Abuse Victims, Beware Common Sense Is Harmful Nonsense ( 12 Myths Debunked)

So, I quote this wonderful phrase again, there's an irrational and wild longing for clarity, you know, in the human heart.

You victims of abuse, you want clarity, you want certainty, you want someone to make sense of what had happened to you.

But here's the thing, what had happened to you is meaningless. It's senseless. It doesn't carry any coded message. It doesn't imbue your life with a direction or a goal or a meaning. It just happened to you.

And you must make sure that it never happens again. And to make sure it never happens again, you must find out the truth.

The truth, is we know it in the science or attempted science of psychology, not the truth.

As you hear from others in an echo chamber, others were exactly in your condition. They don't know much more than you do. They pretend to know because they want your money.

In November 1940 Camus confided to his journal, he wrote in his diary, understand, understand this he said, we can despair of the meaning of life in general, in general, but not of the particular forms that it takes.

We can despair of existence for we have no power over it, but not of history where the individual can do everything.

Important for you, victims of abuse, your history is in your hands.

Camus continues, it is individuals who are killing us today. Why should not individuals manage to give us peace? We must simply begin without thinking of such grandiose ends.

He could have been discussing narcissism. And this leads me to the question of, to the first, as I promised in this video, I'm going to be a myth buster. I'm going to bust myths.

So the first myth is that one can separate the issue of sexuality and gender from mental health.

Like if an autist comes to you or a narcissist comes to you or a psychopath comes to you to see you as a professional, you're not supposed to pay attention to the gender.

Someone with schizophrenia or bipolar disorder. What does it matter if he has a vagina or penis? It doesn't matter. We keep saying that's not entirely accurate as, as you will see soon.

I'm going to discuss a recent study on autism now, which demonstrates conclusively that mental health issues, including mental health issues that I deal with in this channel, have a lot to do.

And when I say a lot, I mean a hell of a lot to do with your sex, not sexuality, with your sex and with your gender.

But before I go there, because this has to do with autism, I clarified in my previous video, I do not and never did claim that autism is caused by bad mothering, by a dead mother, by a mother who is not good enough mother.

I never said this.

Refrigerator mothers is a notion that had been debunked long ago. It was prevalent in the sixties and seventies before we knew better.

Autism in all likelihood has very pronounced genetic components and it's probably a brain disorder.

Now I'm very hesitant to say it with certainty because we do not know what causes autism.

We, I repeat this, we have no idea what causes autism.

What is the cause of autism? What leads to autism?

The etiology of autism. We are still studying this and we don't know.

We know for sure what does not lead to autism.

For example, vaccines.

The intellectually challenged anti-vaxxers who claim that vaccines lead to autism.

Well, it's yet another conspiracy theory, which is a great demonstration that IQ is not distributed evenly.

One of the myths that I'm going to debunk shortly.

In August this year, in the prestigious academic journal, Nature Communications, a mega study of autism had been published and the study showed that there is a strong link between gender identity, autism, ADHD, and other mental health disorders.

It showed that people who do not identify with the sex that they were assigned at birth are three to six times as likely to be autistic. Six gender people, people whose gender sits well with their sex.

So the sex is female and the gender is woman. If you as a woman feel comfortable with the fact that you're a female, then you are cisgender.

So cisgender people are six times, six times less likely to develop autism than people who don't feel comfortable with their sex.

Gender diverse people report autistic traits and suspect that they have undiagnosed autism.

Gender diverse is transgender, non-binary, gender queer, people who have what used to be called gender dysphoria, people who have the equipment of a male, but they feel like a woman or the equipment of a female and they feel like a man, you know, and then they do something about it or they don't do something about it.

But at any rate, there's a discrepancy between their biological, physiological equipment and their gender identity. And these people are called gender diverse.

And they amazingly, amazingly tend to develop autism much more than other people.

And the reverse is also true. Autistic people are more likely than neurotypical people to be gender diverse.

Gender diverse people are more likely to have autism, seems to be a very powerful connection.

And that's not the only connection, because we found connections between autism and schizophrenia, psychosis.

Between autism, a very strong connection between autism and depression.

Mind you, there's a big school in psychology that claims that narcissistic personality disorder or pathological narcissism is actually a depressive disorder.

It harks back, this thinking goes back to Melanie Klein.

