Many of the hard-to-replace things in life accumulate damage as time passes. It’s critical to learn to detect and improve damage before these things fall apart. This requires a combination of vigilance (noticing the damage before it is really bad or even irreversible) and continually using effective strategies to repair what’s broken. A car will accumulate damage over time, but even if you don’t take good care of it, you can get a new one eventually. Some things in life are not as replaceable as a car.

Here are some major life examples where irreversible damage often accumulates if left unchecked:

(1) Damage to the body
Don’t let injuries or imbalances become chronic pain. Yes, we will all age, but we have some control over how that process goes. If you have a minor injury, it’s very important not to let it snowball into a permanent (or long-lasting) one. That might mean stopping activities that cause the damage, learning to do daily stretches (if the injury is caused by tightness or poor mobility), strengthening that area, and/or getting appropriate medical treatment.

Imbalances, tightness, and issues of mobility often get worse over time unless you actively solve the issue. If your wrist hurts when you type, work on prevention before it becomes a repetitive strain injury (RSI). If your back often hurts when sitting for work, try changing your posture, chair, or using a standing desk if you can. Chronic pain can be an awfully unpleasant thing to live with. Don’t let it get to that point if you can stop it.

(2) Damage to relationships
Don’t let fights with a life partner, long-time friend, or close family member turn into resentment or contempt. At some point, when emotions toward another person become more negative than positive, it’s hard to turn back. For the people that really matter to you, make sure that anger gets resolved and doesn’t get left simmering for a long time.

Discuss problems and work together to solve them. Don’t just blame the other person, as that rarely helps. Especially when you’re going through a stressful, busy, or difficult time together, try to still build in enjoyable experiences together and quality time. It’s very important to keep your feelings about each other positive. Make sure that your interactions with the people you care about don’t feel punishing to them. For every punishing interaction, you may need 5 or 10 more positive ones to balance the feelings out.

If you say things in anger or are inconsiderate, apologize and make it up to the other person before they hold it against you. The couples whose long-term prospects I have the most confidence in are not merely the ones that seem happy; instead, it’s the couples that also seem like they are good at identifying problems in the relationship, communicating openly about them, and working together to solve them. Having some damage is inevitable, so it’s critical that you learn to repair it.

(3) Damage to attitude
Don’t let optimism turn to pessimism or cynicism. A series of life setbacks, or people being assholes, can leave us feeling negative about the future or toward people in general. It’s important to always have at least one thing you’re looking forward to in the future. If you don’t have something you’re looking forward to, try to create it.

It’s important to have good, trustworthy, kind people around you who restore your belief in humanity. If you don’t, it’s important to meet some. Don’t spend your time around bad people (you probably know who they are). They have a tendency to make people unhappy and cynical.

(4) Damage to mental health
Inevitably, difficult psychological events will happen to each of us, whether it’s the loss of a loved one, the loss of a job, a major setback on a goal, or a global pandemic. Furthermore, psychological pressures can start to get to us over time, making us more and more unhappy. For instance, this can happen if we’re working too hard, don’t have enough free time, under too much stress, lacking critical resources, being treated unjustly, around too much conflict or danger, etc.

Highly traumatic experiences (like sudden abandonment, severe injury, sexual harassment, sexual assault, the loss of a child, etc.) can also create lasting difficulties for some people if these experiences are not addressed and processed.

Often we naturally bounce back from these situations (whether acutely traumatic or slow grinding pressures), but other times the psychological effect accumulates with time. It’s extremely important in these cases to find ways to get help. It’s ideal to get help before mild depression becomes major depression and before high stress turns into an anxiety disorder. There are a variety of options:
• You could see a therapist (e.g., try Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, Behavioral Activation, Interpersonal Therapy, Mindfulness-Based Stress Reduction, Dialectical Behavioral Therapy, or Acceptance and Commitment Therapy),
• You could see a psychiatrist (e.g., consider taking an antidepressant under their supervision – antidepressants are not for everyone, and they come with the risk of side effects, but they really help some people),
• You could try one of our apps (UpLift.app for depression, MindEase.io for anxiety). We help you apply a variety of evidence-based strategies, and
• You could find a well-reviewed book on the topic by an expert (e.g., Feeling Good or When Panic Attacks by David Burns).

If you’ve been unhappy for a while, NOW is the best time to do something to start to feel better.

Damage will accumulate in many areas of life. Whenever possible, it’s best to notice and reduce damage before it snowballs out of control. Problems are easier to solve when they are smaller.

After noticing a number of times that people’s feelings about formal credentials can differ dramatically and that this seems to impact their views on certain important topics, I’ve been working on defining a “credentialist” trait (or attitude).

