Hello, my name is Eve Tawfik, I'm a British journalist and I'm here interviewing the wonderful Dr Sam Vaknin about his expertise in narcissism. And I work for a British newspaper, but this interview is not conducted on behalf of my work and the opinions are my own and not that of my employer. Okay, so hello. Hello, the aforementioned text is what is known as disclaimer. So now we can get to the conversation. Hello, Eva. Good to see you. Good to see you too. Okay, so the questions I'm going to ask you today are have been put to me by people who have been in relationships with those they believe to be narcissists as you've discussed very often on your channel. But narcissism is rife online, therefore, but not as prevalent in the community as, you know, the online world would have you believe. So with that in mind, one lady asked me to put to you, is there a way to make a way with a relationship with the narcissist work? Well, yes, of course, if you suspend yourself, if you no longer display any signs of autonomy, independence. If you become an extension of the narcissist, if you become totally servile and subservient, and if you if you begin even to anticipate a narcissist needs long before he verbalizes them. And so on so forth, then this could work, could work in the long term, narcissists are focused on what I call the four S's. And all you need to do is satisfy two of the four in order to remain in the narcissist's life for good, for his good, at least.  That's that's a fair substitute for narcissistic supply. So supply of any kind that's the second S. The third S is safety. So becoming a doormat, so that the narcissist doesn't develop an abandonment anxiety conforming totally to the narcissist's viewer view in clinical terms is known as an introject. And I call it the snapshot. And then if you conform to this view 100% the narcissist doesn't develop abandonment anxiety safety and services. You will find yourself becoming the narcissist's personal assistant chauffeur chambermaid and so on so forth in due time. Ultimately, the relationship degenerates into a very transactional arrangement where you provide two of the four S's and the narcissist graces you with his eternal presence. And that's the only benefit that a partner of a narcissist who was wanting to make it work would get the presence of the narcissist who they believe to be omnipotent, omnip powerful, etc. Based on the shared fantasy that you often describe in your videos. Yes, the narcissist regards himself as a deity in many respects, not himself actually because he doesn't have a self, but he regards his full set. As a deity, the narcissist himself worships his full set, sacrifices to the full set. And it's the equivalent of a cult or a sect. Narcissism is missionary. He tries to come as an intimate partner. He tries to convert you to to fit into to follow his creed to become an adherent of this one man cult. And so you should be honored to be among the first disciples and apostles of this new faith.  Charlie Manson, Jim, I mean, the Kool-Aid incident and many, many others. Yes, the general idea is that it's a once in a lifetime opportunity and experience to be in the presence of a reincarnated God.   Even if it's bad, especially if it's bad, it's a mystical experience. And you should be overwhelmed. How is it mystical? Can you describe, say, layman's terms? How is it a mystical experience? It's uniting with the ocean. It's uniting with the divine. Is that in the narcissist's mind or is that in the mind of the man? No, it's in the narcissist's mind. Oh, I see. He regards sex as an example, but he regards any interaction actually. He regards sex as affording you the unique opportunity to interact with higher planes of existence. It's exactly a mystical experience in his mind. And so you should be eternally grateful. And you should, of course, display your gratitude in a variety of ways, the four S's. And here is magnanimous because two of four would suffice. You're overwhelmed all four consistently.  It's giving you a concession. Okay, because I find it interesting despite a wealth of advice that women or men or any victim of a narcissist should go no contact and just leave, never speak to them again. There are actually people out there who want to make this style of relationship work. What type of person would that be? I know you've touched on it in other videos. But in a nutshell, what kind of person would want to make a relationship with a narcissist's work? Does it mean they're extremely empathetic as they claim? Or is it somebody with such low self-esteem that they need to have a deity in order to survive? I'm glad they asked this question and no, we did not coordinate the questions. And I didn't receive the questions in advance. So I'm glad you asked this question because it's a hell of a lot of confusion. The narcissist is promiscuous as far as mate selection. Anyone who would provide him with two of the four S's would do sex services, safety and supply. Anyone who provides him with two of the four would do as an intimate partner, so-called. I call his partners insignificant others. So anyone would do. The narcissist is not selective. However, it is true that certain types of personality are attracted inexorably to the narcissist. So this creates a lot of confusion because it looks from the outside, it looks as if the narcissist is being selective. Because we keep getting the same types of mating, the same types of couples. You see, the narcissist ends up with co-dependence all the time. Yeah, but not by his choice. It's the co-dependent who chooses the narcissist. Yeah, because that's often said by a lot of people. Oh, I keep picking the same man or I seem to end up with the same woman.  Is it to get confused because looking at the phenomenon and say, well, you see the same types of partners keep ending up with the narcissist. Yes, but it's not the narcissist doing anyhow to answer your question. There are two things these people are looking for. Self-love, an experience of self-love. And an experience of something bigger than themselves who or which can subsume them safely. A sense of safety. And I'll elaborate on these two, mainly because I like the sound of my voice. So. And the sound of your voice is very fantastic. Thank you. Does that give you supply? Because I can't have the other three S's at least, you know, give me the fourth. The, let's start with self-love. The narcissist provides you with the equivalence of motherhood. He provides you with unconditional love in the sense that he loved mom's bombs you and then idealizes you. It's exactly what mothers do when they have a new baby.  The mother needs to idealize the baby in order to persevere and survive. It's as simple as that. So mothers do this, the idealize and then they provide unconditional love. Unconditional love doesn't mean lack of discipline or lack of boundaries. And that's not what it means. It means loving the child for his or her essence. Loving the child essentially as an essence. The narcissist does this to you. He love bonds you and then he idealizes you and then he grants you access to your own idealized image through his gaze. So you are mothering yourself through the narcissist's gaze. And for the first time in the life of many of his partners, they feel they experience self-love. And this is an intoxicating sensation. It's very difficult to let go of this. It's addictive. The second way the narcissist gets you hooked and conditioned even, conditioned is much more rigorous in psychology. But definitely hooked is the feeling that he is so unique, so unprecedented, so special, so accomplished, so everything that being with him, being chosen by him is a privilege. And not only is it a privilege, but you get included or you get inducted into something that is bigger than you. Again, it's the equivalent of religion. I would say that cult-like element seems to be surfacing again. Yes. It's the absolute equivalent of a religion. It may be a one-man religion, but it's still a religion. And you are the worshipper or the follower or the adherent or the fan or whatever you want to call yourself. And so fan, by the way, is short for fanatic. It comes from the word fanatic. So you become a missionary. You become a missionary on behalf of the narcissist. For example, partners of narcissists are very defensive of the narcissist. When the narcissist is challenged or attacked or criticized, they tend to defend the narcissist vehemently and aggressively. For the first time in the lives of many of these partners, they have an organizing principle and an explanatory principle. It's called hermeneutic principle. Suddenly the world makes sense. Suddenly there's meaning and direction and goal and it all emanates from this Godhead, the narcissist. And suddenly you can suspend your own responsibility, your own accountability, the tedium of having to make decisions. You can hand them over to the narcissist and you feel safe. Like exactly the same dynamic plays out in dictatorships. Exactly. People hand over responsibility, accountability, decision