Youtube comments of (@AnaPsychology).
-
1800
-
1100
-
1000
-
847
-
575
-
566
-
550
-
424
-
383
-
362
-
330
-
316
-
295
-
294
-
270
-
269
-
255
-
251
-
251
-
250
-
245
-
240
-
234
-
232
-
223
-
222
-
217
-
217
-
214
-
213
-
Pre-order the eBook version of my new journaling workbook! https://a.co/d/7sTtFWQ
Examples of how career assessments work:
1. Personality assessment:
Big 5: https://bigfive-test.com/
MBTI: https://www.16personalities.com/free-personality-test
2. Interest inventories:
Holland test: https://openpsychometrics.org/tests/RIASEC/
Another Holland test: https://www.truity.com/test/holland-code-career-test
3. Skills test: https://nationalcareers.service.gov.uk/discover-your-skills-and-careers/
4. Values assessment: https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/tests/personality/values-profile
Also, I’m kind of annoyed that I forgot to do a conclusion section in the video, so I’ll do that here:
- During career assessment, it’s important to ask yourself the following: What are my personality traits, and what are compatible vocations? What are my interests? What are my skills? What are my values, and what are vocations with compatible values?
- Theories of career development usually emphasize either the life stages that influence your career or your personalty traits. Developmental theories start out through exploration, then making a decision, honing in on that career, and eventually putting it behind you. Trait-factor theories focus on goodness of fit between your personality traits and the traits required by certain vocations.
- I would argue that learning is a lifelong, continuous, and non-linear process. You don’t have to limit yourself to one thing. It’s okay to pivot to something else.
- Don’t choose a career based on what you DON’T want to do—rather, choose, based on what energizes and excites you, the thing you would like to do even past the age of 65. You shouldn’t spend your last few decades on this earth letting your mind disintegrate from disuse; if you can find something you truly love, then keep doing it every single day.
205
-
203
-
200
-
190
-
187
-
183
-
181
-
178
-
175
-
174
-
173
-
172
-
172
-
170
-
169
-
167
-
167
-
165
-
159
-
157
-
157
-
156
-
150
-
149
-
148
-
148
-
148
-
147
-
143
-
141
-
After recording this video, I continued diving even deeper into the 0.01% claim. Aside from the claim that this is Gottman’s finding and the claim that this is the Gallup 1997 Poll’s finding (both of which I have found zero evidence for), I found that other Christian blogposts cite a different “source” altogether called The Retrouvaille International Handbook, 2005.
For instance, on CouplePrayer.com, it says the following: “In 1980, it was found that couples who were either praying together or reading the bible together daily, and also attending church together weekly, experienced a divorce rate of less than 1 divorce in every 1105 marriages.” They cite their source as “Retrouvaille International Handbook, 2005.”
Retrouvaille is another Christian website that appears to do couple retreats. I could find no such handbook or research on Retrouvaille’s website or through Google as a whole: https://helpourmarriage.org/
However, a different site that cites the same Retrouvaille “study” says the following: “Significant evidence is demonstrating that married couples who pray, study scripture, attend church, and otherwise jointly participate in spiritual activities enjoy significantly higher levels of marital happiness and satisfaction. A national research study in the United States (1980) cited in Retrouvaille’s International Handbook 2005 established that married couples who attend church together weekly and read the Bible or pray together daily have a divorce rate of approximately 1 in every 1,105 marriages.”
https://adventist.uk/fileadmin/shared-data/resources/family-ministries/General_Articles/Couple_Prayer_-_The_Great_Untapped_Resource.pdf
Therefore, it appears that, even if this Retrouvaille handbook exists, it is merely citing someone else’s research from 1980. It’s not clear to me whose research exactly they would be citing (since I can find neither this handbook nor a scientific article making this claim), and it’s certainly interesting that no one is citing the original study directly. The closest thing to a name that I could find for this original study is "a national research study in the United States (1980)," which is not a valid citation. I would think that such a groundbreaking study, even if it's from 1980, would be name-dropped constantly across scientific communities.
This begs the question: Do blogpost claims like these try to make it harder to find the original source? If so, is that because the original source doesn’t exist? And why do the different blogposts cite slight variations of the same statistic? Some say it’s 1 in 1,105, others say 1,150, and others 1,500. Why not just stick with the same statistic? Why are they all citing different sources for slightly different statistics? Let me know what you think.
