The main insight of psychoanalysis has been and is that we are our worst enemies, for three reasons. Number one, we are the only ones with unfettered access to our own consciousness. Number two, we are capable of self-deceit, which is the topic of today's video. Again, number three, and this is the most important one, no external enemy can be as pernicious, virulent, vindictive, and damaging as we can. We can and very often become self-destructive, self-defeating, self-harming, and self-trashing to extremists. Suicide comes to mind and suicidal ideation. This insight of psychoanalysis, that there is a civil war within, and it is the permanent state of being human, underlies all of modern psychology, even those who disparage psychoanalysis. Because we know now that therapy, psychotherapy, is a way to provide us with this exact insight. How we undermine ourselves, how we deceive ourselves, and how we can stop doing both. Psychological defense mechanisms are widely thought to be the main instruments of self-deceit. As we shall see later in this video, it's not entirely true, but it is largely true. Many traces, a fascinating question. Question of evolution. Why would evolution allow for self-deception? Why would evolution let us misperceive reality? Isn't this detrimental to survival? It's an evolutionary conundrum, and we will try to solve it. Now, we are not, I'm not the first one, Freud was not the first one, to suggest that man is capable of self-deceit. Go back to Demosthenes, in 349 BC, when he wrote, nothing is more easy than to deceive oneself. What a man wishes, he generally believes to be true. And of course, a woman too. Jean-Jacques Rousseau, the great lover of humanity, the father of the noble savage, wrote, nature never deceives us, it is always we who deceive ourselves. My name is Saint-Vakny, and I'm the author of Malignan self-love, Narcissism Revisited and former visiting professor of psychology. Defense mechanisms were first described by Freud, Anna Freud, reminds me of Bond, James Bond.  Defensive organization is the totality of the defensive processes, including the defense mechanisms operating within the ego of a particular individual. And that of course tells you that there are many other forms of defenses. At the time, Freud suggested that there is something called defensive neurosis or neurosis of defense, which I will not go into right now. By the way, the word for defense in German is abwehr, which was the intelligence arm of the Wehrmacht during the Second World War. This is how German psychology is. Now defenses are not pathologies. I repeat because it's going to shock many of you. Psychological defense mechanisms are not pathological, although they can be psychogenic. They can lead to a pathology. Defense mechanisms feature in many etiopathologies, but they in themselves are actually adaptive They help us to somehow survive in a reality which is often unbearable, intolerable and threatening. Like everything else in human psychology, defense mechanisms can go awry. They can become pathologized, they can become rigid, over-generalized, extensive, age-inappropriate, and generally maladaptive. If they do, or when they do, they interfere with other ego functions, most notably, reality testing. So as they are, defense mechanisms are actually forms of adaptation. And what is positive adaptation, and what is the role of defense mechanisms? The main role of defenses is to separate internal reality from external reality. Think of defense mechanisms as an anti-virus program or a firewall or an anti-malware program. The defenses make sure that the interface between internal reality and external reality is minimized in order to avoid conflict, real dangers, interpersonal failures, and anxiety. Defense mechanisms, therefore, are anxiolytic. Their main function is to reduce anxiety.  In the vast majority of people, internal reality is a space populated by uncontrollable instincts and impulses and drives, by pain, hurt, guilt, shame, fear, and anxiety. Internal space is seething with what we call negative affectivity and ego-distony. If we were to let the internal environment interact, unbridled, unfiltered with the external reality, we would have had mayhem and chaos. It would have been very dangerous for the individual, because if you don't control your impulses, if you are reckless and defined and conjured, in essence, if you are psychopathic, you end badly. There are bad consequences for your actions. Similarly, if you are driven and struck by pain and guilt and shame and fear, you are very unlikely to function appropriately or properly in your environment. Your self-efficacy is likely to be reduced and you are going to end up failing or defeated or punished somehow. So they are real dangers here. The aim of psychological defense mechanisms is to prevent this conflict with a human environment and inanimate environment, to protect the individual from the real dangers attendant upon the exercise of impulsive instincts and drives, to somehow disguise or mask or paper over or gloss over interpersonal failures lest they wreck relationships irrevocably and, as I said, to reduce anxiety. So we can already see that defenses are dissociative in nature. There's a close affinity between defense mechanisms, psychological defense mechanisms and dissociation. They leverage dissociation or incorporate dissociation many times. And yes, the word is dissociation, not disassociation, okay, self-styled experts, not disassociation. Okay, now, what about people who are pathologized to start with? For example, what about narcissists? The narcissist, for example, doesn't have a functioning ego at all. According to Anna Freud and many other scholars, which I will be quoting in this video, the residence of defense mechanisms is in the ego, or at the very least, they collaborate with the ego somehow. But the narcissist doesn't have a functioning ego. Consequently, he has only what we call primitive defenses. In a minute, I will elaborate on the various levels of defenses, the hierarchy of defenses. Similarly, borderline have a functional ego, as distinct from the narcissists. But their defenses are either primitive or compromise as well. In both cases, narcissists and borderlines, we are faced with a situation of an absence of mid-range and higher order or higher level defenses. And the reason, of course, is the stunted growth, what used to be called the arrested development of narcissists and borderlines, because defenses evolve with age. They are age-appropriate. Splitting is appropriate to the ages of six months to 36 months. Other defenses develop in adolescence and even in young adulthood. If you don't grow, you are not allowed to separate, to individuate, to develop personhood as self, or at least a coherent assemblage of self-states. If you're not allowed to traverse the trajectory of self-development and self-growth because of bad parenting or adverse childhood experiences, then you are not likely to develop mid-level and higher-level defenses. You're likely to remain stuck with the defenses of infancy and toddlerhood. And this is what we're dealing with, narcissists and borderlines, our kids, their children. Defenses it's important to reiterate are not only defenses. They play a role in the normal psychic structure formation. For example, Freud considered justly that introjection is a form of defense. I will not go into why right now. But he was right, suffice it to say that he was right, and his view was widely adopted later by the object relations schools, starting with Melanie Klein and so on. But introjection leads to the enrichment of the ego, and especially the superego according to psychoanalytic theories. And so introjection is a good thing, and yet it is a defense. Remember this, defenses are normal. They help you to develop a structural formation which is functional, healthy and good for the rest of your life. This is the problem with narcissists and borderlines. They don't have the defenses needed in order to evolve and to create the inner structures which get integrated into what is called the self. They don't, narcissists doesn't have an ego to start with. So narcissists and borderline have a shattered, ruined, inner environment, and it is this way because they don't have age-appropriate corresponding defenses because they never get to grow up. The contents of what is being defended against, what do defense mechanisms do? I mentioned that they dissociate. Freud used to call it early on censorship. They censor. My sister used to be the chief censor of the Israeli army, by the way. So I know a thing or two about censorship. They censor information. What kind of information? According to all thinkers and scholars involved in the study of defense mechanisms, defenses filter out unpleasurable experiences, experiences which if they were to reach consciousness, they would have made you feel bad, egodistonic, uncomfortable, even threatened. These unpleasurable experiences contradict the normative part of the personality, the superego. Conscience. You have a conscience. This is exactly this kind of problem. The conscience is a cluster of introjects, which is so powerful, so ingrained by other process of socialization, that it overcomes our defenses. And when content from the conscience reaches consciousness, we feel bad. We feel bad for something we have done. It's an unpleasant experience. Now normally, defenses, the defenses would have blocked this information.  