In a nutshell, the non-credentialist/credentialist spectrum, as I’m defining it, captures how important a person thinks formal credentials are, as well as how they feel those credentials should influence who we should trust and who should express opinions (e.g., should only formalized experts comment on a topic, or is it good for non-experts to comment as well?)

I developed a 4-minute test to measure the trait, so if you’d like to find out if you are a “credentialist” or “non-credentialist” (which I define as being in the top or bottom 20th percentile of each trait) or find out your own credentialist score, you can take the test here:

https://programs.clearerthinking.org/credentialist_test.html

Here are simplified/extreme prototypes to illustrate the distinction (few people are as extreme as these prototypes):

*Credentialists* get annoyed when someone without the right credential is giving their opinion on a topic, are impressed by formal degrees (e.g. PhDs and MDs), do not like it when non-experts have their own personal theory about a topic, trust people a lot more when they have formal credentials, think its unlikely someone could get really good at a complex topic without formal training, think that non-experts should not contradict experts, would go to school to learn a topic if they wanted to get good at it, find it annoying if startup founders talk about disrupting industries they have not already worked in, tend to describe people in terms of their schooling and job history (rather than, for example, their personality), and trust the opinion’s of people a lot more if they went to an excellent college.

*Non-credentialists* think that it fine (or even good) to express opinions when you’re a non-expert, are not particularly impressed by formal degrees, don’t view degrees or certifications as a strong indicator of trust, think it’s fine (or even good) for non-experts to criticize the views of experts, are prone to teach themselves material rather than going to school for it, don’t mind startup founders attempting to disrupt industries from the outside, tend not to describe people in terms of their schooling and job history, and don’t view the quality of the college a person went to as a significant factor in whether to trust their opinions.

I measured the trait on a 0 to 1 scale, and on the 143 people I collected it for, it has a mean of 0.55 and a standard deviation of 0.16, with a pretty nice bell curve shape.

Interestingly, I found a very low correlation between credentialist scores and education [r=0.03], identifying as female [r=-0.04], and income [r=0.03], and little correlation with age [r=-.08]. This suggests that credentialist differences have little to do with demographic characteristics!

Furthermore, whether you are a credentialist does not even seem to have that much to do with whether you yourself have credentials, as responses to the question “I myself have substantial formal credentials” had a correlation of only about r=0.13 with the credentialist scores. It also has little to do with how ambitious people are, as responses to “I have highly ambitious goals for what I will achieve in my life” had a correlation of only r=0.07 to credentialist scores.

Of the 22 questions I tested people’s agreement on in order to measure the trait, the 2 most effective questions (in the sense that they correlate highly with the average of the other questions but don’t correlate very highly with each other) are:

Q1: It annoys me when someone without the right credential is giving their opinion on a topic (e.g., a non-doctor commenting about medicine or a non-accountant commenting on accounting)

[r=0.71 against the average of the other 21 questions]

and

Q2: I am very impressed by formal degrees (e.g., PhDs, MDs, JDs, etc.)

[r=0.54 against the average of the other 21 questions, yet a fairly low r=0.24 with respect to Q1]

The 22 questions I developed hang together nicely and point in generally the same direction. Basic factor analysis revealed only one main factor in the questions, and the question least correlated to the others still had a positive correlation of r=0.34 with the average of the other questions (which was “If I heard that someone had won a prize in their field, I would think very highly of it”).

Most people fall in the middle of this trait, of course (e.g., viewing credentials as at least somewhat positive but the lack of them not that negative), without an extreme viewpoint either way. However, here are some anonymized qualitative responses I collected from people at the tail ends of the spectrum:

Credentialists:

“I don’t respect people who don’t have formal credentials, and one of my biggest pet peeves is people–even really intelligent people–speaking about things they aren’t experts on. Just because someone is known, or even renowned in another field, doesn’t place their opinion on another topic anywhere above another non-educated person.”

“People with formal credentials have generally gone through a rigorous peer review process that demands a considerable depth of understanding and knowledge.”

“People who don’t have credentials have no business talking about things they know nothing about. That’s how misinformation gets spread, and misinformation is harmful to society as a whole.”

Non-credentialists:

“I think that people can have a valid voice no matter their level of formal schooling. The opposite also holds true: a degree is not necessarily representative of ability.”

“I feel that colleges have become scams. They are money sponges that make you pay for your own brainwashing. I value intelligence and how well-read someone is on a subject, and we don’t need a self-appointed team of left-wing experts to ‘allow’ us to do that for ourselves anymore. People with credentials have more money than sense and have been taught what NOT to think more than they have been taught HOW to think.”

“While I respect those who have worked to earn professional credentials, people who are self-taught oftentimes know much more about a subject than someone with an expensive degree.”

Note: designing this scale and writing this post is a very non-credentialist thing to do since I’m not a social scientist.

This piece was first written on July 21, 2017, and first appeared on my website on June 10, 2025.