And there's also a strong connection between autism and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, ADHD.

Many of these co-occur with autism. Bizarrely, the previous edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual did not allow to diagnose autism with anything else essentially.

But today with the new edition, edition five, we can and we do.

Gender diverse people have higher rates of all these conditions, schizophrenia, depression, ADHD, autism, certain personality disorders.

And the highest association was with depression and estimated 30 to 80% of children with autism, 30 to 80% also have ADHD. And 20 to 50% of children with ADHD also have autism.

Firstborn children of women with ADHD face a six fold risk, six times the risk of also having ADHD and double the risk of having autism compared to the general population.

It's another study from 2014.

So the recent study was conducted on 640,000 people. Good enough for you.

And it involved a television documentary, a British television documentary in 2017 about autism. And the guy who managed all this, who handled all this was Simon Baron Cohen. He's a professor of developmental psychopathology at the University of Cambridge, and one of the preeminent voices and most original voices on autism.

Gender diverse people also report on average more traits associated with autism, as I said, sensory difficulties, pattern recognition skills, and most crucially, lower rates of empathy.

They actively, I mean, they read utterly wrongly another person's emotional state. Let's get it straight. Autism, ADHD, six other mental health conditions, they are all linked to a massive reduction in empathy to the point of energy.

But this is exactly the state of victims of narcissistic abuse.

People with CPTSD, they also have severely diminished empathy, to the point that technically we can diagnose many victims with narcissism or even psychopathy. I call it the narcissistic psychopathic overlay.

You see, it's all interconnected. It's not so clear cut.

Empath, narcissist, this there. It's nonsense. The human mind is so multifaceted, so kaleidoscopic, so amazing, so malleable, so neuroplastic, the brain is so neuroplastic.

You can't say, I'm the victim, he's the abuser, and no story. It's not true. He did something to your empathy and you did something to his empathy. You do something to other victims when you interact with them in your state of mind. You reduce their empathy. You create an empathy free environment, actually we discovered.

Groups of people who had a negative, a common negative experience in such groups, empathy is much lower.

You don't have to believe me, go to any forum of self-styled empaths. I mean, they put to shame forums of narcissists and psychopaths.

Now, the next myth.

There is a belief that attention deficits and ADHD more specifically, they are forms of dissociation.

People say, abuse children, for example, dissociate. They want to forget the abuse. They want to repress the trauma. So they forget all kinds of things. They have a discontinuous existence.

And of course, I say the same and I have many videos dedicated to the connections between early childhood abuse, trauma, post-traumatic conditions, among which I number narcissistic personality disorder and borderline personality disorder. I think they're all interlinked.

However, dissociation does not cause attention deficit. It causes an improvement in attention. People who dissociate are much more attentive.

And so in my work, I speculate that abuse children failed to develop object constancy. Mother was not there for them or mother was very frightening or mother was very hostile or cold or detached or narcissistic, self-centered, selfish or mother forced the child to become a parent, parentified the child or she put the child as an instrument or she put him, idolized him, objectified him, whatever the reason may be, the child did not feel safe enough. The mother was not a safe base. She was a dead mother. So the child could not develop object constancy because he couldn't develop object constancy. He could not pay attention to a single object to another person. He had no training in paying attention to other people. He had no focus of attention, no proxies, but dissociation actually enhances attention. It also enhances multitasking capacity.

Think about it. You're a kid, you're a kid, you're playing at the corner. You have to divide your attention if you have an abusive mother. If you have a mother who can just storm into the room and beat the hell out of you or curse you or verbally abuse you or stand you up in the corner. If you have a mother who is a source of terror, a source of horror, a mother who is unsafe base, a mother who causes you nightmares in living daylights, if you have such a mother, you must divide your attention. You must have divided attention.

One part of your attention will be focused on playing the game, the toy, watching a cartoon on television. And the other part of your attention would be a mommy.

Is mommy coming? Is she angry? Is she depressed? Is she going to beat me up? Is she going to break my toys, tear my books, etc.

You must divide your attention.

So people with abused people, people who had been abused as children and developed dissociation actually have superior multitasking capacity and divided attention tasks.

There's a test called the Stroup. Stroup color word test. Stroup sounds like stormtroopers, like something from the Holocaust.