You misbehave. You shouldn't have done it. They would have blocked this kind of information. But the conscience augmented by socialization agents like parents, peers, teachers, society itself, and morality and religion. The conscience is too strong for the defense mechanisms. So we have an example here. What happens when defense mechanisms are disabled, inactivated, disempowered? We feel really, really bad. So they block unpleasurable information because it contradicts our morality, our conscience, our superego. Or because they are representative of these thoughts, these ideas, these wishes. They're representative of wishes whose fulfillment would be dangerous to the individual or to the ego in the course of experience because of inevitable punishment. Let me repeat this. The defense mechanisms block several types of information. Number one, information that contravenes conflicts with the superego and with our conscience. Number two, information or actually wishes, drives, impulses, instincts that if we were to act on, if we were to act upon these, if we were to realize our wishes, we would have ended up being punished, sanctioned, in danger, threatened. So the defense mechanisms, when they come across an instinctual wish, a drive, an urge, they block it. They block it because it's socially unacceptable or even criminal, punishable. This is the role of defenses. This is why narcissists, borderlines, let alone psychopaths, they have no impulse control because they have no age-appropriate adult defenses. They are in direct contact with their instincts, urges and drives, and these overpower them, force them to act regardless of consequences. When there is no dividing line, when there's no partition between the id, the seed, the seed of instincts and urges and drives and wishes, when there's no partition between the id and the ego, and this partition is the defense mechanisms. When there are no defense mechanisms insulating the ego and reality from the id, when there are no defense mechanisms which prevent us from acting on our crazy, demented, antisocial drives and wishes and instincts, urges, then we end up badly. We pay the consequences for our actions. Now the ego knows this, and that's why it prevents us from misbehaving. In the case of narcissists, there's no ego. In the case of borderline, borderlines, there is an ego, but there are no defenses. So the ego is in direct touch with the id. In narcissism, there's only the id. In effect, there's only the id. In borderline, there's an ego which is not protected from the id, not insulated from the id, and therefore under the sway of the id, and very often overtaken by the id. It's a kind of invasion. So defenses are unconscious. They are unconscious because they stem from a conflict between the drive and the ego between perception or representation and moral imperatives. Our memories, our fantasies, our wishes, our drives, our instincts, our urges are always negated by morality, by social mores and conventions. The ego is there to enforce them using the defense mechanisms. In the unconscious, as a tool of repression, indeed initially Zygmunt Freud suggested that all defense, that repression is the only defense. Only much later, he came around to his daughter's view that defenses are actually myriad, but for a very long time he believed that only repression is a defense. And so defenses reflect an internal working model. Defenses have content. They are not only algorithms, they are not only action oriented, they are containers of content. What is the content? The content is, you are potentially a very bad person. I need to protect you from yourself. So defense mechanisms reflect an internal working model of a bad object. I'm going to repeat this because it's a bit revolutionary. Defense mechanisms represent the belief, the reify the belief within the system, within the ego system, reify the belief that all human beings are bad objects, left to their own devices, they are immoral, they are dangerous, they engage, they are risk-seeking, they are thrill-seeking, they are defiant.  There's an internal working model that says, in the absence of a controlling, domineering ego, in the absence of filtering, censoring, repressing, and suppressing defense mechanisms, in the absence of these two, you're going to be a really, really bad person.  You're going to catastrophically fail.  You need to be protected from yourself. This is the message. This is the message of the defense mechanisms and the ego. And that means that in narcissism, where the ego is gone, has never formed.  In narcissism, therefore, what is left is the internal working model, I am a bad object. Now, I need to compensate for this by pretending that I'm a good object. This is the narcissist dilemma. That's his conundrum. That's the trap he's in. Deep inside, he believes himself to be a bad object. He has what Adler called inferiority complex, shame, a huge reservoir of life-threatening shame, Morrison. Deep inside, and narcissism is a child's way, an infantile way of compensating for this, of showing to the world a false self, which is all good. It's a self-splitting defense. It's among the few surviving defenses of the narcissists, and splitting is inwardly directed. The narcissist splits himself. So splitting is one of the surviving mechanisms, and the narcissist uses splitting to split himself. Internally he is all bad, externally he is all good. A similar process happens with borderlines. They have a functioning ego, but their defenses are so primitive, and one of the very few surviving defenses with borderlines is splitting, so the borderline splits herself. Internally she's all good, externally she's all bad. The narcissist embeds inside and good outside, borderline and good inside embed outside, self-splitting among the few defenses left to these pathological personality organizations. And so the existence of defense mechanisms reflects a model of a bad object, and to avoid ego-dystonic, conscious contact with the bad object, the defenses remain unconscious. So what I'm proposing here is an explanation why defenses are unconscious and not conscious. I will recap it for you. I know it's very difficult material. It's very difficult material because some of the things I'm saying are very new. What does the ego say? The ego says, I need to protect you from yourself. I mean, I'm the reality principle.  That's the message of the ego. The defense mechanisms are the instruments of the ego, they're the tools of the ego to enforce discipline, to introduce reality in a way that will modify behavior and prevent from acting on impulses and instincts and drives and urges. So there is a very dictatorial system, authoritarian system intended to control the bad object. If the defenses were conscious, then we would have been in touch with our own bad object because the defenses interface with the bad object. The defenses hold the bad object at bay. The defenses insulate and isolate the bad object. They fight back the bad object. They conflict with the bad object. So if they were conscious, we would have become aware of our own bad object.  Simply. So to avoid this, to protect us from our own internal bad object, the defenses remain unconscious and the whole process of interaction with the bad object remains mercifully unconscious, to effect reality, to effect reality and to render it ego congruent. Defenses operate only via behaviors. So we know that defenses exist because we observe behaviors that cannot be explained otherwise. In short, defense mechanisms are a theoretical figment, an abstract or obstruction. They account for many behaviors and so probably they exist. I recommend that you watch my video on IPAM, the Intra-Psychic Activation Model. OK. So we figured out why the defenses are unconscious. It is in order to isolate us from the bad object inside and to prevent us from becoming suicide. Autophonical in 1945 suggested a classification of defense mechanisms. He said that some of them are successful and others are unsuccessful. Successful defense mechanisms allow for the expression of the instinctual drive so they never lead to neurosis. An example of successful defense mechanisms are repressive inhibitions. Repressive inhibitions are not neurotic. Let me try to explain this to Lehmann. You remember that the aim of the defenses is to prevent the instincts from being translated into action. So the defenses make sure that the instincts remain wishes but are never acted or rarely acted on. So because the defenses repress instincts, don't allow drives and urges to manifest and to be converted into behavior because that's dangerous. Because the defenses are preoccupied with this role, they create pathology. This pathology is known as neurosis. But some defenses do allow instincts and drives, instinctual drives and urges and wishes. They do allow them to be expressed. They provide alternative modes of expression. These are known as sublimations or sublimatory channels. The defense comes to the instinct and says, hello instinct, how are we today? And said, I'm grumpy, I can't express myself and it's all because of you. This is coercive control, I'm going to report you to the police.  