Kunga Yoga, 1601 River Road E unit 103, Kitchener, ON (2025)

12/20/2025

Modern Socialization, Place, and Openness

Modern socialization is shaped as much by environment as by personal preference. In many regions, the spaces available for meeting others are determined by infrastructure, population density, and local culture. Cities with colleges and universities often develop vibrant nightlife scenes, while other places foster connection through parks, cafés, or informal public gathering spaces. Across cultures, social norms vary widely—some emphasize structured venues, others outdoor commons, and others unhurried conversation. None of these models are inherently better; they simply reflect how communities organize human connection.

Bars and clubs, in particular, tend to carry strong assumptions and stigmas. These environments are often fast-paced and socially dense, which can lead people to rely on shortcuts when interpreting one another’s intentions. Some individuals approach interactions cautiously, while others come simply to talk, dance, observe, or enjoy shared atmosphere. A social setting alone does not define why someone is there, nor does it capture the complexity of their values or character.

A healthy social culture benefits when people show up with kindness, self-awareness, and an open mind. Rather than assuming intent—based on appearance, clothing, or venue—social interactions improve when curiosity replaces judgment. Social psychology research suggests that positive assumptions and respectful engagement increase trust and reduce social friction, especially in mixed or unfamiliar groups.

It is also important to respect the wide range of ways people choose to engage socially. Some seek lively conversation and movement, others prefer quiet presence or brief exchanges, and some are more expressive or flirtatious by nature. Allowing room for these differences—while honoring boundaries—helps create inclusive spaces where people feel less judged and more at ease.

Despite this need, modern societies offer relatively few affordable, welcoming places to gather that do not revolve around costly drinks or overwhelming noise. Public “third spaces” such as community halls, social dance venues, and multi-use commons have declined in many areas. Interest-based groups can be meaningful alternatives, but they are often limited by time, location, and access, leaving informal social spaces to carry much of the work of connection.

Research consistently shows that even brief, friendly interactions with unfamiliar people can improve mood and increase a sense of belonging. These “small connections” are strengthened when people bring warmth, humor, and attentiveness into shared environments. Just as importantly, engaging with people across differences—age, culture, background, and worldview—fosters empathy and understanding. Remaining only within familiar circles may feel comfortable, but it can quietly limit growth.

Modern socialization requires flexibility. Sometimes it means meeting people in spaces that are not ideal. Sometimes it means dancing in a loud room when you’d prefer a quiet park bench. What matters most is remembering that connection is not owned by any one venue or culture. Wherever people gather, there is potential for humanity, understanding, and unexpected kindness—if we are willing to see one another beyond assumptions and show up with openness and respect.

Namaste 🙏🏽

12/20/2025

When Social Groups Get Stuck: The Cost of Attachment, Fear, and Deception

Social groups—whether communities, organizations, activist movements, or informal networks—can become stalled in patterns that no longer serve their collective well-being. This stagnation often emerges not from lack of intelligence or effort, but from psychological attachment: to the past, to identity-defining narratives, to relationships, and to beliefs that once felt protective or meaningful but now quietly undermine growth.

Research in social psychology consistently shows that groups have a strong bias toward preserving existing beliefs, even when evidence suggests those beliefs are harmful or outdated. This phenomenon, known as status quo bias, leads people to prefer familiar dysfunction over unfamiliar improvement. A large meta-analysis in behavioral economics found that individuals and groups are significantly more likely to defend current systems—even failing ones—than to risk perceived loss through change (Samuelson & Zeckhauser, 1988).

The Pull of the Past and the Trap of Narrative Attachment
Groups that are “stuck” often dwell excessively on past events, conflicts, or injustices. While collective memory can be valuable, rumination is not the same as learning. Studies on group rumination show that repeatedly revisiting past grievances without resolution increases emotional intensity, polarization, and perceived victimhood, while decreasing problem-solving capacity (Lyubomirsky et al., 2015).

This backward pull is frequently reinforced by emotional attachment. The sunk cost fallacy—the tendency to continue investing in something simply because of past investment—applies not only to money, but to beliefs, relationships, and group identities. When groups have invested years in a narrative or alliance, abandoning it can feel like admitting failure. Research shows that people will often double down on harmful commitments rather than tolerate the psychological discomfort of letting go.