Edit: I made a couple verbal typos in the video that I'd like to correct. At 11:51, I meant Arizona Christian University, not Arizona State University. Also, at 23:03 I meant to say "the claim that Gottman found less than 1% of couples who pray together, divorce," not "the claim that Gottman found less than 1% of couples who pray together, stay together."
136
-
135
-
133
-
131
-
130
-
125
-
124
-
124
-
123
-
123
-
123
-
121
-
120
-
119
-
118
-
116
-
114
-
114
-
111
-
111
-
110
-
109
-
108
-
107
-
106
-
106
-
106
-
105
-
105
-
105
-
Hi, guys! I have a couple of updates:
1. Brian Hart’s idea of consulting an actual parental alienation expert wasn’t a bad idea! For this reason, I reached out to Tina from One Mom’s Battle, who informed me that the parental alienation industry has turned discrediting victims into an entire business. Since these “therapy” groups and “reunification camps” are often uncredentialed, the “counselors” can make a profit from doing pretty much whatever they want, forcing children to reunify with their rejected parent.
I’d love to do a video on these “reunification camps” where I interview children who have gone through them, as well as adult experts. I hope to do that later in the year after my maternity leave. Until then, check out the website Tina created to raise awareness about this topic: www.alienationindustry.com
2. This morning, my husband was sifting through my Spam folder when he realized that the email covered in this video was not the first Brian Hart has sent me. Four days before the email discussed in this video, he sent me another email instructing me to “detract misinformation.” I will respond to that email below.
Hart’s email begins by saying that my “primary citation seems to have been from the ideologically biased Gendered Domestic Violence Law Professor's non-peer-reviewed paper.” His criticism of Meier’s paper parallels the way he criticized my own “lack of expertise” and “bias” on this topic, without actually explaining what is wrong with the contents of her article. In reality, Meier is a professor of clinical law at the George Washington University and a domestic violence expert.
Moreover, the article that Hart is talking about in his email is not the same article as the one I referenced. He refers to an article she wrote in 2021, whereas my citation was from 2009. The article I cited was in fact peer-reviewed and published in the Journal of Child Custody. According to the journal itself, “The journal is anonymously peer reviewed with an interdisciplinary editorial board comprised of child custody evaluators, mental health, social work, law enforcement and medical professionals, researchers, attorneys, and judges committed to the safety and best interests of children and families, especially as they relate to various types of court cases.”
Hart then disputes the claim that parental alienation is not recognized by professional associations. He references diagnoses from the DSM-5 and ICD-11 that, as I mentioned in this video, could encompass alienating a child, but do not explicitly reference it. He neglects to mention that parental alienation is not explicitly referenced in these diagnostic manuals because the concept was rejected for lacking scientific rigor.
Hart provides a long list of articles to support his claim that prominent professional organizations do in fact recognize PA theory as valid. However, many of the articles do not support his conclusion.
For instance, Hart states that the “American Psychological Association discusses parental alienation and alienating behaviors 20+ times in its 2022 Guidelines for Child Custody Evaluations in Family Law Proceedings.” https://www.apa.org/about/policy/child-custody-evaluations.pdf
However, when I click on this link, I can only find 6 mentions of parental alienation, and 5 of them are from the citations section. The only time parental alienation is mentioned in the article itself is to say, “Addressing parent–child contact problems can be a controversial concept in child custody proceedings (Fidler & Bala, 2020; Nielson, 2018). These problems may be subsumed under such terms as resist–refusal dynamics, alienating behaviors, domestic violence and/or child abuse, restrictive gatekeeping, and parental alienation, among others. While there is a large body of research and literature on this topic, there are also many nonscientific-based texts.”
And this: “Child custody evaluators may have overt or unacknowledged opinions about some topics such as alienation, gender, family dynamics, victim credibility or behavior, or high-conflict families. Psychologists strive to familiarize themselves with current scientific studies that dispel such bias, which may interfere with their impartiality, such as assuming joint custody is better for children than sole custody in all cases (Steinbach & Augustijn, 2022).”
I am not sure why Hart would try to make it sound like the American Psychological Association promotes parental alienation theory in this article, considering the article acknowledges the controversial nature of PA theory and recurrently emphasizes the need to take abuse allegations seriously.