I have a proposition for you, I have a proposal for you. Okay, says the instinct, what do you have in mind? And the defense mechanism says, listen, I know that you wish to do A, I know that you wish to do something A, but A is very dangerous to the individual, it's very dangerous to us. If you act on your impulse, if you express the instinctual drive, if you fulfill the wish and gratify the urge, you're going to end up in prison or dead. Not a good idea, but I have a way for you to express yourself and your wishes. That is socially acceptable, write a book, for example. And so if you do this, you will feel fully gratified and satisfied, and society will even applaud you and load you for your efforts, you will be commended rather than condemned.  I'm going to embark on writing a book, write this very minute. And this is the process of sublimation. Sublimation converts socially unacceptable instinctual drives and urges us on and wishes into socially acceptable activities. So these kinds of defenses are successful because they prevent pathology, they prevent neurosis. But the vast majority of defenses are actually unsuccessful. They simply block the drive and they have to be in operation all the time 24-7. Because if the defense mechanism were to go to sleep, the drive, the instinctual drive would take over and make you do horrible, delightful things. You don't want that. You don't want that because you will be punished, Freud called it, the castration. You'll be castrated, at least metaphorically speaking. So you don't want this to happen to you. And so these kinds of defenses, the unsuccessful defenses, are on watch all the time 24-7, 60 seconds a minute. Does this remind you of something? Yes, personality disorders, mood disorders, anxiety disorders, they can be amply described as clusters of unsuccessful defenses protecting against a bad object inside, which is affiliated with socially condemnable and socially sanctioned and punishable instinctual drives and urges and wishes. Now, defense mechanisms are organized in a hierarchy and I recommend that you, for those of you who want to go deeper, I recommend that you study the works of Trauer and Chadwick, Kalati, Perry, especially Perry and Bond, Bernie and Chioca. These are the authorities on defense mechanisms. Perry and Bond in 2017 suggested a hierarchy of defenses, three levels, seven levels I think, but three straight up, three layers of defenses.  They maximize gratification and they allow relatively good conscious awareness of feelings, ideas, and behavior related consequences. In short, they are ego aligned. They are definitely ego-coherent and ego-cohesive, ego-coherent, but they're also ego aligned. They are so integrated with ego that frankly it's very difficult to differentiate between them, these defenses and the ego. So all defense mechanisms are fought to protect the individual from anxiety. As I said, but the mature defenses do not threaten interpersonal relationships and don't distort reality in order to become anxiolytic, in order to avoid anxiety or reduce or mitigate. The price paid for reducing anxiety is very, very minimal. Now, there's an intermediate level of neurotic defense mechanisms. When they function to keep distressing thought content, cognitions out of awareness, they involve minimal reality distortion as opposed to the mature ones. The mature ones don't. The less mature ones and neurotic ones involve reality distortion. Now the lowest level of defenses, they are maladaptive or immature or primitive defenses, usually originating in very, very, very early childhood, up to age 36 months and some of them even before the age of six months. So these defenses act through strong reality distortion or even total detachment from reality. They impair reality testing dramatically. They are associated with mental health problems and lower interpersonal functioning. They are characteristic, for example, of severe mood and anxiety disorders and of course they are associated, they operate a lot in personality disorders. Now there is one special category of mental illness which has an effect on the way defense mechanisms operate and this mental illness is colloquially known as depression. Depression of course is a family of depressive illnesses, so it's quite a few of them. Now depression in depression, the immature defense category is mostly in operation and it is divided into depressive and non-depressive defenses. Depressive defenses have been empirically associated with depression whereas non-depressive defenses are negatively associated with depression. We did some work with Hoglund about this. In depressed patients, the use of the immature primitive defenses decreases by the end of treatment so we know that they have something to do with the depression itself but no treatment of depression has any effect on the neurotic and matured defenses. They remain unchanged at least according to studies by Malin. Within the immature or primitive defenses, the subgroup of depressive defense mechanisms is linked to decreases in depression symptomatology when treatment is successful. That's a very recent discovery by Perry in 2020. Okay, I'm going to summarize for you all the types of defenses and then I'm going to take you on a tour of very, very counter-intuitive, unusual, bizarre cases of defense. Okay?  So let's start with the mature. It's level 7. They are also known as high-adaptive defenses and they involve affiliation, altruism, anticipation, humor, self-assertion, self-observation, sublimation, and suppression. The neurotic ones, level 6 and level 5, level 5 is divided to hysterical and other neurotic, never mind. So the neurotic ones are isolation of effects, intellectualization, undoing. It's very common in obsessive-compulsive disorder, repression, dissociation, reaction formation, and displacement. The immature or primitive defenses are level 4, 3, 2, and 1, and they're divided, as I said, to non-depressive and depressive. Now, the non-depressive, immature defenses involve idealization of self-image, idealization of others' image, devaluation of self-image, devaluation of others' image, omnipotence, denial, rationalization, projection, and autistic fantasy. The depressive immature defenses involve splitting of self-image, splitting of others' image, projective identification, passive aggression, help-rejecting, complaining, and acting out. Yes, acting out is a very primitive defense. Now, we commonly think of defenses in ways which are splitting, and projection, and projective identification, and so on. It's very common, and everyone in this dog is an expert on these defenses. There's a lot of misinformation and nonsense online, again, warning. What I'm going to describe to you today, outliers, special cases of defense.  Dozens of defenses operate all the time around the clock in the background. Others are activated, as per need. Other states are associated with specific defenses via introjects and constructs. Again, see my video on IPAM, Intra-Psychic Activation Model. Let's start with altruistic surrender. Have you ever heard of this defense? I bet you haven't. Altruistic surrender is when an individual is barred from an attractive partner. So an individual is attracted to a partner. But for some reason, can never get her, can never become her intimate or his intimate partner. So the individual is barred from the attractive person by virtue of some reality situation or internal conflict or whatever. At that point, this frustrated individual who cannot have a relationship with the person he desires or she desires, at that point, they actively aid a rival towards success with that person. So I want a woman very much. I can't have her either because of some real constraints or because I have an internal conflict or because she is an internal conflict. I can't have her for some reason. Again, I will have my rival to have her. I will have another man to have her. So this is known as altruistic surrender. The defense makes sure that the person who does this gains satisfaction through identification with the beneficiary of his altruism and from the sense of control in determining who wins the desired object. And that's an example of defense. Now, this is very frequently confused with cacodry. It is not actually in cacodry. The person involved derives pleasure from either masochistic sense of self-punishment or from observing the proceedings, like observing pornography, kind of.  