Relationships That Prevent a Better Future
Attachment to relationships can be particularly binding. Social identity theory demonstrates that people derive self-worth from group belonging, even when that belonging becomes restrictive or harmful. As a result, groups may protect internal dynamics that are clearly dysfunctional out of fear of fragmentation or loss of cohesion.

Longitudinal studies of organizational health reveal a consistent pattern: groups that tolerate chronically disruptive or self-serving individuals experience lower morale, reduced innovation, and higher attrition. One study of workplace teams found that the presence of even one persistently toxic member could reduce overall group performance by up to 30–40%, largely due to emotional contagion and conflict avoidance (Housman & Minor, 2015).

Ego, Power, and the Fear of Being Left Behind
Progress often threatens ego. Individuals who have built status, identity, or control within an old system may resist change not for the group’s benefit, but for their own. Research on leadership resistance shows that people with high ego investment are significantly more likely to obstruct necessary transitions, even when they acknowledge the need for change privately.

These individuals may frame progress as betrayal, disloyalty, or danger. They may invoke tradition, unity, or moral superiority while quietly ensuring that the group remains dependent on their role. Over time, this creates a bottleneck where the group’s growth is limited by the least adaptable members.

Ignoring the Signs of Deception and Drama
One of the most damaging patterns in stuck groups is the collective ignoring of warning signs. Studies on deception detection show that humans are actually quite capable of sensing inconsistency, manipulation, and emotional coercion—but social pressure often overrides intuition. People ignore red flags to maintain harmony, avoid conflict, or protect shared narratives.

Toxic and deceptive individuals tend to exhibit consistent behavioral patterns:
• They create recurring drama that keeps attention focused on them.
• They position themselves as indispensable while undermining others.
• They thrive on ambiguity, misinformation, and emotional escalation.
• They resist clarity, accountability, and forward movement.
• They continually dwell on past events often going further and further back even years or decades for evidence to validate themselves.

Research on narcissistic and manipulative behaviors in groups shows that such individuals often gain influence during periods of uncertainty but significantly impair long-term group resilience. Groups that fail to address this dynamic often fragment later in far more painful ways.

The Wisdom of Moving On
Growth requires discernment. Moving on is not abandonment; it is evolution. Healthy groups periodically reassess their values, relationships, and narratives in light of present reality—not past emotion. Studies on adaptive systems show that groups capable of letting go of obsolete structures are more innovative, more inclusive, and more psychologically healthy.

Namaste 🙏🏽

12/20/2025

Perception, Projection, and the World We Create

Human perception is not an objective recording of reality. Decades of psychological research show that the mind actively interprets the world, filling in gaps with prior experiences, beliefs, emotions, and expectations. When information is incomplete or ambiguous—as it often is when we judge other people—our brains naturally rely on shortcuts. One of the most well-documented of these shortcuts is confirmation bias: the tendency to notice, believe, and remember information that supports what we already think, while dismissing information that challenges it.

This matters because the information we consume shapes the lens through which we see others. Long-term exposure to particular types of media, conversations, or social environments influences how we perceive risk, trust, and human behavior. Research in communication studies shows that repeated exposure to fear-based or sensational narratives can distort perceptions of reality, leading people to believe the world is more hostile or dangerous than it actually is. Over time, these perceptions feel like “common sense,” even when they are not supported by high-quality evidence.

When we encounter incomplete or second-hand information about someone—an out-of-context story, a rumor, a warning—we tend to fill in the missing details with our own assumptions. These assumptions are often shaped by fear, moral judgment, or group loyalty. This process closely resembles how prejudice and discrimination operate: a small amount of information is taken as representative of the whole, and the rest is filled in by projection rather than direct knowledge. People from different backgrounds or cultures are especially vulnerable to this kind of distortion because unfamiliarity increases reliance on stereotypes.

These patterns do not exist only at the individual level. Children, in particular, absorb attitudes and biases through observation. Developmental psychology shows that children learn implicit beliefs not only from what adults say, but from tone, behavior, and judgment. When adults jump to conclusions, express distrust, or frame others through fear-based narratives, children internalize these perspectives as normal ways of understanding the world. In this way, unexamined judgments quietly reproduce themselves across generations.

