Home
Artists
Search Recent Random
Posts
Search DMs Popular Hash Lookup Tags Random
Importer
Import FAQ
Register
Partychan Telegram Live Sex ThePornDude
Home Artists Posts Import Register

False Accusation, Social Media Self Harm, Attachment Parenting, and Nocebo (Patreon)

Published:
2023-05-10 14:00:06
Imported:
2024-02

Downloads

Content

Dr Kirk Honda answers patron emails.


00:00 Duty to warn circumstances

08:32 Peer influence of self-harm

15:22 Finding attachment security

22:41 Parentified in adulthood

24:04 Distorting avoidance

38:43 OPP

40:20 Explaining attachment theory to others

48:40 Nocebo-ing listeners & treating attachment injuries


False Accusation, Social Media Self Harm, Attachment Parenting, and Nocebo

Become a patron: https://www.patreon.com/PsychologyInSeattle

Email: https://www.psychologyinseattle.com/contact

Website: https://www.psychologyinseattle.com

Merch: https://teespring.com/stores/psychology-in-seattle

Cameo: https://www.cameo.com/kirkhonda

Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/psychologyinseattle/

Facebook Official Page: https://www.facebook.com/PsychologyInSeattle/

TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@kirk.honda

May 10, 2023

The Psychology In Seattle Podcast ®

Trigger Warning: This episode may include topics such as assault, trauma, and discrimination. If necessary, listeners are encouraged to refrain from listening and care for their safety and well-being.

Disclaimer: The content provided is for educational, informational, and entertainment purposes only. Nothing here constitutes personal or professional consultation, therapy, diagnosis, or creates a counselor-client relationship. Topics discussed may generate differing points of view. If you participate (by being a guest, submitting a question, or commenting) you must do so with the knowledge that we cannot control reactions or responses from others, which may not agree with you or feel unfair. Your participation on this site is at your own risk, accepting full responsibility for any liability or harm that may result. Anything you write here may be used for discussion or endorsement of the podcast. Opinions and views expressed by the host and guest hosts are personal views. Although, we take precautions and fact check, they should not be considered facts and the opinions may change. Opinions posted by participants (such as comments) are not those of the hosts. Readers should not rely on any information found here and should perform due diligence before taking any action. For a more extensive description of factors for you to consider, please see www.psychologyinseattle.com

Files

Comments

Anonymous

Heehee, I giggled at the consensual podcast hug because I was on the bus 😅 He knows…

SeattleTransAndNonbinary ChoralEnsemble

Regarding question #1- The most challenging thing about duty to warn situations in my experience is that for every overt and clear threat, there are 10+ veiled threats worded in a way as to have plausible deniability. We clearly have duty to warn if a client says “I’m gonna kill that bitch” or pulls up their shirt hem showing a handgun while they say “just saying don’t be surprised if he ends up with lead poisoning” but if they say “guys like that have a way of getting what they deserve” or “once the court hears what I have to tell them I’ll get full custody for sure” is that just someone musing on the concept of karma or an indication that they plan on being the agent of karma? Before we see how it plays out we also just assess if it is a threat, is it a threat of physical violence or could they not just as easily be planning some other form of more passive aggressive retaliation? The consequences of taking something that’s not a serious threat too seriously could be damaged rapport with the client, but the consequences of accusing someone of making a false report (see the book by that name or the Netflix ‘unbelievable’ an adaptation of it) when there actually IS abuse happening can be far more dire, and the latter is more likely to result in malpractice. regarding later questions: when the child is an adult, how do you distinguish (pathological) parentification from genuine dependency based on cognitive or physical decline? Many of us will become our parent’s caregivers someday, it’s not an unhealthy role reversal but a simple fact of life, and unless they are intentionally malingering for secondary gain or it’s the continuation of a pattern already established for many decades it seems to me that a parent who suddenly becomes extremely needy in adulthood out of nowhere is likely to be suffering from undiagnosed dementia rather than engaging in parentification.