So it's unconscious and it yields egocentrally satisfaction and gratification and a sense of control. So here's an example of a bizarre defense mechanism, which I bet you never heard of. None of you, even the professionals among you, I'm sure never heard of altruistic surrender. Let me give you another example. A defense against envy. According to Melanie Klein in 1957, the main defenses against envy are Number one, contempt and evaluation. Number two, omnipotent control. And number three, narcissistic withdrawal, schizoid response. Contempt and evaluation is when the subject seeks to diminish his estimation of the object. That way, it resolves the cognitive dissonance and reduces anxiety. But it's a defense against envy. Similarly, by exerting omnipotent control, the subject forcibly takes over the envy when the envy producing qualities of the object. The subject says, I'm superior to the object, not by devaluing the object, but just by declaring himself omnipotent and controlling. And narcissistic withdrawal means that the subject shuns envy-arousing objects, and in this way, reduces his suffering. Though evident in individuals with severe personality disorders, the use of these mechanisms is most marked in narcissistic personalities, of course. Let's proceed. Have you ever heard of the defenses against goodness? Goodness me, I need a drink. It's water, not vodka. Have you ever heard of psychological defense mechanisms against goodness? I bet you you haven't. It was described by Roy Schaefer in 2002, and he was growing on collinear ideas of goodness in the depressive position. You see, when you're depressed, you don't think of yourself as a good object. You're in the throes of being in direct touch with your bad object. When you're depressed, you think of yourself as a failure, as a loser, as incorrigible, as hopeless and helpless. So you are totally bad object. But what to do with the good parts of you? There are good parts of you. You can deny them, but you want to deny them because as someone with depression, you need to think only the worst about yourself with regards to yourself. So you need to do something with these good parts. And this is where there are defenses against goodness in the depressive position. Omnipotence, greed, envy are set aside in favor of concern, gratitude, reparation, altruism, charity. Because the depressive person cannot countenance and tolerate his own goodness, it is warded off by these defense mechanisms. In 1946, Melanie Klein wrote that endangered good aspects of the self can be deposited into other people for safekeeping during the depressive phase. Like I'm depressed right now. I can't think of myself as in any good way. Can you please hold onto my good aspects? And when I'm out of my depression, remind me how good I am. This is Melanie Klein's idea. And Gregory Hamilton in 1986 elaborated on this Kleinian notion, and he called it positive projective identification. Schaefer, however, in 2002 emphasized that in approaching the depressive position, one can develop massive reactions and courting him, massive reactions against feeling, believing in and avowing openly personal goodness and the goodness of one's primary objects. And then one tends to hide what is good in oneself and attribute it to others. One also curtails attitudes that would elicit goodness from others towards oneself. All this is done to ward off the anxiety consequent upon renouncing narcissistic and sadomasochistic pleasures and bearing the sweet burden of gratitude and of making reparation to others. Here you are, defenses against feeling good. Defenses against feeling that you are a good object, that you are a good person. There are defenses against this, especially when you are depressed. Now, what about mental pain? There are defenses against mental pain. Salman Akhtar, the guy who co-discovered covert narcissism, Salman, together with Cooper, the late Cooper, he died two years ago, I think. Salman Akhtar in 2000 wrote a paper about mental pain. He noted that many defenses can be used against mental pain. It's a disturbing experience. And each of these defenses can have a pathological or a healthy outcome, depending upon the intra-psychic and social context. And upon whether they ultimately permit mourning to take place or not. Again, we come to the issue of grief. Essentially, these defenses include the following. Number one, psychic retreat and self-holding. If this is accompanied by a sense of futility and generalized inhibition of drive and ego functions, then the outcome is pathological. However, if the retreat, the withdrawal, the avoidance, their transient, focal, and they're accompanied by an effort to sort out the ego weakening that has resulted from pain, then the outcome is not so bad after all. It's healthy. Number two, defense against mental pain. Denial and manic defense. If this leads to psychic numbing, I refer you to work by Kogan in 1990, if this leads to psychic numbing, substance abuse, promiscuity, then the knowledge of what is going on in the internal reality is diminished and the outcome is pathological. However, if the manic defense involves only the unaffected sector of the personality, then it can serve as an umbrella under which the pain-ridden part can carry out mourning and grief in a piecemeal, incremental, graduated fashion. And that's very healthy. Actually, these defenses are the bedrock of healthy, normal grieving. And it is the absence of these defenses in narcissism that creates the prolonged grief syndrome, aka narcissistic personality disorder, same when it comes to borderline. Akhtar continues and says that another defense or set of defenses against mental pain is extrusion of pain and its induction into others.   So these defenses can actually end up contravening or confronting the ego. Number four, changing the form or function of pain. Such alterations can yield both pathological and healthy outcomes as usual. Among the pathological outcomes are concretization. I refer you to work by Bergman in 1982. Concretization is another name for acting out. Acting out is a way of changing the form or the function of the pain. Physicalization that is turning the mental pain into physical pain via somatization or somatophon disorders. Libidization, Fanico in 1934 was the first to describe it. And at the same time, there's also some change of function vis-à-vis mental pain and it prepares the ground for the creative sublimation of mental pain. These are all examples of how pain provokes defenses and they provokes defenses. And even the inability to get an intimate partner, the inability to end up with a desired intimate partner creates defenses. Now, Corruth, Heinz Corruth in 1977, wrote extensively about defensive and compensatory structures. He described psychological structures built in early childhood to deal with a primary defect in the self. I will quote Corruth, although I profoundly disagree with him and with you about the existence of myself. But I will quote him all the same, of course, he's a very influential figure. Corruth wrote, I call a structure defensive when its sole or predominant function is the covering over of the primary defect in the self. I call a structure compensatory when rather than merely covering a defect in the self, it compensates for this defect. So what does he mean? How can we tell the difference? They sound very much the same. So let's consider, for example, the bipolar self. Bipolar self is, a quote was great at coining phrases. Narcissistic personality disorder is a phrase coined by Corruth, bipolar self was coined by Corruth. Corruth said that in the bipolar self, there is a weakness of one pole of the self, example, exhibitions. And it is made up for by the strengthening of the other pole, for example, the pursuit of ideals. So, this is his example of the difference between defense and compensation. Compensation is when we find a way to not experience the defect, the pain, the guilt, the shame, the fear, the social dysfunction, social anxiety or social shame, et cetera. We find a way to do this. And it's, his idea of compensation is very reminiscent of the idea of sublimation in Fenneco's work. Okay, Lacan, when he does discuss defenses, opposes defenses to resistances. He says correctly, by the way, that many, many psychoanalysts confuse resistance with defense. Resistances are transit, according to Lacan, resistances are transitory imaginary responses to intrusions of the symbolic and they are on the side of the object. Defenses are more permanent, symbolic structures of subjectivity. But Lacan doesn't call them defenses, by the way. As I said earlier, he calls them fantasies. Okay, just to confuse everyone. Lacan was great at confusing everyone, first and foremost himself. The amount of nonsense these men spewed is defied logic. However, like in every garbage heap, you do find pearls and diamonds here and there.  