Okay. The Stroup color word test, S-C-W-T, it's a test we administer to people to see how attentive they are, how long they can maintain attention.

And we found using the Stroup test that high dissociators, people with high levels of dissociation, actually they are faster. I mean, they complete the test better.

The test is very clever. It shows you a color and there's a word describing the color, but the word is in another color. So they would show you the color blue and then there's a word blue, but the world is painted in green.

So there's a discrepancy between the color and the word that describes the color, because the word that describes the color is colored differently.

So people with high dissociation scored much better on these tests.

There's a study by Fried, F-R-E-Y-D, Maltovelo, Alvarado, Hayes and Christman. They sound like a gang in the wild west cattle rustlers. So this Gango 5 in 1998 discovered that there is no slowing of overall reaction time for people with high dissociation. There is a bit of something called Stroup interference. I'm not going into it, but generally there's no slowing down of reaction time.

The Prince and Fried, 1999, they discovered that high dissociators are worse in selective attention tasks, but much better in divided attention tasks, multitasking. Becker-Bliss, Fried and Piers in 2004 discovered that abuse leads to a distinctive attention style. When a child is abused, he develops a special attention style, the one that I mentioned a few minutes ago, but not ADHD, no ADHD for abused children with dissociation.

Delighter discovered that high dissociators are advantaged in both selective and divided attention. And finally, Dohay, Irwin and Middleton discovered that high dissociators are a bit slower, but there's no attention deficit.

So you see, it's an example of an intuition. Nine out of 10 people will tell you, well, if I constantly forget things, if I have to shut off things, if I have to repress things, if I have to ignore things in my environment, probably it will affect my attention badly. I will develop attention deficits. My attention span will be affected.

Wrong. Not true. Myth.

Let's go to the next myth, which has to do with me personally. This is therefore my favorite.

The myth is that IQ is distributed normally.

You also this, you also this, uh, famous graph. Yeah. This is called a Gaussian distribution or a normal distribution. Gauss was a mathematician in the 19th century and he discovered this distribution. Distribution simply means you have many, many numbers and you arrange them on a graph.

How's the graph going to look?

And a normal distribution is low numbers would be on a tail. High numbers would be on another tail and the vast majority of numbers would be in the middle.

So like the middle would be very tall and the left side and the right side, you will have a tail.

So if someone has an IQ of 50 probably is not watching this channel, but other channels. So if someone has IQ in IQ 50 would be on this tail, not, I mean, most people don't have an IQ of 50.

So he will never be in the middle would be on the tail. And if someone has an IQ of 190, it will also be on the tail.

Most people, thank God, don't have an IQ of 190.

So the majority of people, the big number of people would be in the middle. And so the middle would look like this.

Got it. Got it. That's called the normal distribution.

Here's the clinch. Here's the myth.

IQ is not distributed normally.

So why if you go online and you read articles and you read books about IQ and why everyone says IQ is distributed normally, like 67% of population have IQ between this and this, 39% of this.

I mean, why all this? Why do we have the shape?

We have the shape because the test results are tweaked.

Yes, we fake them. This faking has a very nice name because in academe, when we commit a crime or when we do something really, really unethical, we give it a name and the name is very highfalutin because the name is highfalutin. It makes us feel good with ourselves and it deceives everyone outside our arcane club.

So what we do with IQ test results, we fake them. We tweak them. We change them. We make them fit.

Listen well. We make them fit the predetermined shape, the normal distribution.

And this mathematical technique is called standardization. We standardize the test to fit a Gaussian distribution.

In other words, first we decide how IQ results should be distributed and then we shoehorn, we push, we pull, we change, we reframe, we fake a bit, you know, for the numbers to fit our preconceived notions.

If we were not to standardize the test results, we would have had two huge tails and a very, very small bump in the middle, which is reminiscent of the sexual performance of some narcissists I know. So we would have a huge tail here and a huge tail here.

In other words, many more people have much higher IQs than we give them credit for.

I have 190 IQ. This has been repeatedly established in tests over 20 years, three types of tests.

So it's probably true.

According to the Gaussian distribution, there are only eight other people in the world with this IQ. It's so extremely rare.

But of course it's nonsense. It's nonsense because it's not the result of the IQ test. It's not reality. It's the outcome of the standardization of the testing results. We convert them to normal distribution and we change the difficulty of the question and we use the raw test scores as output scores and we fit them into a normal distribution.