As far as I can tell, the American Psychological Association has only made one official statement on parental alienation, which can be found here: https://www.apa.org/news/press/releases/2008/01/pas-syndrome
It states, “The American Psychological Association believes that all mental health practitioners as well as law enforcement officials and the courts must take any reports of domestic violence in divorce and child custody cases seriously. An APA 1996 Presidential Task Force on Violence and the Family noted the lack of data to support so-called "parental alienation syndrome", and raised concern about the term's use. However, we have no official position on the purported syndrome.”
Hart also cites an article by the World Health Organization, yet when I click on this article, it is an explanation of why the WHO has decided NOT to include parental alienation in the ICD-11: https://www.who.int/standards/classifications/frequently-asked-questions/parental-alienation
Some of Hart’s other citations include opinion pieces, sources from right-leaning Christian organizations such as the Institute for Family Studies, and articles tangentially associated with professional organizations that do not demonstrate the unequivocal support for PA that he’s framing them to have.
Honestly, the more I look into Hart’s sources and counterarguments, the more concerned I become with the inaccuracies and misrepresentations I find. I guess the rabbit hole just keeps getting deeper.
103
-
102
-
102
-
101
-
101
-
99
-
95
-
94
-
93
-
93
-
92
-
92
-
91
-
89
-
88
-
87
-
86
-
85
-
85
-
84
-
84
-
84
-
83
-
83
-
81
-
80
-
80
-
79
-
78
-
77
-
76
-
76
-
75
-
74
-
74
-
73
-
72
-
72
-
71
-
71
-
71
-
70
-
69
-
69
-
69
-
69
-
68
-
68
-
68
-
67
-
67
-
65
-
65
-
65
-
65
-
64
-
64
-
64
-
63
-
62
-
62
-
62
-
61
-
60
-
60
-
60
-
59
-
59
-
59
-
59
-
58
-
58
-
58
-
58
-
57
-
57
-
55
-
54
-
53
-
53
-
52
-
52
-
51
-
51
-
51
-
51
-
51
-
50
-
50
-
50
-
50
-
50
-
50
-
50
-
49
-
49
-
48
-
48
-
48
-
47
-
47
-
47
-
46
-
46
-
46
-
46
-
46
-
46
-
45
-
@jjjjjjjjj3000 I’m curious about the use of the word "discarding" to describe choosing to distance yourself from someone who has disrespected your boundaries on multiple occasions. I think the reason this word feels touchy is because, from what I've observed, the people doing the "discarding" are usually the very people who trample over others' boundaries, not the ones begging to be treated kindly.
Yes, there are times when distancing yourself from someone is not possible. In those situations, emotion regulation & radical acceptance are probably going to be your best friends. If that sounds very serene and simple, I don't mean for it to sound this way. Coming to a place of radical acceptance is usually a very painful journey, and it requires recognizing that you are trapped between a rock and a hard place.
As for the issue of not having enough people to keep around, I’m actually recording a video today on the importance of not approaching friendship with a scarcity mindset! in my experience, all you need is a handful of quality people in your life, because surrounding yourself with the wrong people is far more painful than being alone.
45
-
45
-
45
-
44
-
44
-
44
-
44
-
44
-
44
-
43
-
43
-
43
-
43
-
43
-
43
-
43
-
42
-
42
-
42
-
42
-
42
-
42
-
41
-
41
-
41
-
41
-
41
-
41
-
41
-
40
-
40
-
40
-
40
-
39
-
39
-
39
-
38
-
38
-
38
-
38
-
38
-
38
-
38
-
38
-
38
-
38
-
38
-
38
-
37
-
37
-
37
-
37
-
37
-
37
-
37
-
37
-
37
-
37
-
37
-
36
-
36
-
36
-
36
-
36
-
36
-
36
-
35
-
35
-
35
-
35
-
35
-
35
-
35
-
35
-
34
-
34
-
34
-
34
-
34
-
34
-
34
-
34
-
34
-
34
-
34
-
33
-
33
-
33
-
33
-
33
-
33
-
32
-
32
-
32
-
32
-
32
-
32
-
32
-
32
-
32
-
32
-
31
-
31
-
31
-
31
-
31
-
31
-
31
-
31
-
30
-
30
-
30
-
30
-
30
-
30
-
30
-
30
-
30
-
30
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
Because estimated rates of ADHD are over 2x higher in males vs females, I assume the DSM criteria are normed on a sample that is predominantly male and therefore may not be quite as applicable to girls/women. I'm not sure what people are saying on TikTok about gender differences, but here are the results from a meta-analysis examining gender differences in presentations of ADHD:
"Gender differences were not found in impulsivity, academic performance, social functioning, fine motor skills, parental education, or parental depression. However, compared with ADHD boys, ADHD girls displayed greater intellectual impairment, lower levels of hyperactivity, and lower rates of other externalizing behaviors."