making, choices. They hand them over to the fear and Hitler knows better, knows best. And that's it. Now it reduces anxiety. I don't mean that literally, by the way. He doesn't know best. But when it comes to... One more sentence with your permission. It's an anxiolytic. It reduces anxiety. Being with a narcissist reduces anxiety. It's exactly like self-medicating. Would you say then, leading on from that, would you then say it produces anxiety later on? Because often victims of narcissists say one of the things that define their relationship with the narcissist is the crippling anxiety. They're not knowing the constant gut feelings that were ignored. The times where they knew they were cheating or they knew there was something going wrong and they've got a huge amount of anxiety. So what you're describing sounds initially that it's soothed and then it comes back tenfold. Yes, you could call it a rebound effect. A little like COVID. It's a rebound effect. The narcissist misleads you, soothes you, kind of artificially induces in you the equivalent of anesthesia. You're put under the spell. You're enchanted. But then inexorable dynamics within the narcissist cause him to push you away and then to devalue you and then to cheat on you, which is a form of evaluation and then, you know, everything. And then, of course, your anxiety skyrockets. But your anxiety skyrockets because you're terrified to lose the narcissist. Yeah. Yeah. That's when you're the uncertainty stage, which again, I've heard from victims as I've been collecting my own days. So, you know, the stage where the narcissist is pulling away, they found a better source of supply or a different source of supply. And you're very uncertain. And you're sitting there going, well, am I with them? Am I not? They breadcrumming me and all this kind of thing. So, yeah. Yes, it's a fear of fear of loss, actually. So it's not true that the partner becomes anxious because she wants to terminate or break up with the narcissist or something. That is post facto justifications. I mean, look how strong I am. I broke up with the narcissist. I'm an empath or a super galactic empath that's the latest I've heard. A what? Super galactic empath. I'm kidding you. I'm not kidding you. I'm sorry. A super galactic empath. Yes, well, you know. What's one of those? Can you tell me what one of those actually is? A super galactic empath is an empath times to the power of 10 or something or 1000 or something. Oh, I see. It's all forms of grandiose. Let's not fall down the empath rabbit hole. Let's not. I just, yeah, it's that's a very interesting subject as well. One thing I wanted to ask you as well, because this isn't often covered hugely. How can you tell if one of your friends is a narcissist? Because this one I find very difficult to define a relationship. I would say listening to your good self. I'm pretty well versed on how to avoid one. If, you know, the case arises that a friend, say a close female friend of mine, how would I be able to tell if she is a narcissist? Is there such a thing, a close female friend? Is that possible at all? I would say I have female friends who I would regard as the sisters I never had. I'm kidding. But yeah, I know what you mean. Us women can be tricky on occasion. Yes, indeed. On many occasions. They're clinically in clinical settings and academic settings. We make a distinction between what we call narcissistic style. It's a coinage by Lin Sperry and narcissistic personality, which is Milan's contribution and narcissistic disorder. Now, there's a debate whether these are merely gradations on a spectrum. It's like more of the same is a personality and much more of the same is a disorder. Or whether there are substantial, essential differences. And I subscribe to the second camp. Narcissistic style is an able, simply put, not to elaborate too much.  That's probably someone with a narcissistic style. The emphasis there would be on grandiosity, not so much on lack of empathy.  So he acts in ways which are injurious, abrasive, et cetera, et cetera. So that's a narcissistic style. And there are many people like that, of course. Some are 15, 20% of population by some instance. So sorry to interrupt. I had to give you a very quick example of what I would call a narcissistic style. Would you be able to confirm for me whether this level of grandiosity is indicative of disorder or style? So essentially, female A lives a very comfortable life. She comes across as quite eloquent, quite well read, fairly unassuming and quite kind. But then underneath that is the first of all quiet mention of their qualifications and then the increase in mention of their qualifications. Say they're a doctor or they've got a PhD or they've just bought a yacht or something like that. And you start to see these little flashes almost beneath the mask of this very sweet, almost the most normal person in the room. And when you look back on your friendship, you can see all along that there were these markers of grandiosity. Would you say that was a narcissist you were dealing with or just an A-hole with a narcissistic style? Depends crucially whether these what you call markers are fantastic. In other words, they're not real. They're lies or confabulations. Or whether they are merely over emphasis of actual accomplishments? Over emphasis of actual accomplishments in a setting where they would be used to impress. It has a yacht. Can I have a number? No, no, that person's for me. Okay, it's style. If the bragging and so on is based on is an exaggeration of hyperbole based on reality. In most cases it's style. The transition to a narcissistic personality involves evolved fantasy defenses and a lot of confabulation. Confabulation is not lying. Confabulation is simply bridging memory gaps. By inventing plausible scenarios of what might have happened, could have happened, should have happened and probably happened. End of story. So this is called confabulation. And so this marked the transition to a personality. And then the lack of empathy, exploitativeness, extreme envy, entitlement added onto this foundation. These become this, this render the person someone with narcissistic personality disorder. In that case, I think I have to reevaluate some people I know. Good luck with that.  You know, they're very smart, they're very sweet and they're always very moral when you ask them for advice, but beneath that veneer is addiction, lies, deception, that kind of thing. So if I was looking for a female friend and that's what I came across. Is that safe to say that is somebody to avoid and that is a narcissistic style? Well, regardless of whether it is narcissistic style, it's definitely someone to avoid. What you're describing is much closer to psychopathy, actually. Oh, really? There's a huge confusion, of course, because of all the self-styled experts online. There's a huge confusion between narcissism and psychopathy because both narcissists and psychopaths are grandiose. Grandiosity is common to both disorders and actually to borderline as well. And borderline when she is or is stressed, rejected, humiliated, abandoned, in reality or in an anticipatory manner, she becomes a psychopath too. Secondary or be to different types, secondary. So it's very confusing, which is why the international classification of diseases, which is the global competitor to the DSM has eliminated all these nonsensical differential diagnosis, all these all these demarcations and borders between and just created a single disorder. Because people do transition from borderline to psychopathy to narcissism and back very often, actually. And it's very confusing because psychopaths, for example, when they fail, when it's called the collapse state, when we have a collapse psychopath, a psychopath who has had a goal and has failed in obtaining the goal. Such a psychopath becomes very much like a narcissist. And a narcissist who is dramatically injured, narcissistic, narcissistic injury or more modified, humiliated in public, for example, and so on, becomes borderline, totally borderline. He becomes emotionally dysregulated, reckless, and so on and so forth. So these distinctions are very, they're not useful, you know, they're very misleading and problematic.  Narcissists are actually pro-social because they rely critically on other people for the maintenance of very important psychological functions and needs. So they can't afford to alienate people big time or to become asocial or antisocial and so on. So many of the narcissists who act criminally or antisocial or injuriously or actually psychopathic narcissists or pure out psychopaths. So what would, and this is another one, maybe a bit on the different side. What would the child of the psychopath or narcissist look like? What would their behavior be like? It's crucially, critically depends on the child and on the environment. For example, if the parents are narcissistic or psychopathic and the grandmother and grandfather are wonderful people. So it depends on too many factors to enumerate.  