As judgment increases, the world becomes smaller. When people explain their fears by selectively seeking information that confirms them—regardless of accuracy or context—they reinforce a closed loop of belief. This kind of motivated reasoning prevents growth and adaptation. Actions based on misinformation, misunderstanding, or dark interpretations of others tend to be unwholesome: they strain relationships, escalate conflict, and often create long-term consequences for the person acting on them.

Judging people we do not know based on second-hand or distorted information is not meaningfully different from other forms of prejudice. It relies on the same mechanism: limited data combined with unchecked projection. As the childhood “telephone game” illustrates, information degrades rapidly as it is passed along. Some distortions arise from misunderstanding, others from exaggeration, and some from deliberate manipulation. Without asking questions or seeking multiple sources, people often accept these distortions as truth—especially when they align with existing fears or group narratives.

Collective misperception is common. Social trends and fads can give people a false sense of certainty, particularly when dissent is discouraged or absent. In such environments, few people pause to verify claims or examine assumptions; instead, beliefs spread through repetition and social reinforcement rather than evidence.

Yet research also shows that perspective-taking, intellectual humility, and exposure to diverse viewpoints can significantly reduce bias. Simply allowing others the opportunity to provide missing information—to tell their own story—can meaningfully shift perception. Giving people the benefit of the doubt is not naïveté; it is a corrective to the brain’s tendency toward distortion.

At times, protecting one’s mental and emotional health may require distance from individuals who consistently spread misinformation or who view others through a rigidly negative lens. However, it is also important to recognize that cutting someone out of one’s life can reinforce their existing narratives. Feelings of rejection may be interpreted as confirmation of their beliefs rather than an invitation to reflection. This tension does not negate the value of boundaries, but it does call for clarity and self-awareness in how they are set.

Ultimately, the world we experience is shaped by how we interpret it. When perception is guided by fear and judgment, reality feels hostile and constricted. When perception is guided by curiosity, responsibility, and evidence, the world expands. Taking responsibility for our judgments—questioning them, refining them, and sometimes letting them go—is not only an ethical act toward others; it is a practical way of creating a healthier, more coherent world for ourselves and for those who learn from us.

Namaste 🙏🏽

12/19/2025

Jealousy, Envy, and the Cost of Comparison: A Case for Social Abundance

Jealousy and envy are among the most socially corrosive emotions we experience. While it is natural—and even healthy—to notice what others have and to desire growth for ourselves, problems arise when that desire depends on others having less. Wanting success at the cost of someone else’s well-being is not ambition; it is a form of social harm. A kind and mature ethical orientation recognizes that happiness and success are not finite resources. An abundance mindset holds that one person’s flourishing does not require another’s deprivation.

Social psychology has long documented the dangers of comparison-based motivation. Festinger’s Social Comparison Theory demonstrates that persistent upward or competitive comparison is associated with lower self-esteem, higher anxiety, and reduced life satisfaction. Large-scale studies consistently show that individuals who frequently compare themselves to others report higher levels of depression and resentment, particularly in environments that reward visibility, status, and performance over cooperation. Wanting to be more successful than others creates a psychological treadmill: brief moments of validation followed by renewed insecurity, because there will always be someone else to compete with.

Jealousy itself is strongly associated with a scarcity mindset—the belief that resources, love, attention, or opportunity are limited. Research in cognitive and affective psychology indicates that scarcity thinking narrows attention, reduces empathy, and impairs decision-making. When people feel they are lacking, they become less present, less generous, and less capable of appreciating what they already have. In contrast, individuals who cultivate gratitude and abundance-oriented thinking show higher levels of emotional regulation, relational satisfaction, and overall well-being.

Jealousy directed at other people’s relationships is particularly destructive. Relationship research shows that envy and comparison erode trust, increase rumination, and predict relational conflict. We have all seen partnerships damaged—or destroyed—by suspicion, competition, or resentment. Conversely, relationships thrive when people experience compersion or shared joy: the ability to feel happiness for others’ happiness. Studies on secure attachment consistently demonstrate that joy in others’ success strengthens bonds, while comparison weakens them.