He thought it made him special. Am I hinting that he was a narcissist? Go online, find a photograph of Lacan in his later years and you will see my spitting image, my identical twin, I swear. I, myself, was misled into thinking that these were my photos. Amazing. Okay, so I'm implying that he's a narcissist, yes? Lacan's way of distinguishing resistance from defense is exactly the opposite of all other psychoanalysts because in all other schools of psychoanalysis, they distinguish between resistance and defense rarely and when they do, they regard defenses as transitory phenomena and resistances as more stable. I will not go into it right now because I think resistance, I'm in this sense Lacanian, actually. I think resistances are temporary and transitory and defenses are permanent structures of the personality that will not go into all this. The ego psychology movement starting in the 1950s in the United States, people like Heinz Hartmann, for example, they develop a theory of the ego in connection with the problem of adaptation and he described development, personal development in terms of a conflict-free ego sphere, an autonomous ego that is not in conflict with anything and anyone internally or externally. This was quite a departure from Freud and Anna Freud and so on. In this movement of ego psychology, the psychic functioning in general is considered in terms of defense and the quest for equilibrium. So in ego psychology, defenses are very critical, much more critical than in psychoanalysis. The René Spitz located the first defense in the emergence of what he called the second organizer, the eight month or stranger anxiety. He explained that these defenses serve, and I'm quoting him, serve primarily adaptation rather than defense in the strict sense of the term. When the object is established and ideation starts, the function of these defenses change and functions change and with the fusion of the aggressive and debitinal drives, some defense mechanisms, particularly identification, acquire the functions that they serve later in adulthood. When Anna Freud was publishing her first psychoanalytic works, Melanie Klein, who by the way is not a psychologist, was never a psychologist. Melanie Klein broke with Freudian orthodoxy because she claimed that the psyche and the ego are primordial, that they are archaic functions. They don't form, you're born with them. Et cetera, et cetera. And the agencies of the psyche begin to function much earlier and so on and so forth. But Klein introduced a perspective that restored to anxiety and psyche conflict a fundamental role in the theory of drives. That's her main contribution, I think. She reintroduced or reminded us how critical the issue of conflict is in how we do everything we can to avoid or evade anxiety. She drew on Freud's second theory of drives and she attributed the central role to the death drive and the conflicts between love and hatred. We don't have to accept this, but she had amazing insight into the very fact that we are in a constant state of impending dissonance. We're all the time on the verge of anxiety, all the time we conflict with reality and internally. And so she developed her ideas on early defense mechanisms that were already present in her view in the earliest months of life during what she called the paranoid schizoid position. The concept of defense since Freud become today common in clinical psychology and in psychoanalysis. It is one of the peritages of psychoanalysis together with let's say the unconscious. Defense refers to either a relatively conscious behavior that rejects psychic reality and it's more akin to resistance in this sense, or to a psychic impulse that seeks to avoid anxiety and unpleasant in the quest to adopt and achieve a state of equilibrium. So in modern clinical psychology, some defenses can actually be conscious and they are more behavioral. It's the behavior itself that is defensive. But I don't think it's right. I don't think that's a psychological defense mechanism. I think sometimes we are defined and sometimes we self-deceive via behavior and sometimes we resist. So things that might be God often confusion here. And it is because of this that in modern clinical psychology, the function of the defense of defenses as mechanisms necessary for psychic growth is either overlooked or negated. It's catastrophic mistake. It's not true. It's wrong. So a lot of what we teach at university nowadays is wrong because we teach defense mechanisms and defenses as forms of pathology or at least pathogenic. The ego protects itself against the tendency towards conflict by means of something called counter-cathesis. And the counter-cathesis represents a supreme essence of the defense mechanisms. So Hartman in 1950 picked up this idea and he had the theory of autonomous functions of the ego. He argued that once the energy of counter-cathesis has been withdrawn from the tendency that caused the conflict, the conflict was neutralized. According to Hartman, the autonomous processes, organization, cathesis, delay can be the precursors of defense mechanisms.  So the ego psychology movement actually ended up supporting unafroid's views, only embedding these views in a global theory of the ego is an autonomous entity borrowing in a way from Melanie Klein. Is an autonomous entity on the one hand and a self-regulating one. And at the disposal of the ego, there are the defense mechanisms which can go awry, be exaggerated and distorted and then we have the pathologies. And this is in line with unafroid's view. Unafroid said that every vicissitude to which the instincts are liable has its origin in some ego activity, where it not for the intervention of the ego or of those external forces which the ego represents, every instinct would know only one fate that of gratification. And she wrote this in 1937. She identified at the time nine defense mechanisms. And she suggested that we must add a 10th defense which pertains rather to the study of the normal rather than to the study of neurosis, sublimation or displacement of instinctual aims. Today, as I told you, we have a list of 101 defenses. Back to Melanie Klein, the adherents of the Kleinian school. They believed that defense mechanisms take a different form in a structured ego from the one that they had assumed in a primitive unstructured ego or what she called the undifferentiated ego. In short, what they were saying, defenses evolve, defenses mature, new defenses are created, defenses transmute and transform from one shape to another, the shape shift. And all this has to do with the formation of the ego, the integration and the differentiation of the ego, the breaking down of the ego, if you wish. So the ego initially is unstructured, it is protein, and then you have very primitive defenses.  Susan Isaacs in 1948 said that all mental mechanisms are linked to fantasies, such as devouring, absorbing or rejecting. And in this sense, she's a proto-lacanian. Melanie Klein herself in 1952, again in 1958, she identified several primitive defenses, and she used defense and defense mechanisms interchangeably. And so in a way, she contributed to the confusion that we have today between the concept of defense and the concept of psychic adaptation, defensive psychic adaptation, or enhancing psychic adaptation in the process of normal, healthy maturation. Okay, I give you a brief uneven view of defenses. The latter part, as you've noticed, was geared more at mental health professionals and practitioners. The first part was, I hope, more for laymen. It's not easy to tread the line between laymen and professionals to maintain this balance and do my best. And I apologize to those of you who drifted off because of the language. I hope that the main takeaways from this video are clear. Defenses are healthy, like everything else. They can go awry. They protect against the bad object because they believe in the existence of a bad object. They have an internal working model of a bad object.  So the defenses are unconscious. They support the reality principle or reality testing. In short, they support the functioning of the ego, partly by actually distorting reality in order to suppress the instincts, urges, wishes, and drives. Ironically, the ego strikes a compromise with the defenses. I give you the right to impair reality testing, which is an ego function.


Paul is dead. The church is growing. Jesus hasn't returned. Rome still reigns. Against this backdrop, one of Paul's associates wrote a letter. It doesn't address a particular early church conflict. Instead, its teachings are wide-ranging. By grace, you have been saved through faith. Be imitators of God as beloved children. Wives, be subject to your husbands. Husbands love your wives. Put on the armor of God. Six dense chapters that reinforce, expand upon, and sometimes flat out contradict Paul's theology. Ephesians can be difficult to make sense of as a whole, but perhaps that's the beauty of this letter. It reveals an early church growing, wrestling, evolving, responding in faith.