We use something called Z-test and we have a null hypothesis for those of you who are into mathematics. So we have a null hypothesis and we have standard deviations within a Z-test and then we apply the Z-test and we flatten the curve in effect.

Actually we don't flatten the curve, we curve the flat. So we curve the flatland.

So actually what I'm trying to say, most people have much higher IQs than we think and of course much lower IQs than we think. The majority of people have much lower IQs than we think.

Just look around you. And much higher IQs than we think.

I took a raw dump of IQ test results admittedly from the 1940s and 50s. It doesn't matter. This was Stanford-Binet. It is no longer used and is very prejudiced, very problematic but this is all I had.

I took these results and I denormalized them. I made a renormalization but without standardization, without assumptions concerning standard deviation and so forth.

And it seems that about 10 to 15% of the population, if we were not faking the results, 10 to 15% of the population have an IQ higher than 124. At least 10 to 15%.

I mean there would have been an added 10 to 15%. They would have moved, they would have shifted from the middle to this day.

Similarly of course, something like 30% would have shifted to the left.

Now many people are not going to like this result and perhaps this is the reason that we are still falsifying IQ tests because it would have been tremendously, to use a Trumpian word, it would have been tremendously politically incorrect had we looked at the numbers in the face.

Why?

Because a typical chimpanzee has 50 to 60 IQ. An adult chimpanzee has the IQ of 5-year-old. And not pleasant to say so does one-third of the human population.

If we don't play with the test results, if we don't fake them via standardization, z-testing, normalization, standard deviation and many other statistical games we play.

I think there's a lot of political correctness, fake science, pseudoscience. That's why IQ tests are highly unreliable. They reflect absolutely statistical assumptions that adhere to social, societal mores and values which are very period specific.

They do not reflect reality. People with 190 IQ are much more common. They're way more than 8 people with 190 IQ.

If you're interested in the number, about a thousand. And people with 60 and 50 IQ, the exact equivalent of a chimpanzee, many, many, many more than you know.

Who wants to hear that?

Next myth, positive psychology works.

Everyone tells you, everyone in this talk are telling you, if you experience a negative emotion, angry, you're sad, you're grieving, you're afraid, fake a smile. Fake a smile, cover up your emotions.

Well, research is dead set against it. I'm referring you to an article titled, Negative Emotions, Key to Wellbeing, Negative Emotions, Key to Wellbeing, published in Scientific American. It shows that if you suppress your emotions, you raise your stress level and it causes you to dwell on the negative emotions for much longer.

If you accept your negative emotions and express them at the moment, make peace with them, embrace them, accept them as part of yourself. They go away, they go away fast.

There was a TED talk by Harvard psychologist Amy Cuddy and she shared a piece of research and she said that if you power pose, if you stand or sit with your body as expanded as possible, shoulders back, you know, superwoman pose and so on, it lowers your stress hormones, increases your testosterone, the power hormone and makes you look and feel more confident.

Jordan Peterson picked up on it and included this piece of advice as I think the first rule in his book, the 12 Rules. He has written a book, 12 Rules for Life, Antidote to Chaos. I think this is rule number one, pull your shoulders back. Pull your shoulders back, you get a hormonal boost, you look much more confident, you're going to conquer the world and end up betting the most beautiful girl in the room.

Wonderful advice. Unfortunately, totally wrong. In 2015, a group of researchers replicated Amy Cuddy's study. They used five times as many participants. They couldn't find the hint of a clue, of a shadow, of an indication that her results are real. Not only valid, but real.

There is very strong suspicion that she and her colleagues either made a massive error in interpreting the results or much worse, they faked the results, they manipulated the data to yield a statistically significant result.

Peterson has must rewrite the first rule because it's based on faulty signs, probably fake and false results.

The next myth, opposites attract. It's a myth that when you're dating, you're likely to be attracted to people who are very different from you.

I can't tell you. I can begin to tell you what mountain ranges and continents of research there are to dispute this. It's completely, utterly, unmitigatedly untrue. Not a single word is true.

I refer you to psychologicalscience.org. They have a section called myths where they summarize research for this particular myth.

