Thank you so much, Tristan! Your kind and encouraging words made me happy and sweetened my Sunday :) All the best for you.

I’m always so curious to hear from parents whether these theories resonate as I don’t (yet) have children myself. That’s so interesting, thank you for sharing :) It’s super interesting to see how a thinkers own experiences influences the theories they develop. There seemed to have been a lot of curiosity and bravery out there in those days.

Thank you for your comment! I'm also glad to be back :)

Thank you for still being here :)

Thank you so much!

Bahman! Thank you so much for your kind words, your continued support for afar means a lot :) I don't know how this happened but yes, somehow people seem to enjoy what I create, which continues to be an uncannily exciting experience. I passed by the Cluster of Excellence the other day and was sending good thoughts your way. I hope Yale is an extraordinary experience - including but hopefully beyond the CV. Best of luck with your (upcoming?) publication. Cheering for you!

Yeahy! Thank you so much for your kind words, that’s so encouraging :)

Thank you so much for your comment! Hm, I haven't read any original Mahler literature so far, so not in the near future unforunately. But I'll hopefully dive into more books :)

Wohoo! Thank you so much for such a kind comment. It means a lot. All the best wish the rest of your studies and whatever direction you chose to follow :)

Thank you so much!

Glad to be back! Thank you, Miguel.

I just looked up that Harry’s birthday is in 1980, so the story started in 1990/1991. 40 years would have made me feel too old, haha!

I agreed with you but not with PDS. 20 years as psicotherapist in Spain, Act therapy + cognitive-behaviour thecnics doesnt helpme with bpd, npd. I think Lineham's work is the path. But Transfer Focus Therapy, mentallitation, Coherence therapy, AEDP, are awesome to connect with the client. Regards

Thank you for your comment and appreciation.

Thank you so much, Sara!

Thank you so much for your kind words! It’s been a labour of love :)

Thank you for your kind words, Juan. Interesting! The first thing that comes to mind would be the different levels of incorporation < introjection < identification. That's how I'd imagine Kernberg meant it, which maps a little onto Klein I guess.

Yeeees! This made me so happy to hear. His videos can be tricky without knowing the "fundamentals". Enjoy :)

i disagree, you must have been tired to begin with

Thank you for your constructive criticism, Dante, and for your kind words. There is always something to improve :)

I have never heard of Sam Vaknin, so I cannot answer. Do you recommend diving into his work?

@@PsychodynamicPsychologyI actually have no background whatsoever in psychology but I personally find his videos intriguing. Discovering his channel was a very random affair and I got hooked because he described my family of origin dynamic so well with his descriptions of NPD, the shared fantasy, etc. His videos gave me the language to describe the chaos and dysregulation in which I grew up. I understood all the concepts that you spoke about in this video only because I’ve listened to so many of his videos these last three years. So yes, I do recommend him, but I’m just a lay person!

Hi Veronica, I have taken down lots of videos because I wasn't proud of them anymore. I hope to re-record some and republish them in the future.

@@PsychodynamicPsychology thank you for the response. I really appreciate your videos especially the wrong goals video. Is there way to pay for the old videos.

That makes me happy to hear. Puh, well, psychodynamics is a big field… anything you’re interested in in particular?

@@PsychodynamicPsychology I'm a software developer. I'm interested in using theories from psychodynamics to model the mind. I really would love to look into psychodynamics from a scientific/philosophical perspective. Scientists sympathetic to psychoanalytical vies like Mark Solms And Marvin Minsky have influenced me.

I just now have started reading “The Hidden Spring” by Mark Solms. Other than that I’m not very familiar with this field. But maybe Bion and his theory of thinking might be interesting for you. It’s very complicated though.

@@PsychodynamicPsychology I've heard a lot about Bion. I'll have to check it out. I plan to read Freud's major works then I'll survey other figures like Anna, Klein, Jung and such. 100% on the pee and poo commentary. 😂 I read a paper about Karl Abraham a student of Freud's the whole paper was about depression and retention of 💩 in fairness, I think it was insightful

@@veganphilosopher1975you could also join the book club!