So in many cases, children are locked into a trap with a narcissistic or psychopathic parent unable to exit and have no recourse to anyone. Institutions included. Institutions are very neglectful. Because they don't recognize narcissism and psychopathy as risk factors.  End of story. You mentioned emotional incest in your content a lot. Can you give me like three core examples of emotional incest, please? Emotional incest is any situation where the child is cast as a partner, intimate partner. So conspiring with the child against the other spouse. You know, you're my real love. I don't love your father. Look at your father, what he's doing to me, come and console me, come and comfort me. That's an example or breaking boundaries.  Oh, well, these are, you know, I know. Well, these are, these are, this, this is a breach of boundaries, which is definitely a kind of emotional incest. Then there is emotional blackmail.   And so on so forth. This creates merger and fusion inability to separate, which has sexual dimensions.  Sex enters the equation. Inevitably, ineluctably, it's nothing you can do about it.   Well, yeah, I mean, it sounds more like an intimate partner than it does. I mean, and that, that actually brings me to another question. I know you've done videos on this before, but I'm just trying to nutshell these things as much as I can, because that's what journalists are meant to do. Not scare monger people by the way. Remember your disclaimer. I do. Yes. No, we're not scaremongering evil human beings. We're here to educate and inform. Anyway.  I think that was in an interview in 2019 with your wife. I don't remember these. I do.  Well, the Beauvoir was, you know, frantically writing her heartbreak. Anyway, so it kind of reminds me of that.  Where's the transition?  So you find, you know, the body is no longer serving you as it needs to serve you. Therefore, I've had enough now. How does that work? Well, we need to discuss three concepts very briefly. One is type in constancy, one is sublimation and one is gray sexuality. So type in constancy simply means that there is no constant type. A cerebral can become not very often does become narcissistic, especially if a cerebral experiences collapse cannot derive supply on a regular basis or sufficient supply. It has a deficient supply state. So in this case, he becomes somatic. I have become somatic six years ago, and I'm still somatic, I'm not cerebral. There's no type constancy. Okay. So this is point number one. Point number two is sublimation. It's a process described, first described, of course, by who else? Zygmunt Freud. And Freud suggested that we convert drives, especially if the drive is socially unacceptable in some way or frowned upon. We convert these drives into socially acceptable activities. So rather than rate women in the streets, for example, we write books. So writing the book consumes your energy, consumes your life force, the libido, so you have no libido left for sex, and this is called sublimation. And the third, in my view, more important concept, even, is gray sexuality. It's a recent concept. It's emerging. It's not clinically recognized, but I think it describes a real thing.  We don't know why. It may be a totally healthy state. We're not sure. Asexuality is a subset of this. Total Asexuality, lack of sexual attraction to any potential partner. It's a subset of this and we don't consider Asexuality to be a pathology, just a kind of sexual orientation. So possibly gray sexuality is not a pathology. So one thing in gray sexuality is that it is unstable. The sex drive is unstable. And the second thing, the sex drive has to be triggered.  And they are their widespread. So you're constantly excited and roused in principle, in principle. With people who are gray sexuals, they need a highly specific trigger. For example, one of the sub variants of gray sexuality is known as demisexuality. Yeah, I was about to mention demisexuality. Yeah, exactly. So demisexuals cannot have sex and have experienced non-sexual attraction until they get very deeply emotionally involved. That's the trigger. So it's a highly specific trigger. It's not your boobs and not any other anatomical part of you. It's that they have to be triggered by emotions, deep emotions, not just any. Yeah, I've heard about this. They have to have a connection. So would you say that's more akin to a cerebral narcissist experience of sex? All narcissists are gray sexual. Because you've got this image of a narcissist as a promiscuous predator. But from what you're saying, that sounds more like a psychopath. So I'm trying to separate that out. All narcissists are gray sexuals in the sense that all of them go through periods where they are not sexually active and experience non-sexual attraction, clinically rendering them asexual. So it's sexual anorexia then. Yes, they all go through these periods. And these periods are triggered by a lack of supply, depression and dysphoria owing to a lack of supply, etc.  Sex drive is gone, end of story. That's actually the cerebral phase. Even for themselves, even with masturbation. Yes, even that declines dramatically, although in the vast majority of cases they do masturbate because they're autoerotic. They perceive their bodies as the supreme ultimate sexually arousing thing.  So you're just a flashlight, yeah? Yeah, exactly. So, even with the somatic, somatic is focused on conquest and the chase, much less so on pleasing you. Although he would be very concerned with how many orgasms you had, because it goes down in his diary. Yeah, that's his supply.  Well, the healthy person would ask you, was it pleasant? Was it a good time for you? Did you enjoy? Can I do anything else? Can you teach me how to please you? So before, a somatic narcissist would ask you, was I good? Was I good? Did you come? That's a somatic narcissist. And a cerebral narcissist in a somatic phase initially, like if it's just transition, like last week, transition. He wouldn't even ask you anything. He would just masturbate with you autoerotically. That sounds very cold.  Narcissists are incapable of perceiving other people as separate entities because they have never gone through a separation phase with their own mothers. They've never experienced separation. They've never experienced being separate. So they don't know how to do a separateness. They don't regard you as separate. They regard you as an object and even worse, an internal object.  Narcissism exactly as Kernberg said decades ago and no one listened to him. Narcissism is seriously close to psychosis. Seriously. It's almost a psychotic disorder. It's almost a total divorce from reality. Narcissists live 99% within the thick scouts and interact with everyone and everything inside, never outside. Narcissism is incapable of discerning external objects. So when we talk about sex and love addiction in psychology, which is a subject that I've been looking into, sex and love addiction, there is a huge preoccupation with fantasy. The sex and love addict, as it will be termed, lives in fantasy with the love object. Would you say people who are sex and love addicts are close to psychotic or narcissistic or is this something separate? Love addiction is what is known as a process addiction. These people are not emotionally invested in the partner in any way, shape or form. They're emotionally invested in the fantasy. Is that not like the narcissist? Yes. The narcissist is also emotionally invested in the fantasy, but there's a major difference. That's why not all love, a minority of love addicts are narcissists. The narcissist is invested in the fantasy because he is at the center of the fantasy. So in a way, he's invested in a fantastic view of himself. The love addict is invested in a fantasy where the fantastic object is the other, not herself, but the other. That's a crucial difference. So the love addict is invested in a process. She regards the other person as a facilitator of the process and she's invested emotionally in the process. In other words, the love addict is in love, loves being in love. She's in love with love. And the partner just is a facilitator, allows her to be in love with love. So she loves him because he allows her to be in love with love. The narcissist is a very different story. The narcissist doesn't love or is emotionally invested in any way, shape or form in his partner. His partner is there because the shared fantasy requires a replay of dynamics with the mother. Let's take a break now and reconvene in five minutes. Is that okay? Yep, that's fine. I'll see you in five. See you soon. Very much. Okay, so love addicts themselves need other people and the narcissist experiences love in a very different way. So this brings me to another question, a very bizarre one that I hope you'll be able to answer. So essentially you've got... I'm a bizarre person, so it's very likely. Exactly.  Is this legal?  You know, is that normal or is that narcissistic? That's what we want to know. I mean, is everyone I've spoken to about this, are we all narcissists here? No, narcissism is not about having a fantasy.  