The opposite is true. We are drawn to a potential partner who are similar to us. Similarity also guarantees long term, the longevity of the relationship. The success of the relationship depends crucially on how similar you are. The more similar you are, the more things you agree on, the more communication preferences you share, the more hobbies, the more avocations, the more common activities, the more you bring up the children, the more you agree on money, etc. The more similar you are, the longer your relationship.

This is one of these myths that had destroyed 50% of American marriages. People were looking for opposites.

He completes me. We had two parts of one. He is my better half, is my different half. This is nonsense. You must look for someone with your echo, who is your mirror, who is your reflection, who is you with other genitalia in case you're heterosexual.

There's another myth like this. Cohabitation before marriage, if you share premises, if you live together before marriage, your marriage will last longer. The more you get to know someone before you get married, the more your marriage is guaranteed to last, right?

Wrong.

Cohabitation is totally correlated with divorce. The longer, the longer you have known your partner, the longer you have known your partner, the longer you have dated your partner, and especially the longer you have cohabited, lived together with your partner before marriage, the more it predicts your divorce. Higher divorce rates are intimately correlated with lack of intimacy before marriage. The less you know your partner, the less time you spend with him, and if you've never lived with him, never shared living quarters with him, then your marriage will succeed. Marriages founded on matchmaking last much longer, far more stable than love-based unions.

You see, most of what we think we know about dating relationships, marriages, is wrong. Our ancestors, forefathers, great-great-great-great-grandfathers like me, we knew better. We knew to tell you, don't date. Don't live with him. It's not okay to have sex before marriage. Let us find for you the right partner.

These are all excellent advices if, if your main concern is to have a long, productive relationship, marriage for life. If your concern is just to have fun, which is legitimate, then these factors are not relevant.

Next myth, the more people you put together, the more creative they become. Brainstorming is a guarantee for creativity and creative solutions. After months, or as I love to say, Boulder Dash and Bladder Dash, according to the American Institute of Graphic Arts and a million other research institutions, if you brainstorm in groups, you are less creative and the group is less creative. And the number of solutions and the quality of solutions is much lower. This is because of three reasons.

One is called anchoring. Anchoring is a cognitive bias.

When we begin to consider other options, we suddenly realize that we have a solution of our own by contrast.

When we consider other people's solutions and ideas, we realize that we have our own solutions of ideas and we get anchored like the anchor of a ship and we get stuck.

We get stuck on our ideas and our solutions and our way of doing things.

And everyone gets stuck on their ideas and they think these are the best ideas and all the others are stupid.

And they fail to come up, they fail to negotiate, they fail to cope.

I mean, it creates very bad dynamic.

Groups are very bad places to hatch creative way forward.

The second effect is groupthink.

Groupthink simply means that peer pressure, intentional peer pressure, body language peer pressure, peer pressure mediated via body language, peer pressure that is circumstantial.

Something happens outside the group that affects all the members of the group simultaneously.

All these cause members of the group to think the same way.

And when everyone begins to think the same way, they verbalize it, you are very afraid to think differently.

It prevents unique ideas from being heard or spoken aloud.

There's pressure on you to conform, to join in, to fit in, not to rock the boat.

And the third reason that groups are very bad places as hatcheries or wombs is pressure.

In groups, you feel that you are being tested, that you're being observed.

This is precisely the reason why it's an exceedingly bad idea to introduce cameras into courtrooms.

You feel that you have to come up with a good idea on the spot.

And everyone around you want to do the same.

They want to impress.

It becomes about impressing rather than communicating.

It becomes totally grandiose and narcissistic.

It puts incredible pressure on some people.

And then they can think.

Stress levels and anxiety levels in groups are much higher, by the way, than alone.

Next myth, left brain, right brain.

No such thing, of course. The brain is totally redundant.

Every part of the brain can replicate every other part of the brain.

If tomorrow you lose half your brain, the other half will take over, usually without too much of a problem.

We have had numerous such cases in wars, accidents, babies born with half brain, most extreme case had something like 10% of his brain.

The brain is redundant. Everything happens in multiple locations. There are copies of copies of copies of functions, copies of content, copies of memories, and ultimately a copy of your entire identity.

There is no dominant sign. It's totally false.

I refer you to Lifescience.com. There's an article there, Left Brain, Right Brain Myth, where they summarize the research.

Everyone uses both sides of the brains equally and equal time.