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0890856709626125
This might be a good topic for me to cover in a separate video?
28
-
28
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
22
-
Glad you enjoyed the video!
I actually tend to disagree with the second half of your comment. In many countries (e.g. Poland), women still don't have the right for abortion, and even in the US, people are currently trying to overthrow that right. But aside from abortion, I can think of many policy-level changes I would love to see: better psychoeducation on domestic violence (including emotional abuse) for the courts, prioritizing women's safety by criminalizing and punishing online threats and doxxing, taking women seriously when they experience things like stalking and harassment but no physical harm has occurred yet, etc. (Ironically, a lot of these interventions would help men, too.)
But you're right that a lot of the progress would also have to be cultural: the general public would have to make a commitment independent of the law to not tolerate when people take part in slut-shaming, harassment, catcalling, and so on.
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
What I said exactly is, “There are non problematic forms of manipulation, like maybe trying to influence someone to get out of a toxic relationship, and then there are insidious types of manipulation where it doesn’t really matter to you what the other person wants.” Of course, when you twist and completely rearrange my words, it’s going to give the completely opposite meaning to what I actually said. But the good part is that this is a recording and you can play it back word for word😉
Yes, we all influence each other in day-to-day life. In this context, telling a friend that you’re concerned about their relationship, helping them create a safety or escape plan, sharing your own journey with leaving a toxic relationship—these are all examples of trying to influence someone. Of course, you should always ultimately respect the other person’s autonomy. That’s why I specified that insidious forms of manipulation don’t do that.
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
It's so cool to see your honest reflection on here! Thank you so much for taking the time to self-reflect and to acknowledge your initial defensiveness.
With regards to your initial point, I am sure that there are certain privileges that women have that men do not. However, it's not the time or place to bring these up when women are talking about their own. Every time a woman tries to discuss her experience with oppression, it gets trampled by men who do not want to hear it and bring up "reverse sexism." I don't think that was your intention, but I'm telling you this because it gets exhausting for women to deal with. For instance, there are lots of channels out there dedicated to LGBT issues, but I can't imagine someone commenting, "Well, what about heterosexual issues?" on their videos.
The reason such deflections do not make sense is because, while different groups of people have different privileges, there is an overall imbalance in privilege. I could go through all the ways women are oppressed in patriarchal societies, but I would be here for years typing out an answer. If you are interested in this topic, I highly recommend a book I'm reading right now called "Rage Becomes Her: the Power of Women's Anger" by Soraya Chemaly. Women have been "leading by example" for millennia. What we are asking for is a tiny bit of empathy and support in return.
19
-
19
-
19
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
Cognitive-behavioral therapy works on changing your cognitions (thoughts) and behaviors. It's usually more directive, structured and psychoeducational than other types of therapy. It also is an umbrella term for many different subtypes of therapy (cognitive therapy, behavioral therapy, cognitive processing therapy, exposure therapy, exposure and response prevention therapy, acceptance and commitment-based therapy, etc.).
Dialectical behavioral therapy is a third-wave CBT technique that emphasizes not only changing thoughts and behaviors but also mindfulness, dialectics, emotions, and distress tolerance. It pulls from Eastern wisdom a bit more and also acknowledges the role of past invalidating experiences a bit more explicitly than other types of CBT.
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
I would most certainly not recommend you let those issues deter you! Let me list a few of the issues I have seen come up in my cohort of peers: impostor syndrome (HUGE one), anxiety, depression, bipolar disorder, trauma, eating disorders, and even problematic personality traits... Although I can't speak with certainty about whether any of my peers have ADHD, I'm certain that we all have our personal struggles to overcome.
The most important thing if you are to become a clinical psychologist is whether you are willing to "do the work" yourself. I have known some therapists-in-training who refuse to go to therapy themselves, who lie to their therapists, who make excuses for their behavior--and that is a much better indicator of whether they will be good therapists, in my opinion.