As long as you're able to tell the difference between fantasy and reality, which a narcissist is incapable of. And as long as the aim of the fantasy is the fantasy itself, the process, the story, the narrative, which is not the case with the narcissist. In the case of the narcissist, the core, the pivot, is the narcissist, not the story, not the narrative. That's why it's very easy for the narcissist to discard you. It's all about him, not about you, not about what you have together with him, not about even your shared fantasy. It's about him. So having a fantasy, realizing that it is a fantasy, or even pursuing a fantasy. There's nothing wrong with it. Nothing unhealthy in this. So we can carry on thinking about Vikings and Tudors and Jason Momoa and, you know... I regret very much that you're not thinking about Moroccan Jews instead of Vikings, but, you know... It's not me with the Vikings, it was someone else with the Vikings. Oh right, I'm relieved to hear. Yeah, but I thought I'd ask that one for them.  Let me clarify maybe with one sentence. Maybe that'll be more helpful than all my ruminations. The love addict is invested emotionally in love. She loves to be in love. And she is grateful to her partner because he allows her to be in love with love. He allows us to experience love. So consequently she loves him because he's a source of goodies, you know. He allows her to experience love. The narcissist is, it's all about him. It's not about the fantasy. It's not about any emotion. It's not about an interaction. It's not about a collaboration. It's not about nothing. It's all about him. The partner is there because the script of the fantasy says that there has to be a mother figure there. But anyone would do. You're all fungible. The partner is fungible. Anyone would do.  What would that internally, what would be going on there? Would they reflect at all? I'm pretty sure the answer is no. Would there be any type of reflection on that? Well, maybe it was me or would it be an absolutely aghast? How dare you suggest that I gave them the world? They should have been honoured to be with me, they're all bitches. Much more likely the same. However, there is a weight of cumulative evidence.  And he hits rock bottom in one or two ways. He loses absolutely everything which has happened to me. And led me to self-awareness and through self-awareness to actually initiating the topic of narcissism online at least. So this was a beneficial development in my case. But there's another way of reaching rock bottom, of exploring rock bottom. Simply too many repetitions of the same failures. So for example, too many repetitions of romantic failures. Too many repetitions of business failures. For ultimately it pierces the narcissist's defenses and he goes through a process called decompensation. And then he says, wait a minute, like it's my 29th relationship. And it's even I, I'm reality intrudes finally. And then he does, then not even the most hardcore resilient narcissist does realize that something is wrong with him. And that's the case actually. Isn't that contrary to, you know, I mean, I think your case is rather novel. I know there are other self-aware narcissists, but it would take rock bottom surely for the self-awareness to be induced. And even so with the, you know, say you've got a low functioning, low IQ narcissist. Would they be able to escape that, you know, lack of awareness? They would probably become politicians in the no self-awareness comes to all narcissists. The question is how they react, how do they react to the self-awareness? Some of them become self-aware and they say, I'm glad I'm this way. It endows me with an evolutionary advantage. I'm the next, I'm the next step in the evolutionary ladder. I'm superior. I'm homo sapiens 2.0. Do you think that? About myself. My narcissism is non-absurdism. I am endowed. It's not the way you think. I'm endowed with, you know, an IQ which probably places me above the vast majority of people. That's not necessarily grandiosity. It sounds to me like fact-based. But I do not regard my narcissism as an asset or a gift the way many narcissists do.  I may be abrasive. I may be, but I'm tough. I'm a go-getter. I'm a dare-doer. I'm a daring doer. I'm amazing. I get things done. So they glorify themselves. They glamorize the disorder. Thereby entrenching it. Then it's impossible to help them in any way, shape or form.   You have a serious pathology. Really? Is this the same pathology that got me to the White House and to be a multi-billionaire? Do you seriously advise me to get rid of it? Narcissism had become a positive adaptation in today's western civilization, not only western law, global civilization. It's good to be a narcissist. It pays to be a narcissist. And many, many parents encourage their children and many education systems encourage students to become narcissists. What if you don't want to be a narcissist, but you want to have healthy self-esteem, but you're concerned if your self-esteem reaches a certain level, then that will cross the border into narcissism, which will ultimately hurt others. Because I think a lot of people are sort of towing this line. Well, I want to love myself. But when does loving myself become unhealthy? When does self-love become grandiose? I, as a young woman and a millennial, keep away. Never disclose your age. That's something I personally and I think a lot of women my age and men struggle with. Yes, because there's confusion or conflation of self-love and narcissism. Narcissism is the opposite of self-love. Narcissism doesn't involve total self-awareness and self-acceptance. Narcissism is aware of certain behaviors and definitely is not aware of his own dynamics and voices, internal voices and cannot tell the difference between external objects and internal object. His reality testing is short. Narcissists are very far from knowing everything there is to know about themselves and about their place in reality and about the boundaries between themselves and reality, which is a foundational cornerstone of self-love. Because how can you love yourself if you don't know who you are? That's the first thing. And the second thing, narcissism is compensatory. It compensates for a deep, deep set sense of inadequacy. We call it a bed object internalization, internal bed object.  And so to compensate for this, the narcissist projects an image. The false self creates a construct, which is everything the narcissist is not. This image is omnipotent and the narcissist is helpless. This image is omniscient and the narcissist is far less than omniscient. So in a way, the false self suits the inner self. The false self saves the inner self. It's almost the warrior that protects the crying child in the corner. I would use an even more stark metaphor or simile or imagery. It's a plug-in for the black hole. The narcissist is a black hole. And it's a black hole. And around the black hole, there are swirling stars or galaxies. These are the internal objects. And the false self plugs into the black hole and gives the narcissist the erroneous impression that there is no black hole. That there is some entity there. That there is some existence. The narcissist is an absence. He is not an existence in any way, shape or form. It comes exceedingly close to medieval fairy tales and possession stories and so on. These people in the Middle Ages, they didn't have the vocabulary that we have today, which I'm not sure is an advantage, mind you, or disadvantage. So they didn't have the vocabulary we have today. They used a different vernacular or different vocabulary. So they would say demon possessed. Or they would say it's an absence or there's nobody there. They were very terrified by the way of non-entities. Let's say a lure of ghosts. They're not there really. So this is the narcissist. He is an apparition. Now, it's very misleading because here you are talking to me. I have chubby cheeks on a good day and I smile and I'm sufficiently intelligent to cover up for my black hole. Non-existence. You seem perfectly personable, pleasant, intelligent, normal human being. Yeah, and in real life I know how to be charming because I'm manipulative and so on and so forth. It's exceedingly misleading because you get the impression of a presence. But in my case, a dominant presence. Yeah, definitely. I would say you have an identity. I'm looking at an identity right now. I see how people react when I enter rooms and so on. I have a dominant presence, but it's not there. It's all fake. It's make-belief. It's really bizarre. Yes, it's an absence. Language fails. Our language, all languages are geared towards dealing with entities, not with non-entities. When we try to talk about zero, the concept of zero, the concept when we fail, language fails us.  