice—a sharing of what is not shared. Therapy, much like democracy, lives through difference, conflict, and creativity. But algorithms often reduce this beautiful complexity to predictability and profit. They undermine democracy (and mental health) not just by stripping us of the ability to reflect and choose but also by eroding the habits that once nurtured our freedom to doubt.

One of the greatest threats AI poses is not just its speed but also the loss of time that questions need to ripen.

British social psychologist Graham Wallas once described the stages of creativity: preparation, incubation, illumination, and verification. The second stage—incubation—is when a question or problem rests quietly in the dark. It grows beneath the surface unconsciously. But we live in a culture where everything must happen now, and patience has vanished.

AI gives us answers but doesn’t teach us to ask better questions, to live with uncertainty, or to trust the unknown. As a teacher, I see how students grow accustomed to every problem being solvable with a click. They’ve forgotten how to let a question simmer, to sit with doubt. More than once, I’ve seen students become paralyzed by uncertainty. For them, frustration is no longer a creative force but an unbearable discomfort.

Philosophy doesn’t aim to simplify or remove life’s complexity—it asks us to embrace it. It’s about learning from encounters with the unknown and the other. It’s about discovering wisdom in the courage to stand exposed, open, and vulnerable.

What Western philosophy has always sought to protect—like a newborn—is freedom. Simone de Beauvoir wrote in her  Ethics of Ambiguity: “Freedom is the source from which all meaning and value spring.” This freedom is the foundation of both love and creativity. Only free people can love. Only free people can resist AI’s directives, because they can imagine another answer.

Philosophy interrupts the habits that keep us locked in the status quo—and opens us to life’s chaos, richness, and plurality. Where algorithms create surfaces, poetry weaves connections. Philosophy is a poetic force transforming our way of being—how we think, feel, and act.

In the face of algorithmic control, we lack more efficiency and resistance. The ability to resist the ideals that govern us is crucial. Algorithms may shape our habits and predict our choices, but they prevent us from transforming ourselves and inventing new ways of living.

Philosophy does not advocate for a life without error or a world without friction. It insists on freedom to imagine, love, and grow. A society without freedom cannot love. So we must ask: Do algorithms use love as control or inspiration?

Philosophy is not a solution. It is a practice—a counterweight to algorithmic streamlining. It reminds us that what makes us human is not speed or efficiency but the ability to fail, doubt, and recreate ourselves—the ability to love despite everything.

How do we become worthy of what happens, especially when what happens is often… nothing?

And yet, before the silence of the end, we experience love and loss, the uncertainty of choice, and the fear of the unknown. We experience grief and joy, bodily sensations we will never fully understand unless we learn to trust our own judgment.

Who needs a step counter, a sleep tracker, or a heart rate monitor—if they’ve lost touch with themselves?

AI may know everything. But it will never understand death—and its silence. Love—and its radiant joy of living. That’s why we must remember: Intelligence without wisdom isn’t human. It’s only artificial.

And if we forget this, we risk losing what makes us human: the experience of being alive.

This reflections was first publihsed in Psychology Today.

References:

Janning, Finn (2025) “Poetic Philosophy and the Moralization of Social Networks,”Emancipations: A Journal of Critical Social Analysis: Vol. 4: Iss. 1, Article 2.

Stress as a Status Symbol

It’s said that time is cyclical, repeating patterns like the annual arrival of summer—though each summer is different. When I read about a young politician who succumbed to stress, this cyclical principle came to mind. The cyclical nature of time, with its recurring patterns, can be seen in the way stress has been a societal issue for nearly two decades, with cases similar to the young politician’s emerging 10–15 years ago.

Historically, stress was primarily associated with society’s most vulnerable groups—those with low incomes, the unemployed, the less educated, and the ill. However, according to media portrayals today, stress has shifted to more privileged groups. The vulnerable are still stressed, but for different reasons: they struggle for survival, while many privileged individuals experience stress and anxiety, due to competition for status, power, and prestige.

This explosion of stress among the privileged coincides with the proliferation of self-help and anti-self-help books, both of which primarily target the more affluent. This has led to a new phenomenon: Stress survivors are now celebrated as modern heroes…

… The question is about why stress persists and what our stress narratives say about society. To explore this, we can turn to Aristotle’s ethical framework and Iris Murdoch’s concept of “unselfing.”