Importantly, there is a crucial distinction between unwholesome envy and wholesome admiration. Observing qualities we admire in others—healthy relationships, integrity, success, or generosity—and taking joy in them can be deeply motivating. Research on role modeling and social learning shows that admiration paired with emulation (rather than resentment) increases goal attainment and personal growth. Noticing what others have and asking, “What can I learn from this?” is psychologically constructive and ethically sound.

A less discussed but increasingly common expression of envy occurs when people feel morally justified in tearing down those who appear confident, proud, or successful. Some individuals experience an ego-driven sense of righteousness in “exposing” another person’s flaws or weaknesses, particularly when that person is perceived as strong, admired, or self-assured. Research on moralized aggression and virtue signaling shows that framing harm as moral correction allows people to experience social approval and self-validation while engaging in behavior that is, at its core, competitive and ego-protective. This form of takedown behavior does not promote humility or justice; it satisfies the ego’s need to reduce perceived status threat and often masquerades as moral duty.

Intentionally trying to make others jealous—through displays of status, possessions, success, or relationships—is similarly harmful. Studies on materialism and competitive social signaling show that such behaviors increase loneliness, decrease intimacy, and contribute to unsustainable consumption patterns that harm both social cohesion and the environment. Creating envy on purpose fosters adversarial social climates, undermines trust, and fuels cycles of insecurity for everyone involved—including the instigator.

Likewise, attempting to tear others down because they appear “inflated” or successful does not lead to lasting self-worth. Research on schadenfreude and ego-defensive behaviors shows that any pleasure derived from others’ misfortune is short-lived and followed by increased shame and dissatisfaction. Humility, by contrast, is consistently correlated with stronger relationships, greater psychological resilience, and higher perceived social support.

Prosocial behavior offers a clear alternative. Decades of research demonstrate that generosity, kindness, and cooperative behavior reliably increase both individual happiness and collective success. Communities and organizations characterized by mutual support and shared celebration of success show higher performance, lower burnout, and greater long-term stability. Helping others does not diminish one’s own chances of success; it increases them by strengthening networks of trust and reciprocity.

Ultimately, jealousy is not a moral failing but a psychological signal—one that invites reflection rather than indulgence. Left unchecked, it creates suffering. Transformed through wisdom, it can become insight, motivation, and growth. We have all witnessed relationships ruined by envy and competition, and we have also seen relationships—and communities—flourish through kindness, appreciation, and shared joy.

The evidence is clear: humility, gratitude, and joy in others’ happiness are not naïve ideals. They are practical, evidence-based pathways to personal well-being, social health, and collective progress. The wise choice is not to compete for worth, but to cultivate it—together.

Namaste 🙏🏽

12/18/2025

The Dopamine Economy of Cruelty

Here is another important point to understand in social systems.

In social systems, there are moments when a person is quietly designated as an enemy—not because of their actions, but because of the role others need them to play. Once this designation occurs, provocation often follows. These provocations are deliberately subtle, obscured from public view, and engineered to elicit a reaction that can later be reframed as proof. Any response, no matter how reasonable, becomes raw material. Even unrelated actions are retrofitted into a narrative that already exists. This process is sustained through gaslighting, subtext, and the continual invention of new interpretations designed to confirm what has already been decided.

What makes this dynamic especially difficult is that there is no natural endpoint. The behavior does not resolve through clarification or appeasement because it is not driven by misunderstanding—it is driven by reinforcement. Psychological research on reward systems suggests that provocation followed by perceived success produces dopamine responses similar to other compulsive behaviors. Each reaction becomes a reward. Each moment of emotional impact, however small, functions like a drug. As long as engagement continues, so does the behavior. This is why escalation often follows restraint: peace is misread as weakness, non-threatening behavior as guilt, and dignity as something to exploit.

Compounding this is the phenomenon of moral self-justification. People are capable of extraordinary cruelty when they believe their actions are aligned with virtue or the “greater good.” History offers sobering examples. Many individuals involved in the N**i regime sincerely believed they were being moral, kind, and socially responsible—even as they participated in horrific acts. This is not an argument of equivalence, but a reminder of how easily people can delude themselves when cruelty is socially enabled and morally framed. Harm does not require malice; it often only requires conviction.