Is that not something, do you think, with progression in psychology that could be cured, that could be helped? No. The damage is inflicted in very critical years of life. They're known as the formative years between age zero and six years. And many, many things that form or coalesce in these years are rather immutable, rather unchangeable. For example, contrary to nonsense online, your attachment style in the vast majority of cases is lifelong and there's very little you can do about it. Now, of course, the self-help industry and even the psychotherapy industries, they have a vested interest to lie to you or to mislead you or to give you false hope. For money, yeah? For money, absolutely. And so money corrupts. Money absolutely corrupts. Oh, I can believe that. Well, take the simple fact that eight out of 10 psychological experiments cannot be replicated. That's a fact. This is a disastrous state of things. The truth is that some things that happen to you as a child are irreversible and immutable end of story. That includes a lack of empathy. That includes your attachment style. And that includes the fact that you are not allowed to become. You are not allowed to separate and become an individual process known as separation individuation. So you have never become, because you've never become, you are not as a narcissist. I mean, yeah. So is not, yeah. In terms of attachment style, I'm going to be a bit personal now, but this is just for the interest because this I think throws a slight anomaly out there when it comes to attachment style. Say you did have a loving mother, but you were born prematurely and kept in an incubator for the first few months of your life. And you didn't get that sort of skin to skin contacts that is essential for human bonding. You know, would that cause a anxious or scattered attachment style? Or could you develop a secure attachment? Is the attachment style related less to these sort of evolutionary needs and more to the emotional needs created by society we see today? Attachment style develops over many years. So, and it's more or less in its final form in early puberty. So there is a lot of flexibility and malleability during these years and you can definitely switch from one attachment style to another prior to age 12 or something. But having concluded with adolescence, you're very unlikely to change your attachment style. It can happen. It does happen usually following trauma, you know, severe events, but normally not. Now, the lack of skin to skin touch up to age six months is in principle a deprivation. You know, you're deprived of a very important element. You're likely to develop a depressive stance, what is called a schizoid depressive stance as a baby. You're likely to withdraw as a baby, you're likely to withdraw to be sad and so on and so forth. There will be initial issues of distrust with the mother.  So your attachment style will be determined much later. Okay, so it's multifactorial. It isn't just, you know. It's a long process. It's a long process. And would you say people with a defined attachment style say you've got two avoidant attachments? Are they better to be together or are you better to go for some... Not that it's a first date question. What's your attachment style? I'll tell you mine. Are you likely to get on better with somebody with the same style? There is a big debate whether attachment styles are genetically determined, inherited, because we do know, for example, of babies who are born with an inability to attach. This is called reactive attachment disorder. Okay. So there is a big debate about this regarding this. If it is genetically determined, then you are more likely to survive with someone of the opposite genetic profile. Sexual and romantic attraction is responsive to opposition in genetic profiles. When you meet a new potential partner, you immediately exchange a molecule, an actual molecule, which contains about 100 bits of information about your genetic composition and about your immunological system. Yeah, because immune systems have to be diverse in order to be attracted. Exactly, and you're attracted actually to the opposite. So if attachment style is genetically determined, it's one answer. If it is determined by upbringing or nurture, which we don't know yet, by upbringing or nurture, you're more likely to survive in someone who has the same attachment style. For example, imagine that you're avoidant and the other person is secure, or this will create the situation of clinging and insecurity and neediness and, you know, procured bed dynamics. But if you're both avoidant, you're likely to establish a long distance relationship. You're likely to meet once a week, twice a week, have fun, not to mention other things and, you know, say goodbye for the next four days. And you're likely to feel wonderful because you maintain your personal space and so on. Yeah, that sounds good actually, yeah, that sounds easy. So I, if you ask my personal opinion, but it's an opinion, total speculation in this state, I think you should have the same attachment style. I think it's calling, asking for trouble if you team up with someone who is absolutely the opposite attachment style to yours. His needs will not be satisfied, your needs will not be satisfied. You will impinge on each other, you'll get in each other's nerves and, you know, and badly and acrimoniously. I just gave you an example of what we call insecure avoidant attachment style, avoidant dismissive or avoidant fearful, all kinds of avoidances. Avoidance should be together, because they settle into a pattern that allows them to avoid intimacy, they don't feel threatened, they don't invade each other's space, they don't make demands on each other, and so on and so forth. And today the technology actually is doable, you know, it's quite doable. It's unfortunate because they miss out on a lot. But you know, we all miss out on a lot by virtue of being, by virtue of being who we are. I'm not taller, but I've been taller, I've been an NBA star, for example. Oh yeah, as you probably would have. A Jewish-Moroccan NBA star, it's very common. I know, I've heard of the team, yeah. Indeed, because of Lanka, because of Lanka rioters. But it's one of those things, when you talk about these things, it all seems to come back to daddy's psychology, you know, Mr Freud. It's very unfortunate that we have discarded Freud and everything that came after Freud, because Freud was only the beginning. And he was negated and contradicted by actually most of the thinkers later on, including by contemporaries like Adler and so on. So there's been like 60 years, 70 actually years of very, very wise minds, most of them Jewish, of course, who dedicated their brainpower to observing people and deriving lessons. And you know, and to discard all this contemptuously as modern universities do. It just shows, just, in my view, it just shows what age we live in. It's not, you know. Don't get me started on the age that we live in.  I won't tell you up or lower millennial, but yeah. Yes, keep your cards close to your chest. I will. Yeah. Two years ago, a group of Israeli scholars, sorry, I keep, you know, Jewish, Israeli, I apologize. They're all over psychology. They're unavoidable. So a group of Israeli psychologists conducted four studies, and they came up with a new idea. It's a new new personality construct. They called it TIV. Tendency for interpersonal victimhood. They said that some people like to be victims. They adopt victimhood as an identity, and they create identity politics based on victimhood. They interpret their lives, they make sense of their lives based on this principle of victimhood. They anticipate being victims, and they select abusers and victimizers as bosses, intimate partners, and so on and so forth. Because this is the comfort zone, and they organize their lives in a way which will ensure victimization. So this sense of outrage that has become a sort of social media moral currency.  Therefore, I am the best online. It's grandiose virtue signaling. Another study, which was very serious study in British Columbia, discovered that victimhood movements are compromised within months by narcissists and psychopaths who become the public face of the movement. Can you give me an example? There are examples in the study. I just don't recall if I don't remember something I don't say, but British Columbia victimhood studies and so on, published, I think, also two years ago. And from my personal experience, this is entirely true because I have established a victimhood movement, actually. For 10 years, I've been alone on the Internet. There was no one else talking about narcissism. I coined the phrase narcissistic abuse in the early 1990s. And then the six support groups for victims of narcissistic abuse were all owned and moderated by me. In many ways, I'm the father of the narcissistic abuse movement, although many people don't know that. So I've been, I've had a privileged position in observing what had happened to this victimhood movement as it has evolved over the decades. Possibly a unique position because other victimhood movements are very young. Yes. I mean, they change daily. The victimhood movement. I mean, we've got a new target every day on Twitter. We don't know. Everyone in this dog is a victim. The sociologist Bradley Campbell said that we are we have transitioned from the age of dignity to the age of victimhood. So I've been able to observe what it was happening. And definitely the narcissistic abuse movement has been hijacked lock stock and barrel by covert narcissists. You're okay there. Give me a minute. No problem. I've been hijacked by covert narcissists, overt narcissists, con artists and possibly psychopaths. So I have witnessed the hijacking of a victimhood movement. First hand, talk a bit until I recover my voice. Yes. I also witnessed it myself as a journalist on a daily basis. This victim, this what about his and this outrage movement, which I think dilutes the purpose of authentic revolution. There are things right now happening in this world that are worth fighting for such as the cost of living crisis.  