Read the rest in Psychology Today.

Myten om det normale

Den ungarsk-jødiske læge Gabor Maté var barn under Anden Verdenskrig. Han overlevede, fordi hans mor sendte ham væk fra det besatte Budapest for at blive passet af sin moster. Han var 11 måneder gammel. Selvom morens handling var baseret på gode intentioner, var konsekvensen, at Maté gennem livet ofte har følt sig forladt og overset.

I The Myth of Normal. Trauma, Illness and Healing in a Toxic Culture – som Maté har skrevet sammen med sin søn, Daniel Maté – beskriver han, hvordan han 70 år senere, da hans kone glemmer at hente ham i lufthavnen, bliver såret, vred og opfører sig barnligt og tvært i et par dage. Konens forglemmelse aktiverer en fysisk-emotionel kraft, der bringer ham tilbage til fortiden. Der er tale om et trauma. 

”Trauma,” skriver Maté, er en græsk term, der betyder sår. ”Trauma er ikke, hvad der sker med dig, men hvad der sker indeni dig.” Han sammenligner det med et trafikuheld, hvor ulykken er, hvad der sker, mens skaden er det, der varer ved, f.eks. frygten for at køre i bil. Et trauma er en ”psykisk skade indlejret i vores nervesystem, sind og krop, der kan udløses når som helst” – inklusive mange år efter hændelsen. Som et sår er traumet kendetegnet ved to ting: For det første kan en umiddelbart harmløs hændelse få såret til at væske igen. For det andet kan traumet udvikle sig til et ar, der gør vedkommende hård, ufleksibel og følelsesmæssigt kold.

Traumet, ligesom Matés egen historie, er ikke forbeholdt frygtelige hændelser, såsom død, sygdomme, skilsmisser eller voldtægter, men er knyttet til vedkommendes oplevelse af en hændelse, altså hvad der sker indeni vedkommende, og hvorledes vedkommende forholder sig hertil. 

Læs resten af anmeldelsen i POV International.

Status stress

At komme igen efter et stressforløb er bare blevet endnu en statusmarkør.

Vi fejrer dem, der har været helt nede og ligge i jagten på succes og som nu er kommet ud på den anden side af en stresssygemelding. Men i stedet for at søbe i individhistorierne burde vi fokusere på, hvad der skal til for at indrette et samfund, som ikke gør os syge.

D​et siges, at tiden er cyklisk. Den gentager sig selv, som når det hvert år bliver sommer, selvom sommeren aldrig er den samme. Jeg tænkte på dette princip for nyligt, da jeg læste om en ung politiker, der var gået ned med stress. De skete også for 10-15 år siden. Faktisk har stress været på dagsordenen i snart tyve år.

Men mens stress tidligere – frem til 90’erne – var forbeholdt de svageste grupper i samfundet: de lavtlønnede, de arbejdsløse, de lavt uddannede og de syge, er stress i dag, ifølge medierne, forbeholdt de mere privilegerede. De svageste og udsatte er stadigvæk stressede, men af andre grunde. De svageste i samfundet er stressede, fordi de kæmper for overlevelse, mens flere og flere privilegerede borgere bliver stressede, fordi de kæmper om status, magt og prestige.​

​Stressen har​ bredt sig eksplosivt blandt de privilegerede samtidig med udbredelsen af selvhjælpsbøger og anti-selvhjælpsbøger, er vokset. Fælles for begge boggenrer er, at de primært taler til den privilegerede del af samfundet. Det har så skabt et nyt fænomen, nemlig at der i dag er status i have gennemlevet stressen, hvorved ’overleveren’ bliver den moderne helt/heltinde. Der er nærmest opstået et tvedelt samfund i kølvandet, hvor en gruppe skriver til og underviser hinanden i at komme igennem stressen, og nøjes med en sjælden gang, at lade en bekymret bemærkning falde om den mindre priviligerede, men også ganske stressede, del af befolkningen.

Et køligt tilbageblik på de sidste tyve års debat, gør det svært at vurdere, hvad der kom først: diagnosen eller den lukrative forretningsmodel.