To sustain their narrative, individuals may seek out others who already share their view—or who can be persuaded to adopt it. Consensus, even when manufactured, creates the illusion of legitimacy. Yet repetition does not transform speculation into truth. It only amplifies it. Engaging in endless self-defense within such a system rarely brings resolution, because the process itself is designed to be unwinnable. There will always be another interpretation, another subtext, another invented slight.

Understanding this allows for a different response: refusal without hostility. Rather than attempting to control perception, the focus shifts to consistency. Ethical behavior maintained over time carries a quiet authority. It does not silence every accusation, but it outlasts them. By choosing peace, integrity, and kindness—not as performative gestures, but as sustained practice—you deny the reward mechanism that fuels the aggression. Without reaction, the dopamine loop weakens. Without escalation, the narrative begins to collapse under its own excess.

Over time, this creates an unavoidable pressure. When one party remains steady, compassionate, and transparent, the contrast becomes visible. Those committed to malice must either change their behavior or be increasingly seen as acting without virtue themselves. In this way, integrity does not confront cruelty directly—it exposes it.

Choosing peace does not mean passivity or surrender. It means opting out of a conflict you were never truly part of, and refusing to allow your identity to be defined by someone else’s need for an enemy. There may be no end to their attempts, but there is an end to how much power those attempts have over you. In the long arc of social dynamics, character is not proven by reaction, but by endurance.

Kindness, when paired with clarity and self-respect, is not weakness. It is the slow, steady force that reveals truth—without ever having to announce it.

Namaste 🙏🏽

12/17/2025

Choosing Repair Over Reaction

In reflecting on social conflict, harm, and healing, I’ve been spending time with research and long-standing insights from psychology, sociology, and conflict resolution that point toward what might be called reparative social dynamics — the ways people can reduce harm, restore trust, and strengthen communities rather than fracture them. These are not abstract ideals; they are practical responsibilities we all share, especially in difficult times. And these are difficult times. Many people are overwhelmed, stretched thin, and doing their best to navigate a world that feels increasingly unstable. That reality calls for greater care in how we treat one another, not less. When tensions are high, choosing responsibility, empathy, and restraint becomes not only a moral choice, but a social necessity.

The Cost of Turning Personal Anxiety Into Collective Burden

It is also important to acknowledge the broader context we are living in. There is an extraordinary amount of uncertainty, crisis, and disruption unfolding globally — economic stress, political instability, environmental concern, social polarization, and constant exposure to alarming information. For many people, simply maintaining emotional balance already requires significant effort.

Within this landscape, monopolizing others’ time, emotional energy, or sense of safety to manage one’s personal anxieties becomes ethically problematic. While anxiety is real and deserving of compassion, externalizing it by recruiting others into ongoing personal fears, suspicions, or vendettas transfers that emotional load onto people who did not consent to carry it. Over time, this can increase collective stress, exhaust social bonds, and derail meaningful progress — not just for individuals, but for entire groups and communities.

The harm is compounded when the information being circulated is unverified, selectively interpreted, or filtered through a lens of fear. Anxiety narrows perspective; it prioritizes threat over nuance and certainty over accuracy. When fear-based narratives are repeatedly shared as fact, especially over long periods, they can distort reality, damage reputations, fracture relationships, and create feedback loops of mistrust. On a growing scale, this kind of disruption does not lead to safety or resolution — it undermines cooperation, resilience, and collective problem-solving.

In times like these, responsibility includes knowing when to seek appropriate support for our inner struggles rather than dispersing them outward in ways that burden others. Compassion for oneself does not require conscripting the emotional labor of those around us — and genuine care for others means protecting them from unnecessary anxiety, confusion, and conflict.

Namaste 🙏🏽

12/16/2025

The Illusion of Justice in Gossip Culture

Gossip and the casual disrespect of people’s privacy are often treated as harmless social glue, yet decades of psychological and sociological research suggest the opposite. Studies in social psychology consistently show that gossip erodes trust, increases anxiety, and damages both individual wellbeing and community cohesion. Even when framed as “concern,” “warning,” or “just sharing information,” talking about someone without their presence or consent tends to distort reality and amplify harm.