Yeah, every day we believe if we write a status online and put a hashtag at the end of it, then our work is done. We are the victim. We have said our piece and we are done. And therefore, there's no real change were made in the tangible world. Yet the virtual world is awash with bees discussing, you know, oh, well, this happened today and we should cancel such and such and we should, you know, at this kind of thing and I feel this, this, this stops the vehicle of change. It grinds to a halt and therefore what happens is we're self censoring each other to the point of silence. And whether people in government will no longer listen to the demands of the people, because the demands of the people change on a daily basis and ultimately mean nothing. Yeah. As you see, I've regained my voice. Listening to you is a healing effect on me. That's useful to know. Now. It's nice to know I can hear a narcissist. Yes. Well, we'll be the first case live on camera. We've got one. You haven't laid your hands on me, but still it works. So a very useful concept is what is Locust of grandiosity. People think that noses is want to be the best, the best, the most powerful, the richest. That's not true. They want to be unique. So for example, being a unique victim satisfies the losses is grandiosity.  This happens a lot. You see this a lot. It's almost become a pandemic of its own. I almost feel as if I'm at a disadvantage being, I'm not entirely sure, but fairly atypical.  Someone would be proud that his company was so huge that this was the biggest bankruptcy in 10 years. You just have to be special, biggest, unique. And so being a victim, the moral high ground, it's a Locust of grandiosity. It satisfies the noses is grandiosity. No one has ever been a victim like me. I've been victimized more than you. When you go to victim forums or empath forums, they compete who has been victimized more. Your abuser is nothing compared to my abuser. My story is much worse than your story. They kind of get, and you see this grandiosity of play and the competitive streak of, you know, I'm superior to you because I'm inferior to you. 100% I've seen. I mean, what I feel has gone from values of true success and true hard work, which is not to be confused by the way, I'm not disparaging of anyone who has a disadvantage who has been successful. This is separate. I'm talking about this assumption that, you know, say something really terrible happens to me like somebody, my son likes pink. Okay, I'm wearing pink right now. It's a great color. And, you know, somebody laughs at him on the street for wearing pink and they go, Oh, that's a girl's color.  My son was attacked for wearing pink movement. And then this spirals into a something else. And I'm just seeing a lot of this. It just keeps cropping up like weeds, and we're all standing on soapboxes, not hearing each other. And I think it's really dangerous place for us to be as a society, really. And it concerns me. And it concerns me that my generation is, you know, generalized into that because there are a lot of underground voices that are saying, No, we're still here. We're not covert narcissists where we're not professional victims. We do still believe that, you know, the revolution can happen in a tangible way. I'll give you, I'll give you a rule of thumb. My thumb, of course, I give you a rule of thumb on how to distinguish true, real movements, social rights movements, human rights movements, movements which are, which are bona fide. From narcissistic victim movement. It's a very simple rule of thumb. The narcissist needs to differentiate himself or herself. So when a victim movement is hijacked by narcissists and psychopaths, it fragments. And everyone begins to make a highly specific differentiated claim. Take for example, the, the asexuality movement. It's started off as a unified movement based on an allegedly unified clinical concept. There are some people who are not attracted to other people sexually end of story. And that that's fine. That's absolutely. But then, and that was when it was legitimate, but then it was invaded by covert narcissists, narcissists and psychopaths. And it's fragmented to a million smithereens and pieces. Now you have asexuals who masturbate or asexuals who don't masturbate. You have great sexuals who are this way and great sexuals who are actually demisexual. I counted, they are well over 73 sub variants of asexuality now.  Why is it so important? Why is it so important to identify with a subsection of a subsection of a subsection? Because it renders you unique. If you're just a garden variety asexual, there will be millions like you.  It renders you super unique. If everyone is striving to be unique, much as everyone is striving for revolution, surely once again, that dilutes the term of uniqueness, that dilutes the meaning of uniqueness. Then will it not be unique to be normal? Well, normalcy had become the minority first. What used to be called normalcy? What is normal? That's the big question, the typical question. What used to become normal? It's become the minority. We dispense with some really dead things, like some aspects of gender roles and so on. We dispense with it. And that's a blessing. Yes, most definitely. And the progression of women, the progression of gay rights, trans rights, all of those things that must be said, these things in society are being changed for the better. Representation is on the rise. I see that personally as separate from this victimhood mentality. Again, the test is very simple. If it fragments to sub-sub-subvariance and so on, the movement has been hijacked by narcissists. They want to feel special and unique. So they fragmented the movement in order to belong to a tiny, tiny, tiny subsection and be very special. If the movement is coherent and cohesive and uniform as a unitary facade, then it's probably legitimate. There hasn't been such fragmentation, for example, in the Black civil rights movement. There hasn't been such fragmentation. There's been a debate about strategies, but there hasn't been a fragmentation. I'm a Black guy who lives on the left side of the street. So my victimhood is different to yours because you live on the right side of the street. There hasn't been such nonsense. And similarly, I think in the gay rights movement, there hasn't been such something like this. But when it comes to, say, JK Rowling and feminism, there's been fragmentation with that in terms of, you know, obviously, trans women are recognised as female on there.  They are known as... Feminism is an example of an interest rate. Yeah, it's become extremely fragmented, extremely fragmented.  Yet for males, it's not people with a scrotum, it's men. An article I submitted was denied publication because I refused to change two words. I refused to call students or pupils, scholars.  The article was rejected. I'm not surprised. Another article I submitted to actually a UK outlet, I didn't submit. I was solicited to a UK outlet and they inserted a paragraph without my permission that says... They may do that. And I'm not going to do anything. But the paragraph says that pathological narcissism is totally normal. Because to attack pathological narcissism is ableism. I'm not kidding you. It's discriminatory. It's disgusting. It's demonised people. You should not... They're disabled and this is ableism. This is a formal... Do you feel you are disabled? I am disabled. But if I'm a danger to others and to society. Others in society have a full right to defend themselves. First and foremost, by spreading the knowledge that I'm a danger. And this is not ableism. This is self-defence. Where does that line get drawn? Do we then defend the pedophiles? Do we then defend the people behind bars in prison? Is that then ableist? If they're psychopathic and I call them disgusting, am I ableist? Yes, according to this, yes. Pedophiles need mental health care. They need care. They don't need demonising. They need care. Although there is a subset of pedophiles that say they do not indulge in physical pedophilia. And they are seeking rights to... This is actually the majority. But pedophiles do need care. Pedophiles do need care. However, this doesn't exclude the fact that we should be very wary of pedophiles. And castigate them and chastise them and isolate them. And spread the information wide and far that they are dangerous. Exactly. Would I tell my child, you know, this person, this known pedophile, is perfectly fine to go and play with on your own? For fear of being called ableist? No, I would not. That's how far it's gone. That's how far it's gone. I don't know. I mean, I know that society...   