And the only thing that is true, the only thing that is true is that certain abilities and capacities, for example, speech, they are more located in one hemisphere, for example, speech is more located in the speech processing language, is more located in the left side of the brain.

Visual processing, which also is linked to artistic and plastic arts, creative efforts, that's more on the right side.

But here's the glitch in the I'm-nicked-in- the- niche.

The two sides communicate all the time. There's like a zillion connections between the parts.

And they hand over functions all the time.

So while maybe the language center, Broca, there's an area called Broca, which is central.

But many of the language functions are in outside Broca's area, in the left hemisphere.

But when you talk, when you talk, there's a huge amount of traffic and communication with the right side of your brain.

And many language functions and speech functions are temporarily transferred to the right side.

For example, if you have to talk about some visual, about some image or photo, you can't, there's no such thing. Language is in the left. Language, it's like the cockpit in an airplane. You can't say the cockpit is this and the airplane is this. They're intricately, intimately connected. They're one and the same.

The brain is a single, unitary entity. Everything works on everything all the time. All functions are carried on both sides all the time. A million pathways, like under the Senate in the United States, they have these underground, enormous kilometer long corridors. It's the same. Capitol Hill, I mean, you extensively Congress of the Senate, you know, they're all connected. It's all one thing.

Midlife crisis, next myth.

In reality, there's no such thing. In a study published in a series of studies published and summarized by NPR on the 14th of March 2016, go to the archive of NPR. You will see a great summary and it's titled forget the red sports car.

So to cut a long story short, our studies show that only about 10% of the population suffer a crisis in midlife. This crisis is connected to specific events like parents dying or losing your job or divorcing or your wife cheating or something. It's not a crisis because you have reached a milestone or a certain age. It's a crisis because something happened.

And then if you divide life into decades, every decade has crisis.

Ask any adolescent, ask any child, ask anyone 20 years old who's dating, every decade in life.

And Gail, she wrote the book, New Passages to Say Exactly This, That Every Decade Has Its Own Set of Crises

So isolating a specific decade and saying, well, that's a crisis.

It's nonsense because the attributes of the midlife crisis are wrong. Not true. We couldn't find them in studies.

People who are going through their fifties and sixties and forties and fifties, they're supposed, for example, to be much more afraid of death or they're supposed to redirect their view instead of forward and backward. Like they're reviewing their lives rather than looking for none of this. We couldn't find a hint or a trace of any of these fables and confabulations. They're wrong. They're not true.

Actually, most of the crises in the forties and fifties, in ones, forties and fifties, most of the crises, multiple have to do with the reasons I mentioned. We all undergo challenges and we all do the stereotypical midlife crisis things, but it's not a coherent or cohesive syndrome set of cognitions and emotions.

The next myth is personality and IQ are stable in adulthood. That's absolutely untrue. Even personality disorders change. Personality disorders are supposed to be rigid structures. That's the definition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual, rigid structures of personality, but they're not rigid. For example, 50% of all people diagnosed with borderline personality disorder lose their disorder after age 45. There can no longer be diagnosed.

For instance, most of the antisocial behaviors of psychopaths disappear after age 40. Antisocial behavior ameliorates in psychopaths, starting with the fifth decade of life.

The only structure that is totally rigid and almost doesn't change ever is narcissist. Narcissistic personality disorder is the only case I am aware of where there is no discernible change between age 20 and age 60.

The psychodynamic landscape is identical. The reason is the narcissist does not exist. There's no personality, no self. It's a piece of fiction. It's a story.

And like War and Peace, it never changes. And like Gun with the Wind, the movie, it never changes. A work of art is forever the Sistine Chapel, the Last Supper, Mona Lisa, they're stuck. They never change.

So narcissistic personality disorder is a piece of fiction. It's a work of art. It's a literary creation. It's a piece of literature. It's a novel.

Of course it doesn't change, but all others do change.

In a study published in July, in the July, August, 2003, American Psychiatric Association newsletter, page 14, they took personality data from 133,000 people. Good enough for you as a sample, I should hope.

And they found that personality changes all the time over the entire lifespan.

People, for example, become more agreeable, more willing to cooperate with others as they age.

By the way, another myth, the myth of the traculant, irritable, irascible old men. Actually, old men are far more agreeable than young men and far more cooperative.