One of the core problems with gossip is entitlement—the belief that we are justified in judging others based on partial stories, rumours, or moments taken out of context. Research on cognitive bias shows that humans are prone to confirmation bias: once a narrative forms, people unconsciously filter new information to support it, even when it is inaccurate. When the person being discussed is absent, they are denied the most basic principle of fairness—the opportunity to explain, contextualize, or correct misinformation. Truth becomes reshaped to fit the judgemental story, not the facts.

For some, these narratives begin to serve a deeper psychological function: they provide purpose. Repeating and defending the story can create a sense of importance, moral clarity, or identity—especially when others validate and reward the teller with attention, agreement, or praise. Letting go then becomes difficult, not because the story is accurate or necessary, but because releasing it would mean losing a role they have come to occupy. Social reinforcement strengthens this attachment, making the narrative feel indispensable, even when it causes harm.

This dynamic is often justified as being necessary for safety, justice, or preventing future harm. While genuine concern for others is important, research shows that moral certainty can easily harden into moral rigidity. Individuals may come to believe they are uniquely informed, uniquely responsible, or uniquely equipped to keep the story alive. Over time, the narrative persists not because it is balanced or helpful, but because it sustains the teller’s sense of relevance and moral authority.

This pattern frequently appears when people insinuate that they “know things” about someone—not to seek understanding, but to provoke a reaction, assert authority, or legitimize exclusion and scapegoating. Often, they do not know the full story at all. The suggestion of hidden knowledge becomes a social tool, reinforcing power and positioning the speaker as a gatekeeper of truth, rather than a seeker of it.

From a broader social lens, groups can become especially vulnerable to this process. Entire communities may cling to partial or incorrect stories for years, slowly building toxic narratives that barely resemble the actual person—or the reality of their life. Even when some elements of the information are technically true, the repeated focus on negative fragments creates a vacuum of understanding: people see only isolated incidents, past mistakes, or secondhand accounts, while everything else about the person—their growth, context, relationships, values, and humanity—disappears. This produces a profoundly biased picture that feels complete but is, in fact, deeply incomplete.

From a wellbeing perspective, minding your own business is not passive—it is protective. Psychological studies link reduced social comparison and reduced rumination about others to lower stress, improved emotional regulation, and greater life satisfaction. Many spiritual and religious traditions echo this same wisdom: focus on your own conduct, your own growth, and your own integrity. Whether framed as compassion, non-judgment, humility, or right speech, the message is remarkably consistent across cultures and centuries.

Modern reality-TV culture may also play a role in normalizing invasive behavior. When entertainment is built around dissecting personal relationships, past mistakes, and private conflicts, it subtly teaches that prying, speculating, and projecting onto others is acceptable—even entertaining. Over time, this blurs boundaries and makes it easier to treat real people like characters in a story rather than complex humans deserving dignity.

It’s also worth noting that chronic gossip often reflects inner lack, not insight. Research and clinical observation suggest that people who habitually focus on others’ lives are frequently avoiding unmet needs in their own—whether that’s confidence, fulfillment, meaningful hobbies, or emotional accountability. Spending years narrating someone else’s life can become a convenient distraction from tending to one’s own relationships, wounds, and responsibilities.

This becomes especially unhealthy when the focus is on an ex, a perceived rival, or “competition.” Obsessing over another person keeps emotional energy stuck in the past, reinforces resentment, and prevents genuine healing or growth. In contrast, redirecting attention inward—toward learning, creativity, service, and self-reflection—has been shown to improve resilience, clarity, and long-term wellbeing.

Ultimately, choosing not to gossip is not silence—it is integrity. Respecting privacy strengthens communities, protects mental health, and creates space for truth rather than distortion. A society that minds its own business more often is not disengaged; it is healthier, kinder, and far more grounded in reality.

Namaste 🙏🏽

Kunga Yoga

12/20/2025

12/20/2025

12/20/2025

12/19/2025

12/18/2025

12/17/2025

12/16/2025

Address

Website

Alerts

Contact The Practice

Shortcuts

Share

Category