Welcome back. It's still business inside and plus TV Africa and right now we turn our focus on Nigeria's fiscal policy and of course the issue of debt and debt servicing and all of that. Nigeria country director of the one campaign Stanley Achanu joins me now to discuss on their recently released report, Tag Fiscal Reform in Nigeria, Navigating Nigeria's Debt Burden whilst protecting social spending. Thank you so much Stanley for joining me on Business Insight. Thank you for everything. Okay before I get into my bullet per bullet question let me just get an overview of the reports that you just released. Also as you know Nigeria is facing fiscal crisis as it were. The finances are in really very bad shape and we thought that the new government was coming and it was very important for us to to critically look at what the government would be heriting in terms of fiscal space and the ability to navigate and meet all of the concrete promises that were made. A lot of times in the government's self-hope especially in the government self-hope and I make a lot of assumptions when they're assuming office and wanted to be sure that there was clarity in terms of the crisis that they were going to face and how they were going to be managed how they were going to finance some of the campaign promises. So with Debt in Nigeria's fiscal space our revenue is a tatters we have not our revenue growth has been very terrible. Our borrowing has been over the roof. You know borrowing is not the problem it's how we have utilized that borrowing to improve our ability to generate more resources hasn't been very progressive and we thought that there were three components of things that we wanted the government to bear well. One is that the cost of our borrowing was very high. The sources of our borrowing was trying of our ability to attract those was trying. Our utilization of the internal mechanisms to borrow in Nigeria was also being abused. Things like the ways and means by the CBN was who were completely ignoring the law or breaking the law as it were and wanted the government to be aware of these challenges and not one problem to repeat the same mistake they are going governments made in terms of managing our books. So broadly this is what we hope to capture but also to then make specific recommendations on what we think can be done differently and new approaches that the government can use. It wasn't just about highlighting the problem but what also we need to do differently to tackle this challenge. That would probably what we wanted to do with this report. All right fine let's just try and get to the specifics and see who can just push out some of the highlights that you actually represented there. Now from the report just released it states that 91% of Nigeria's 4.6 trillion revenues in 2021 went towards servicing its debt up from 29% in 2014. That left just 9% or about 278 billion to finance the entire budget. I want you to break this down for us and what it actually means. So first of all you must understand that our debt has tripled between 2014 and 2021. And we use 2021 because that's where we can find the existing data. The situation is even more that when you look at 2022 but we stopped 2021 because there was a complete information with respect to that. And one of the numbers true was that for every 100 Naira different governments and they spend 91 Naira servicing debt that's in simple terms. So if your salary is 100 Naira you call it 100 Naira at the end of the month you use that to pay people that you are owed to service the cost of the money you have borrowed. Then you have Naira to pay rent, to eat, to transport yourself to work, to pay your staff, to take care of all of this and as you can see that is not possible. So what I meant was that while the cost of servicing our debt has grown, our ability to meet obligations in Nigeria the basic thing that the government is charged to do, our ability to meet those obligations went to zero. What did the government do? You let our community know that to meet your obligations to speak to them. Pay a civil servant, run government, and then deliver public visa services things like investing in education, health, transportation, infrastructure. So think about the space to meet that investment was completely narrowed out because the cost of borrowing was quite high. So debt servicing was eating up government revenue completely. Okay let's talk about revenue growth, specifically what you reported between 20 voting and 2021. You said Nigeria's revenue growth has not kept pace with the amount of debt being taken on. Between those years, that's in that seven years, Nigeria's revenue grew by 7% per year on average from about 3.2 trillion Naira to 4.6 trillion Naira. Now debt stocks rose by 20% per year on average and debt service increased by 24%. I can actually see the margin per year on average but how do we actually re-go out of this? How do we begin to drive our revenue generation in the country? So one of the critical things to understand is that all you said that our major revenue source for the long rest of time, there was a lot of conversation around diversification. But that diversification has not in real terms amounted to growth in revenue. So I'll give you a good example. Our oil revenue in 2014 was in 2014 was about 12 billion dollars. We earned about 12 billion dollars in 2014 from oil and oil. In 2021, we earned 2.5 billion dollars, right? In terms of our budget, you need to see the budget has gone to 9 trillion Naira in 2021. So our revenue compared to our expenditure wasn't much enough and it was growing in the opposite direction and debt was growing, our revenue was growing in the opposite direction. So one of the key challenges is that our domestic revenue mobilization strategy hasn't just been at pace with our needs, it hasn't been at pace with our borrowing as well. So we were borrowing money, we were not making the right investment to generate a new wealth revenue. But how do you generate revenue? You need Nigerians, you need Nigerians to work and it is Nigerians you put to work and they pay taxes that amount to revenue. So it was a lose-go zone situation for everyone because we were not making the right investment, we were not making the job opportunities for Nigerians. We were raising enough revenue, we were bringing more people into the fast bracket and we were not in a real sense a diversifying our source of revenue. All you remain is a quick source of revenue from Nigeria and as you can see from the report, going from 12 billion in 2014 for oil revenue to 2.5 billion in 2021 is a drastic reduction. It's almost a 75% reduction in what you end. Why did we find ourselves in this situation? Yes, oil prices were fluctuating. When you compare oil prices in 2014 versus in 2021, what's the most part of the last four, five years? Average oil price has been between 60 and 70 dollars per barrel. So what was the challenge with our oil revenue? It was that our production level had permitted because the investing environment for the oil companies was due to make investments. There was a huge amount of oil tax that was going on. Some days we were losing over a billion dollars of revenue from oil and I know at some point some of the oil companies cried out in terms of the oil and we could secure our pipeline, we could secure our major revenue source which was oil. So we left a lot of things to chance under in the last eight years that have now resulted in the drastic fall in our revenue. How did the government end up with this challenge? They fell into borrowing, if I will use the word, this is not heavily on borrowing and when the source of borrowing dried up, government then resorted to CBA financing. That was why oil was very pronounced. CBA was willing to pay money to how to government to bridge the oil prices earlier than now. Let me just translate in two more questions so we can quickly wrap up. Nigeria consistently generates less actual revenue and pays more actual debt service than projected. I want to understand why this is. Is it that we have issues with our budget processing or what exactly is the issue? So our budget has not been very realistic. It has not matched the actual revenue with the expect that other enormous circumstance, you look at the numbers from the previous year, especially in terms of how much you earn and use that to make projection of what you should spend following year. I think that the budget has been brought into review by need, not by what is available. So government continued to project based on what is needed without considering what was available to be spent. So that was a major challenge with our budget. So what I meant is that deficit continued to grow. Our budget, our fiscal deficit grew from $800 billion in 2014 to $6.4 trillion in 2021. And it is higher in 2021 than what is available. I am almost certain that we will be hitting $7 trillion in budget deficit. For the budget of $10 trillion, we are only able to finance $3 trillion. So it was really a question of matching your revenue with your budget projections. Okay, Stanley, very quickly now, I just, let me just see if I can do a double-barreled one. In the wake of a high interest rate and recent Naira float, what hole has it taken on our debt stock? And what should we be doing right now on our social spending? Of course, our debt will continue to rise because most of them are dollar dominated debt. So we're expected to pay even higher costs for debt. What that means is that our already terrible social spending, it will be worse if government is not very strategic. And it's important to look at the normal. In 2021, our spending on things like agriculture was 2.6% of our total budget. Education was 6% of the total budget we spent on education. Things like health got about 4% or 5% there about. So our spending on critical sectors that directly impact Nigeria is already low in under the current situation. So by the devaluation of Naira, it means that our ability to move with investments in these sectors will take a bit of creativity on the part of government to find a way to continue to make this sort of investment. I will admit, especially the recommendation that the government needs to give the immediate feedback with financing these bills, using an innovative approach to find sources of borrowing that does not limit the ability to tackle this challenge. All right. We must say a very big thank you to you. I happen to speak with Stanley Achondo, Nigeria Country Director of the One Campaign. I would do appreciate your time looking at Nigeria's fiscal reforms and navigating through all of our debt burden and all. Thank you so much, Stanley. Thank you for having me. It is indeed my pleasure. All right. As we go on the show this morning, I will just leave you with some useful tips on how to write an informal business proposal if you're actually looking at writing once. And I'm sure this will help out. I'll see you again tomorrow. My name is Justin Acadonia. Many thanks for watching. Writing an informal proposal. The thought of writing a proposal overwhelms many people. But the task does not have to be daunting. Even my proposals are written when people need to ask permission to make a purchase, undertake a project, or write a paper. This type of proposal is a way of persuasively putting forth an idea and asking for action to be taking on that idea. When writing a proposal, consider who will read the proposal and what that person may or may not already know about what you are proposing. Follow these steps when writing a proposal. 1. State your purpose. Do this clearly and concisely so that the reader knows immediately why you are writing. 2. Give some background information. Explain why you are proposing your suggestion so that the reader has a better understanding of the problem. 3. State a solution to the problem. This is where you give specifics about your suggestion. 4. Show costs. Lay out any costs that will be involved. 5. Conclusion. Wrap it up by restating the problem and the proposed solution.