In my experience, you can expect about 1-2 papers per class in a PsyD program. In a PhD program, it's likely more MCQ tests than papers. I haven't found there to be too much writing, although I admittedly adore writing. Either way, the advice I wish I'd known when first deciding my career is, "Don't make a decision about your career based on fear." I went into psychology in part because I thought I would only have to talk to people one-on-one, and I quickly learned that I had to give multiple presentations each semester, go on group interviews every single year, give psychoeducational outreach workshops, co-facilitate therapy groups, talk in group supervision, participate in staff meetings, etc. You could go into the wrong career for you out of fear, or you could go for what you're really passionate about and overcome your fears. (I do want to clarify, though, that clinical psychology is a huge and incredibly long commitment, so I do recommend it be something you really love if you choose it.)
I promise you, almost every single person in your cohort would struggle with some sort of fear of failure or mental issue. Those that don't fear failure at all or think they have it all figured out are the problematic ones.
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
Sure, I’m happy to share! :) It honestly was very easy once I replaced post-dinner TV with reading. We usually just watch one episode and then go into reading. Reading while traveling and more on the weekends also helps. Most of them are for enjoyment/curiosity, inspiration for content, and also to improve my own craft as a fiction author. I see it as part of my job to read lots of fiction, get a sense of the literary landscape, and get inspired.
Also, I should mention 100 books would never have been possible while I was still in school or juggling multiple responsibilities (dissertation, internship/work, studying, content creation). Now that I run my own business, it’s a lot more doable, but don’t feel bad if you can’t read a ton when you have a million things on your plate. I’m already a little worried I won’t be able to read as much once the baby is born.
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
Thank you so much for bringing this perspective to my attention! I probably didn't emphasize this as explicitly as I intended to, but I'd like to reiterate something I mentioned in the video: anyone can behave abusively, independent of power dynamics. It's less likely that it will have an effect on the victim if the victim has significantly more power to shield themselves with, but there are most certainly exceptions to the rule--and in any case, abusive behavior is distressing to the person experiencing it. It sounds like this was absolutely the case for you.
I started the video by saying that this is an oversimplification of a complex topic, and I think your example really highlights that. I think it really comes down to the fact that "abusive behavior" and "abusive relationships" are two slightly different constructs. Abusive behavior is a collection of hurtful actions, whereas abusive relationships are characterized by the cycle of abuse, the wheel of power and control, and other more complex dynamics we tend to see across victims and abusers. And, like with anything, there are always exceptions to the rule.
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
Ego-dystonic and ego-syntonic are commonly used scientific terms. The unconscious also has a wealth of evidence behind it. As the shadow, it's harder to pin down with research, but I have absolutely found qualitative evidence for it.
Example 1: In times of stress, people sometimes show a side of themselves that is very different to who they usually are. The people in their life might say they "don't even recognize them." One way of conceptualizing this is that the shadow reared its head, certain traits that they were keeping underground before.
Example 2: I recently underwent a period in which I felt powerless about something in my life. I was tired of always being "nice" and "good." Through journaling, I uncovered a part of myself that was more playful and mischievous. Do I believe that this personification of a shadow person is a real entity? No, of course not. It's just a mental personification of a cluster of traits. But it helped me immensely in coping with a stressor and growing as a person (what Jung called the process of individuation). It might sound woo-woo, but shadow work is basically just balancing out a part of your personality with something you used to reject about yourself, and practicing compassion for the parts of yourself that you still reject.
At the end of the day, the concept of the shadow is a way of making sense of something very internal and subjective. We don't need to prove it like how people try to prove "is there a god?" Rather, the analogous question is: "Does this person believe in a god?"
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
That's a really good question, and probably more complex than I can really answer! I think we tend to imprint on people who we perceive have ameliorated our lives, whether it be through music, Youtube, writing, friendship, etc. And we put up a lot of defenses to prevent our cognitive dissonance, because it's hard for people to understand that someone they admire also has imperfections. It takes a lot of emotional self-awareness to be able to acknowledge that someone can be both really problematic and have helped us in the past. In psychodynamic psychology, it's called "splitting," where people are either all good or all bad. In reality, we are all multifaceted and imperfect.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1