Can you explain this to me? Because this is the official... I can explain this to you. I can explain this to you. So you have a biological woman or somebody who identifies as a woman or you have a trans woman. A biological female may not necessarily identify as a female. They may identify as gender fluid or male or... How does any of this... Because we have one minute left. How does any of this have to do with pregnancy? Only women can get pregnant. End of story. Only biological women can get pregnant. The term for womanhood has apparently changed. I'm a medical doctor. Only biological women can get pregnant. End of story. Or people that have... Gender women cannot get pregnant. They can't, no. But the word woman has changed its meaning. It has become fluid. That's rank nonsense. Because a subset of women can get pregnant. I'm not saying that... Biological women can get pregnant. It's still not people. Or people who are biologically have female parts but do not identify as women can also get pregnant. So yes, the definition of womanhood has completely changed in recent years. Probably the last, I would say five years. It's slowly becoming to the point where the word female is not recognised as separate. There's a biological thing. It's not separate from biology. It's a very difficult subject for a lot of people. A lot of people are divided on it. And it has, as you say, become extremely fractured. I mean, J.K. Rowling was one of the world's most beloved authors. Still is, to many people. Created an empire. Now even the actors who she helped bring to fame are denouncing her.  The rape of language.  Narcissist rape language. They are vitrarily redefine words. They mix half truths and half lies. They create plausible scenarios and pull the wool over your eyes. They misinterpret things you have said. If they are psychopathic, they gaslight you. Language is a major instrument in the hands of the narcissist. Any movement, social law, which seeks to redefine language in a way that creates controversy to this extent must be highly narcissistic and compromise. What do you see for the future in terms of the way that we're leaning with social media and narcissism and the way we present ourselves, professional victimhood. What do you see for the future of the next generation in terms of identity and this political outrage that seems to last about two seconds before the next wave of political outrage then surfaces? It's not real outrage. It's virtue signalling. Yeah, of course, yeah. There's no real outrage. I'm calling it outrage for this sake. It's outrage between Netflix and red wine. That's the kind of outrage. Exactly. It's not real burning outrage that we're talking about. And it's rarely firsthand. The activists are utterly divorced from the previous social movements. The activists were the victims. Now we have a whole layer of parasitic, a whole series of parasitic layers growing on real victims if they exist. In many cases they don't exist. They are invented, but in some cases they do exist. There's this parasitic superstructure which leverages the victimhood in order to obtain 15 minutes of fame and so on. Totally narcissistic. As to the future, all the elements of the narcissistic pathology do exist right now in terms of technology. The only missing part was the fantasy, the shared fantasy. We had grandiosity. We had everything is embedded in the algorithms and the coding of technology and social media and so on. So we have relative positioning, codification of envy and rage, likes, competition in the form of likes, and so on and so forth. Narcissism has been codified into the technological infrastructure. But one critical thing... We all seek it though. We all seek it. We all have narcissistic defences and we all have healthy narcissists. Yeah. Or unhealthy as it was. Say I post a selfie to social media where I think I look good. I want to put that there.  You want to stand out. You want to stand out. That's not something I would have thought about 10 years ago.  There'd be no filter on it. It just wouldn't be that choreographed. Now everything is choreographed, including my own pictures, including the pictures of everybody else. We haven't got these sloppy, candid shots anymore. It's not about life. It's about spectacle. Exactly. Fantasy, shared fantasy. It's a famous book, Society of the Spectacle. It's about spectrum. Fantasy was missing. You had everything. You had grandiosity. You had narcissistic supply. You had relative positioning. You had competition. You had rage. You had envy. All the elements of narcissistic pathology are codified, hard codified into hard coded, I'm sorry, into all technology platforms. There was one thing missing. One big thing is the shared fantasy. And now it's coming. It's called the metaverse. The metaverse is a shared fantasy. You won't be able to create shared fantasies in the metaverse with real or imaginary. It's actually scary. Everyone will have an avatar. In other words, everyone will become an internal object. You will not be interacting with external objects, but only with their representations in your mind. This is total descent to narcissism. This is a total descent to narcissism. Would you feel you fit in there? Sorry? Would you feel that you fit in? If we descend into total narcissism within a decade, would you feel that you could walk among us as your own? This has been my world much more than other people's, long before the metaverse. But I've made it my life's mission to warn against narcissism. And its effects. Therefore it's even uniqueness. In a way, yes. It's kind of brand, kind of brand of uniqueness. Yes. I branded myself as a fighter against narcissists. And actually a whistleblower. I like the brand. I like the brand. Your videos are there now. It's a whistleblower. It's a whistleblower brand.   Combined. I have betrayed my kind. And I'm bringing you the news as a whistleblower. These are not very likeable characters, the traitor and the whistleblower. They can be in years to come. They're the ones who will often remember it. But that has been my life's mission. So the metaverse terrifies me because I know more than most, I think, how it is to be in a shared fantasy. The pool of the shared fantasy, the gravitational pool of the shared fantasy, the inability to extricate yourself, the addictive qualities of the shared fantasy. And finally, most importantly, the objectification and conversion of everyone else in the shared fantasy into a set of symbols, manipulable symbols, simply internal orgies. And this just makes me want to get in a time machine and go back somewhere else. I'm a grumpy old man, of course. And grumpy old men tend to disparage younger generations. It's a hobby of us. We're old men. We do it. It's a hobby. But I don't think I'm... I think I'm being pretty realistic about this. No, I think you are. I agree with you. I think things are going from bad to worse and have been going from bad to worse for a long time, like decades. I think we, as a species, a humanity, we've been utterly traumatized by the two world wars which created enormous dislocations and disorientation and distrust of institutions and authorities and expertise and need to revert to something bigger than yourself. So, you know, religion or cult. We see it in journalism as well.  You know, we're fighting social media and what people fail to recognize is that journalism is not social media. We are going to say things that you don't like. We are going to inform you of things that you don't want to hear. We are not going to cater to your algorithm and that's why people have lost trust in the media. I'm not saying that every single media outlet is trustworthy. However, I will say that most media outlets in most free-speaking worlds are filled with professional people in the pursuit of truth which has then been molded by tech companies in the pursuit of clicks which, you know, we're giving you the media that you asked for. We're giving you cats on skateboards.  This is what you asked for.  