Hi, I'm Zor, welcome to Indizor Education. I have explained basically the concept of partial derivative for function of two arguments. Well, we primarily will consider the functions of two arguments, although the theory actually actually is very easily extended to functions of multiple variables. But let's talk about functions of two arguments. So we have explained the theory behind it, behind this concept. And I would like to basically exemplify it with a few very, very easy examples. Now, I do suggest you to actually do it yourself first before even listening to whatever I'm saying and then check the answers. It's on the website, it's on unizor.com. That's where the whole course actually is located. So every lecture has notes and all these problems are in the notes. So do it yourself. There are answers to each of the six problems in the notes and then check if you are right. Okay, now I will do exactly the same and if you for whatever reason failed to get the same answers, well, let's just listen to the lecture and see what happens. All right. Just one small comment, which I usually say in the very beginning. This course is presented on unizor.com. It's for teenagers and high school students who would like to enhance their knowledge in mathematics and develop creativity, analytical thinking, logic, et cetera. All right, so the problems. All these problems are, okay, let's take derivatives. Now all the functions are functions of two arguments. So I will take two derivatives, function by one argument and then function by another argument. Okay, so let's do it. It's really very quick thing. Number one, function is square root of x, y. Now I'm interested in partial derivative by x. Now what does it mean to take partial derivative by x? It means assume that y is actually a constant which makes this the function of one argument, which is x and y is a constant, right? And then we know how to take derivative of this function. This is basically the same as square root of x times constant, right? So first we use the chain rule. First is outer function is square root, which is something in the power of one half. And this is the power function, which means our derivative is the power, which is one half times whatever is under the square root will be in the power of one half minus one, which is minus one half, which means it will be one over one over x, y. And then we will, according to the chain rule, we will go into the function under the square root, which is x times constant. And derivative of this is equal to this particular constant, right, which is y. So the whole thing is y divided by two square root of x, y. Now similarly, let's take the partial derivative by y. That means we assume that x is a constant. And then basically all these considerations are exactly the same. So it's square root of some constant times y. So that would be one half, one over one over x, y, which is x, y to the power of minus one half, right? Times derivative of the inner function, which is since y is a variable and x is a constant, so derivative by y would be x. So the whole answer is x divided by two square root of x, y. That's it, very simple. What's most important when you're taking derivatives, partial derivatives, you have to really know exactly which is your variable and which is the constant. So in this case, whenever we are differentiating by x, we assume that the y is constant. And whenever we are differentiating by y, we assume that x is constant. And by the way, if it's a function of n arguments and we are trying to make a partial derivative by one of them, we assume that all others are constants. So we are always dealing with a function of one argument. In this case, argument is x. In this case, argument is y. This is the argument by which we are differentiating. And all other arguments are just constant. You have to pay attention to them in as much as you pay attention to different constants. Next, e to the power of x, y. Okay, so again, differentiating by x gives me what? y is a constant. So we have again a composition of two function. Inner function is some kind of a constant, y multiplied by x. Outer function is e to the power of something. So first, we are differentiating the outer function, which is e to the power of x, y, right? Because the derivative of e to some power is e to that sum power. Now we are multiplying by the derivative of the inner function. Now inner function is x, which is variable times y, which is a constant. And that's why whenever we are differentiating by x, it's just the constant y. So this is the answer. And whenever we are differentiating by y, it's kind of symmetrical. We start from the same thing. The derivative of the outer function times derivative of the inner function, y is a variable, x is a constant in this case, right? So the derivative is x. So these are two derivatives, partial derivatives. Next. OK. Number one, differentiating by x. So y is a constant. So it's like 1 over x squared plus 1, or 1 over x squared plus 25, or whatever else. Now the derivative is, well, first since is something to the power of minus 1, right? It's x squared plus y squared to the power of minus 1. So derivative of the power function is we have to put minus 1 times power minus 1, right? So power was minus 1, so it will be minus 2. So it will be 1 over x squared plus y squared, right? That's what power minus 2 means. And then since, again, we are applying the chain rule, derivative of the inner function. Inner function is x squared plus y squared. y is a constant, so we can differentiate without it, because the derivative is 0. So we have only derivative of x squared, which is 2x. So it's 2x. So the whole thing is minus 2x divided by x squared plus y squared squared. Now differentiating by y, well, I'm sure you understand this is a completely symmetrical kind of things. And the result would be very similar to this, except it would be y instead of x squared plus y squared, right? Because the beginning will be the same, and at the end, we have to multiply by the derivative of y squared, which is 2y. That's it. You see, these are relatively easy exercises, because if you know how to differentiate functions one argument, you automatically know how to differentiate function of multiple arguments partially, because whenever you're differentiating partially, you just have only one argument anyway, and all others are constants. So these are just exercises. sine x divided by y squared. OK, partial derivative by x. So x is variable. y is constant. So that basically means that y as a constant goes outside, and then we will multiply by derivative of the sine, which is cosine of x. Cosine x divided by y squared. Now, derivative by y. You see, now it's not symmetrical at all, right? So right now, we have to do separately one from another. OK, now, differentiating by y. That means that the sine x is actually a constant, right? So as a constant, it goes out times the derivative of y of 1 over y squared, or y to the power of minus 2, which means it would be minus 2 y to the power of minus 3. So that's what it is. So it's minus 2 sine x divided by 1 cube, y cube. Next, arc tangent of x square root of y. OK, again, this is non-symmetrical kind of things. All right, differentiating by x. So we have a composition of two functions. Outer function is arc tangent. Inner function is a constant. Square root of y is a constant, right? Multiply by variable x. OK, so the chain rule, first derivative of arc tangent is 1 divided by 1 plus this square, which is x square y. So if you don't remember, again, I'm just saying arc tangent of, let's say, t. Derivative is 1 over 1 plus t square. So I just happened to remember it. How to derive it, we did it when we were considering derivatives of regular functions. OK, times derivative of the inner function. So what's the inner function? It's a multiplication of a constant by x. So if we want to have a derivative y, x is just this constant. That's it. Now, by y, it's slightly different. Well, first of all, we have to start from the same thing. We start from the derivative of arc tangent, which is 1 over 1 plus argument square. Now we have to multiply by the derivative of the inner function. x is a constant, and y is the variable, right, in this case. So x goes to the top. It's just a multiplier. And derivative of square root of y, this is 2 square root of y in the denominator, right? Again, square root of y derivative is 1 over 2 square root of y. So that's the answer. And my last problem, which is, again, relatively easy as everything else, you see, whenever you're doing differentiation, you don't have any kind of creativity thing, as you do have with integrals. So these can be done relatively mechanically as long as you understand and remember regular derivatives of regular functions. So my last example is this. Now, differentiation of z by x. Now, if x is a variable and y is a constant, well, if you remember, we used to use a to the power of x. But that's exactly the same thing, a is a constant or y is a constant, just different letter. And the derivative of this exponential function is itself times logarithm of the base of my exponent. Now, if you want to differentiate by y, now x is a constant. Now it's just a power function. Since x is a constant, y is variable. It's a power function. Power function is you have the power x times power minus 1. That's it. So all these examples are just to emphasize how easy it is to deal with partial derivatives. It's exactly the same as with derivatives of regular functions of one argument. Again, I do suggest you to do all these exercises yourself. All these examples are on unizord.com. And check if you had the same answers as presented on the website. Other than that, we have finished. Thank you very much and good luck.