Defense

Its actually quite relevant, try harder. 😂

I would argue that an infant, or any other living being, is primarily concerned with annihilation. In the literal etymological sense, from the Latin nihil (nothing), it means to be made into nothing- to be completely obliterated or destroyed. In a basic biological sense, it is survival. In the sense that we are social primates with complex dependencies for our survival, it makes sense that we would have certain instinctive behaviors and ways of implicitly learning about ourselves in relation to others. We do fear persecution from a young age. We do have innate aggression and a conditioned relationship to that aggression. We do learn that we and others are good or bad, and can struggle to reconcile that through healthy ambivalence. How we cope with that to survive and remain connected varies. It seems bizarre to me to discount these things.

Thank you, Laura, I also missed being on here!

I'll be putting together a blog/medium article based on this video in the near future. That might be a better way for you to consume this information!

I missed making videos :)

Scientific methods and theoretical concepts are two different things. Using analogies with commonly understood themes can be useful for grasping seemingly abstract ideas.

@@Our_Patterns thanks, I'll think about it more. i just thought that reality is always mmmuch more complex than any fiction. but maybe, our science is superficial enough yet. or I'm kind of romantic

@@highhopes8027 I think that’s why Snape’s character and story arch is so compelling - it’s all very complex. Using literary references where the writer gets deep into the subjective experience of the character is sometimes the closest the public can get to a shared understanding of someone else’s life to apply and understand the psychological concept being conveyed. With a character from a well-known story, we all have access to the exact same information about the person, and we are more likely to have a shared recognition of who the character is, inside and out. But even with this, I imagine each reader’s feelings about and understanding of Snape varies. Inventing a character to specifically highlight a psychological and theoretical concept might allow the educator to more precisely demonstrate the concept, but then again, there is a reason why Harry Potter is a global phenomenon - it’s because JK Rowling has a gift at describing the complexity of her characters and their individually compelling stories. A psychologist or novice writer is unlikely to be able to convey the experience of a fictional character as well as JK Rowling.

Beautifully put! Thank you :)

Not one of us lives in "reality", we EXPERIENCE phenomena of reality through the interpretation of our sense organs, our psychological states, and the STORIES we generate and internalize to organize and explain our perceptions. The capacity to do this is behind all our "rational" capacities and is what separates us from the "lower" animals and allows us to divide ourselves from a state of nature (for good and for ill) and cannot escape our reliance on that ability without collapsing into a primitive state ruled by our unfiltered senses and instincts. Our cultures and our entire human existence depends on our acceptance of and immersion in a story; narratives and metaphors are the bridges that allow us to (attempt to) understand ourselves, the natural world, each other, and the forces that govern existence itself that are beyond the comprehension of our senses and instincts. We humans, unendowed with thick hides, sharp teeth, and deadly claws could not have survived without our narrative abilities, which are the basis of our ability to live cooperatively, and we have never lived without our stories. Myths and legends, religions, political and social ideologies, monetary systems, our personal psychologies, and yes, even science, are structured narratives that determine how we experience the phenomena that we accept as reality. Modern science has sought to dispell our "superstitions" about the nature of existence and our place in it by reducing the scope of our experience of reality to the narrow material perceptions of our senses and their mechanistic extensions, developed through the use of the very psychological processes that "Science" doctrine would have us deny - when Friedrich Nietzsche declared that "God is dead", it was his despair over this awareness and it's horrifying implications that inspired him. He saw the foundations of humanity crumbling and the central fires of our cultures burned to ash and foresaw the cold, sterile exposure to an indifferent universe we would suffer because of it. Look around. Was he wrong? "Science" has attempted to "cure" us of our primitive nature by slaying our dragons and demons, by banishing terrifying gods from our memory, by subduing Nature in favor of a cold comfort; in the process, we have lost ourselves, been reduced to little more than wind-up automata existing only to serve as a cog in a clockwork fever dream of someone else's story, written in the cold light of scientific jargon and objective delusion, the symbols of modern myth and epic hubris. We have evolved our cultures and our technologies to the point we can no longer live comfortably with, a part of us is homesick for the close familial ties and tribal interdependence we are evolved for. Through our modern retellings of the oldest stories, our glowing digital screens become a window looking backwards to our days when the spirits of creation lurked just beyond the reach of the light of the central fire, the cold harshness of existence dispelled by the warmth of the flames, huddled together under warm blankets woven from the threads of common narratives, the stuff of dreams. Of what value are stories like Harry Potter? I would ask instead : of what value is a world without wonder? Which world were we really meant for?