Number two, women become less neurotic, less emotionally sensitive and emotionally dysregulated as they age, which would explain why BPD borderline actually disappears.

Number four, every men and women become less open, less eager and willing to try new experiences as they age.

All the people are far more conservative.

And number four, conscientiousness, work ethic, detail orientation increases with age.

The best workers are old people.

Examples of how personality changes, these are fundamental things. These are factors in personality and they change.

And the bonus, the mother of old myths, to paraphrase my favorite classmates, Saddam Hussein, we use only 10% of our brain capacity.

This myth began in the late 19th century. A group of wannabe psychologists, because psychology was a proto wannabe science, a group of researchers compared the learning abilities and accomplishments of a child prodigy to the average person.

And they found that child prodigies are much more intellectually stimulated than the average block, which I don't know why they invited to make the experience.

I mean, a child prodigy is a prodigy because he is much more intellectually stimulated.

Yeah. It's like saying that they discovered that both men and women breathe air.

Anyhow, this amazing earth shattering discovery was generalized and expanded in the 1900s.

When other researchers who did not understand how the brain functions, we still don't understand how the brain function and don't let anyone tell you otherwise.

We have no idea, no blue idea how the brain functions or any part of the brain or any neuron or neurotransmitters or anything whatsoever.

We are at the stage of cataloging. We are cataloging. We are cataloging pathways. We are cataloging biochemistry, biochemicals. We're just cataloging. We know nothing about the brain.

And at that time, they knew even less, a lot less.

So these psychologists, researchers who knew nothing about the brain, but were sufficiently grandiose, hubristic and arrogant to say that they did, they noticed that many parts of people's brains appeared inactive.

So they said, ah, well, the difference between prodigies and regular people is that prodigies are using more of the brain and regular people are using less of the brain.

And they gave the number 10%.

By the way, totally arbitrary. No foundation to this number.

They just gave the number 10%.

Well, sorry to tell you, it's utterly wrong.

Modern research, a bit more modern, like 100 years later.

And I refer you to the article, do people use only 10% of their brains published in Scientific American?

Modern research shows that throughout the day, we use, hold your breath, 100% of what you have.

Now it's very true that the majority of you don't have much, but whatever it is you have, you use 100%.

Throughout the course of the day, notice at any given moment, you may use 10% or 20 or two.

But when you look at the entirety of the day, 24 hours, use every corner, nook and cranny, every cell, every neuron, every synapse, every axon, everything, 100%.

Everything is used, every part, every function.

So while the sections that control essential processes, breathing, autonomous functions, senses, these sections are active nonstop.

Other parts, I don't know, parts that are responsible for language, fear response, fear response is what you have when you're watching my videos.

Problem solving, all these are activated only when necessary. So they're not always active.

Normally, why would they be always active?

It's like your apartment, you know, you get up in the morning, you go to the toilet. At that moment, only 2% of your apartment is active. The toilet, I don't know what you're doing there. I don't want to know. Please don't go into details in the comment section.

But then you exit the toilet and go to the kitchen, you make coffee.

Oh, the kitchen is a bit bigger. That's 5% of your apartment. Then you go throughout your apartment. Throughout the day, you circulate every corner of your apartment.

So 100% of your apartment is active and depends on your lifestyle.

Of course, in some people, most parts will be more active than others, but all parts are active in all people.

We make full use of all the abilities in our brains, those of us who have them.

So this was today's video. And I hope you had great fun. And I promise to pass on the message to Campbell and to Kernberg that they have no idea what is narcissism and they should really learn from poachers online and others. And it's never too late to start. I mean, in his eighties, nineties, he's still a young kid. It's never too late to start.

And I'll put him in touch with some of the experts there. I'm sure they will put him on the straight and narrow. They will fix his thinking.

And Campbell should stop with his idiotic experiments because he got narcissism completely wrong, says the woman who wrote to me.

Bloody hell. Who am I talking to?

Okay, kiddos and kiddettes, go drink something, go to the toilet, relieve yourselves.

And I know I created a lot of negative emotionality. Do not punch a punching bag. Punch me next time you see me in a seminar after the pandemic, AC, BC before Corona, AD after distancing.

And in between the BC and the AD, yet another Jew, not Jesus this time, Sam Vaknin, much better looking with much fewer holes where it counts.