across the Owen Stanley Mountains for the final Allied assault upon Jap bases on this strategic island in the South Pacific. Enthusiastically welcome the soldiers who have come thousands of miles across the sea to drive the invader from their land. And then Australian soldiers and Marines pressed forward through jungle country, relentlessly driving the Japs back into the sea. Stopping only to reform their lines, to coordinate their plan of attack, they rest where they can. Ammunition always ready. A captured machine gun now turned against the enemy. The American success against the Jap in New Guinea. A saga of courage and bravery in the face of incredible odds. Arrives in Washington. A military guard of honor salutes the one-time army sergeant who now holds his country's highest office. Fulgencio Batista, welcome to the capital. President Roosevelt waits to greet him. As staunch exponent of America's good neighbor policy, President Batista was one of the first to follow the United States in war upon the axis. It's Vice President Wallace and the cabinet. And he's off to inspect United States war plants. In to sail America's fast-growing merchant marine. Graduates of the greatest school of its kind in the world, Abel Seaman, ready to help the United States Army and Navy deliver the goods to United Nations. First enlistments in a training program of 30,000 United States merchant sailor men every year. On a modest farm in Midwestern United States, the Harrington family is helping America win this war. In addition to farm chores, they've turned their house into a factory, making machine tools for armament plants. Father and mother working side by side. Their sons, even their grandchildren are helping. Producing tools needed for large plants, this farm family's inventive genius is typical of Americans from coast to coast. The mountain ranges along the Pacific, a girl owns and operates one of the busiest chrome mines in the country. Chrome, an essential metal formerly imported from the Philippines, is needed for war production. Running the mine herself, this typical young American woman is producing some 20 tons of precious metal every day. Again, this is America, all out for war. Philadelphia, seaman Norma Saul comes home, the idol of the neighborhood. When Norman's aunt told officials he was only 14 years old, Norman was sent home. His pay in war bonds, and told to go back to school. His patriotism is appreciated, but 14 is too young for the United States Navy. And here's another, a Marine. In the service a year before they found he was only 13 years old. Yes, they're sending him home to grow up too. Six feet one, 173 pounds, every inch a typical boy. With fighting spirit like this, America can't lose.   America speaks. The British Eighth Army's victory in Libya.  Past wrecked plains, blasted from the ground and from the air. 70% of the enemy's mechanized equipment smashed in its tracks. Through mud and muck, the longest sustained advance in military history. Nazi General Wilhelm von Thoma, Rommel's second in command is captured by a British Hussar. Arriving at General Montgomery's headquarters, the prisoner is ordered flown to England. Mine sweepers, the engineers are the real heroes. Using magnetic detectors, they go ahead of the tanks, clearing the desert of German planted mine fields. The magnets sound a buzzer when they detect mines hidden in the sand. Dual swift is the advance, but as these pictures are issued, news comes that Rommel's army has been split. Half his force is trapped. Pressing ever westward through the smoke of battle, the Allied pincers close on Rommel as he races to join his shattered force with a Nazi army in Tunisia. Rear guard surrender one by one. Eight entire Italian divisions have been knocked out. Four of Germany's famed Afrika Korps divisions are done for. Down the road, named for Italy's late Marshal Balbo, a procession of trucks loaded with captives streams to the rear. 300,000 prisoners taken by the British. Their days of fighting over. Rommel was expected to make a desperate stand. British fighting men see the tide of war turn for the United Nations as the Union Jack flies over Libya.


Alrighty, so we're back with another Kings Island 2020 construction update. And so a 60 diesel rage and adrenaline dot obsession on Instagram and YouTube. Go check them both out. I will link them at the end of the video and in the description as they have been super helpful and super open to sharing some footage with us so we can cover this project. So as you can tell from this airplane footage, the land clearing has grown as I put in the, I believe the pinned message or text in my last video, we were looking for growth in the land clearing and it looks like that's exactly what's happened. And I even better news, the outer edges of the land clearing have flags and those flags are resembling do not cross here and the land clearing where it ends currently does not have those flags. So that's a really good sign I've been analyzing the pictures that have been sent to me really closely as I followed you constructors construction project really closely and I've been able to talk to people in construction about what things mean. So I actually do have a really good understanding of construction. I guess that's the one thing I bring to the table that I understand greatly, but super exciting. I definitely think the land clearing is going to grow lengthwise even more. And I actually am starting to think that those red storage buildings with that little white silo down there next to flight of fear are going to be moved elsewhere in the park as that is the only location that I could see a midway going for this new attraction. So I definitely think we're going to see those buildings coming down and moved elsewhere. I'm actually seeing signs in the back area of what looks like they could be building more storage buildings to compensate for the loss of these ones if they do choose to remove them. So I definitely think we'll see a midway in that area. That's my guess. But here's a close up from adrenaline obsession of the land clearing. It has grown I would probably guess around 50 feet in a week and that's pretty big. It probably is even larger than 50 feet again. It is hard to measure the distance from this far back and high up, but it's definitely grown a lot. The coaster layout is definitely getting way too big for a wing coaster. It is starting to rule some things out if this grows anymore. It's definitely going to be the King's Island giga that everyone is hoping for. Again, I was looking for more land clearing and we got exactly that. So that's super exciting. It's definitely looking very giga like as it continues to grow. It's definitely looking in my opinion based off of the land clearing I'm seeing in the work in a different area. It's looking like it's going to have a very out and back layout and we're talking a very long out and back layout. And then it might even come back towards the station and head up that service road and then work its way back. So I'm definitely going to stick to my prediction that if this is a King's Island giga, it's going to break the records of fury. I do think they're going to go after the records for worlds. Well, I don't think they can go for worlds tallest due to Red Force, but it's definitely going to be North America's tallest, fastest, longest giga. If it's a wing coaster, it's the same thing. They're going to break records for sure with the current plot of land we're seeing. Again, it is just in Cedar Fair's equation to continuously break their own records. It protects them from other parks swooping in and taking those records. Now, I don't know if I discussed this in the previous video. A lot of people are noticing that there's cones over the construction site currently where firehawk used to sit. Again, sometimes the cones can mark, you know, sewers or areas to be careful of. And that is the case in a lot of situations. But what you want to be looking out for is lettering and numbers on those cones. Because again, Yukon Stryker did use cones to mark where the footers are going in a lot of situations that, you know, a lot of coasters, they use the stakes that people are used to seeing with the letter, you know, a C and then a number for the which column it's going to be on the layout. But Yukon Stryker actually about 80 percent of the coaster used giant columns or those little orange cones that you see to mark where the footings were going to go. So again, if anyone can check for markings on those, that would help a lot. It could tell you a lot.  Anyways, other than that, there's lots of land clearing going on. Each week you guys go back to the park. There's more land clearing. Hopefully, you know, come this Friday, there's even more. Because if there is an even longer layout come this Friday, we're ruling out a wing coaster or I am at least ruling out a wing coaster. And I'm definitely sticking to it's just going to be the Kings Island Giga that everyone's waiting for. But anyways, hope you guys enjoyed this really quick update. Again, go check out adrenaline obsession on YouTube and Instagram and six oh diesel rage on Instagram and YouTube as well. Thank you for letting me use your footage and hopefully you guys have a great week. And I definitely am looking forward to this weekend's coverage at Kings Island. Thanks so much, guys. Have a great one. Bye.