Den græske filosofi kan rammesætte lidt af stress-diskursen. Aristoteles opererede i sin etik med fire tilstande: 1) ’Fortrinlig karakter’ – den tilstand, hvor en person, der ønsker at handle passende, gør det uden nogen som helst indre friktion eller tvivl; 2) ’Viljestyrke’ – den tilstand, hvor en person, der ønsker at handle upassende, får (tvinger eller disciplinerer) sig selv til at handle passende; 3) ’Viljesvaghed’ – den tilstand, hvor en person, der ønsker at handle upassende, prøver at få sig selv til at handle passende, men fejler; 4) ’Ond karakter’ – den tilstand, hvor en person, der ønsker at handle upassende, tænker, at det er en glimrende idé, og derfor handler helt uden nogen som helst indre friktion eller tvivl. ​

​Det er interessant​, at den fortrinlige karakter, der frivilligt handler passende, sjældent favoriseres i selvhjælpslitteraturen – eller i medierne. Her er det derimod den person, som udviser en stærk viljestyrke, der prises. For eksempel den person, som efter tyve år i hamsterhjulet, ti år med druk og misbrug vender rundt og begynder at løbe og meditere. Et eksempel kunne være politikeren, erhvervslederen eller kunstneren, der gør kometkarriere, men brænder ud og efterlades med en følelse af tomhed på toppen. Et andet de personer, der fortæller hvordan de har lært at sige fra, hvilket jo ret beset forudsætter, at de er i en økonomisk position, hvorfra de kan tillade sig at sige fra.

For Aristoteles er den etiske helt den, der vil det gode, og som gør det gode, fordi det åbenlyst er godt, hvad han, hun eller det, gør. Et godt menneske simpelthen. ​

​Der findes ​uden tvivl særligt vise spirituelle lærere, filosoffer og religiøse mennesker, der formår at leve op til Aristoteles’ ideal, men de skal heller ikke, som de fleste af os andre, leve blandt alle de andre mennesker, der er middelmådige som os selv. Dalai Lama skal formodentlig ikke pleje sit forhold til sin kone (eller mand), opdrage og elske sine børn, smøre sunde madpakker, nå i supermarkedet efter arbejde, deltage i børnefødselsdage, lappe cykel, få økonomien til at hænge sammen og så videre. Den tibetanske munk vil dog med sikkerhed fortælle os, at det handler om at organisere vores liv bedst muligt, alt efter omgivelserne. Det er rigtigt, men glem nu ikke, at vi ikke alle lever i de samme omgivelser. ​

​De fleste af​ os kan finde måder at optimere eller ændre vores levevis, fordi vi erfarer større eller mindre skønhedsfejl i vores tilgang til livet. Det behøver ikke handle om status, men om at blive bedre forældre, også uden nødvendigvis at fortælle andre om, hvordan vi blev bedre forældre. De fleste stresshistorier, der florerer i medierne p.t., handler desværre ompersonen, hvordan vedkommende har udviklet sig fra at besidde en ’svagere karakter’ – en svag vilje – til at udvikle en stærkere vilje og karakter. På den måde bliver fortællingen på paradoksal vis en del af en ond cirkel. Egoet er hele tiden i centrum.

Spørgsmålet, ’Hvem er jeg?’ kan ikke adskilles fra spørgsmålet: ’Hvilket samfund lever jeg i?’ Eller sagt anderledes, som filosoffen Iris Murdoch pointerede, problemet er vores store fede ego. Af samme grund talte hun om ’unselfing’, evnen til at undslippe vores ego. Murdoch sagde, overvind dit ego og kom i kontakt med det, der sker.

Det, der sker er, at mange er stressede. Men hvad med dem, der aldrig har været stressede og som formår at leve relativt ubemærket? Sådanne mennesker findes, men de færreste af dem, ønsker af blive fundet. I stedet for at lede efter dem, kunne medierne droppe den personlige fortælling om at overvinde stressen, som bare giver os endnu et jagt på status. I stedet bør vi fokusere på, hvordan vi skaber et samfund, hvor samfundet, planeten og menneskers ve og vel er i fokus.

For ingen af os vinder, når det bliver de individfokuserede statusfortællinger der styrer. Dem der er ovre et stressforløb har alligevel sjælden anden visdom at dele en, hvad der kan skrives på en sticker og sættes i bagruden af en bil.

Bragt i Politiken, lørdag den 25. februar.

Blog at WordPress.com.

Up ↑