Yes, but traditional media, also known as MSM, mainstream media traditionally they have been established on the assumption that people do seek the truth and value the truth. People don't want the truth. Never have actually. It was self-delusional. People don't want the truth. They want their truth. There is what I call malignant egalitarianism. The belief that the truth is moldable and malleable that your opinion is as good as my opinion and that your opinion can actually easily be interpreted as a fact. How can we relate opinion to facts? Opinion and facts are not the same. Your opinion is a fact, actually. Is it? It is a fact. I don't believe my opinion is a fact. No, but it's a fact that you have an opinion. It's a fact that I have an opinion but my opinion is not fact. Well, that's where it ends. That's where it ends. People lack critical thinking and so on. So opinions are absolutely interpreted as facts. But then how would you ever learn? How would you learn? There's no need to learn, people believe. There has been a tremendous drop in enrollment in higher education. It's fallen off a cliff, especially among men. There's no need to learn anymore. It's fake it till you make it. It's Tony Robbins awakened the giant within. It's the law of attraction. I watched it there. Did you see Tony Robbins' documentary on Netflix? I am not your guru. It's get rich quick, shortcut mentality. Learning is perceived as an obstacle for the feeble minded because you end up with student debt. And learning outside higher education institutions is also frowned upon because it challenges your centrality as a generator of truth and fact. You have an equal status to everyone else. Your facts are as important as valuable as my facts. I feel that to be egotistical and incorrect. Egotistical is another issue, but incorrect is a threat. It's a threat to survival, of course. And I feel that the world that we are living in now with the financial crisis get rich quick, only fans, drop shipping, TikTok, influencers. This is the kind of thing people need now to survive and get the kind of revenue stream coming into their household in order to put food on the table for their children. People have almost had to mould themselves to the metaverse because going through a traditional path of education has left them with nothing but debt and high taxes.  Hence my contention that narcissism has become a positive adaptation in today's civilization. It pays to be a narcissist. It's a good thing. But you've also called it a stage for cancer at some point. There is a difference between the individual good and the public's welfare. So individuals can thrive in a society that's dying. Actually, individuals often thrive in societies that are dying. We look what happened during the pandemic. Some of the biggest companies in the world made record numbers of sales. And similarly, in Nazi Germany, many people became very rich and so on. Societies can decay and die and collapse and even a whole species can. Individuals, the collective good is not the sum of individual good. That's a common utilitarian mistake. So people are atomised and they leverage technology to secure a living or whatever. And it's going to work actually. It's going to work. It's like the famous Jewish joke. So I give you a dollar, you give me back to me. We have a turnover of $2. It's going to work. People are going to trade the same dollar and a variety of ways generating a livelihood for all of them. Ultimately, it will all come crashing down because there's no underlying value. It's make belief. It's manipulation of symbols. And because we don't recognise the separate existence of other people, we will lose our ability to collaborate, which was the cornerstone of our success as a species. I was about to say the exact same thing. Is that not, you know, our social ability? Is that not the reason that we have survived so long? Of course it is. Don't go far. Look at families. Look what happened to the family. It contracted and contracted and contracted. And now we are at pains to maintain a family of two. And also community. Community. Community is very long. New player families. Not in certain regions of France, or have you now? Yes. Community is very much alive. Yeah. Well, special part, special areas in the Middle East as well. Yes. But these are temporary enclaves. Because the pressures and stresses mediated by money and corporate greed and so on are too strong. No one will survive this onslaught. It's a tsunami. It's coming. You may believe yourself isolated, but it's coming. No, I certainly do not. It's terrifying. We can't, we can't manage a long-term commitment to a single partner. We can't. 51% of marriages end in divorce in every single year. It's very misleading because ultimately the real figure is much higher. 70% of second marriages end in divorce and 81% of third marriages end in divorce. The effective figure is three quarters. And we can't even manage to be with one person to compromise, to share, to negotiate.  So how can we think of larger friends? And indeed everything is falling apart. And the distrust is enormous. You saw it during the pandemic. Distrust of medical authorities, of expertise, of education. The distrust is total. I never thought I'd see so many people refuse a vaccine. Not only the vaccine, but advice, not connected to the vaccine. Analysis and so on. People rejected medical authorities in favor of quacks, neighbors, aunties and grandmas. They regarded those as much more reliable sources than doctors and so on. We are in trouble because we are discarding the elites, especially the intellectual elites. The institutionary repository of human knowledge is with these elites. By discarding them, mocking them, decrying them, deriding them, diminishing them, we are giving up on the legacy. And without that, we will not survive. There are major threats, like climate change, and there are terminal threats, like the gender wars. I regard the gender wars as a much bigger threat than climate change. Much bigger threat. And we can't get our act together. Simply can't. You saw it in Monkey Box. We can't get our act together. End of story. It's doomed, that's it. Every day I go online and I see people who can't get their act together constantly, probably including myself. And I think it's just, I really fear for the world in which my two sons will grow up in. I really do. I have deep concerns about.  I'm not sure what is the more prevalent. But it takes definitely in ordinate courage. It's, and nowadays I'm talking now, like to make a decision to bring a child now to the world. Yeah, I think, you know, obviously my decision was made nine years ago. But if I have my decision again, who know, you know, because it's, it's unsustainable. Even in a double income household with educated people, it's actually life has become unsustainable. Yes. That's a good summary. Life has become unsustainable, true. We're going to transition from reality and life to fantasy. It's a defense, fantasy is a defense. Reality has become so unbearable, so untenable, so unmanageable that we're going to migrate our mass to fantasy. We're going to remain stuck there. We will never exit. There's no reason for you to leave the Metaverse. Your company will have its office in the Metaverse.  You'll buy your clothes in the Metaverse. You'll order pizza in the Metaverse. You will never have to leave your couch. Totally atomized. You will never see a human face in the year 2016. A majority of men and women in the United States. Haven't had any interaction with someone of the opposite sex, heterosexual, men and women. Majority. I find that really hard to believe. Yes. It sounds unbelievable. Sounds terrifying. That's where I had it. Yeah. Wow. It's been very enlightening as always. Your words and expertise never fail to amaze me. Thank you. So thank you very much for this opportunity. It's been a pleasure. Thank you. And I'm sorry about the incident in the middle. I had a medical procedure yesterday and I haven't recovered fully. Oh, no, it's fine. No worries. Thank you for coming along to do the interview anyway. Yeah. So let's all just go and down a bottle of wine or something because the world is screwed. Or something harder. We're not going to do this. Not in public. Okay. No. No. Thank you. All right. Thank you very much. You have a lovely day. Take care. Bye. Bye.


Obesity is a growing problem in dogs, and there is an increased demand for foods rich in fibres to help reduce calorie intake and slow down digestion. Soy hulls are a low cost and readily available fibre source, and we conducted a study to evaluate the effectiveness of feeding them to adult dogs with varying degrees of body condition. The results showed that the dogs fed the soy hulls diet experienced no significant changes in body weight, body condition score, subcutaneous fat thickness, or body mass index compared to those fed a controlled diet. However, further research is needed to determine whether this type of diet would be effective for overweight or obese dogs. This article was authored by Tabata T. Sapchuk, Marianas Garaba, Carolina P. Zanata, and others.


Hello and welcome to this session. Let us understand the following problem today. Check the injectivity and sensitivity of the function given to us as a function f from r to r given by fx is equal to x square. Now let us write the solution. Now first let us check for 1, 1. We observe that for x1, x2 belongs to r, f of x1 is equal to f of x2 which implies x1 square is equal to x2 square which implies x1 is equal to plus minus x2. But x1 is not equal to minus x2. For this to understand let us consider 1 and minus 1 here f of 1 is equal to f of minus 1 but 1 is not equal to minus 1. Therefore x1 is not equal to minus of x2. Hence f is not 1, 1. Now let us check for on 2. Since f of x assumes only non-negative value therefore non-negative real number in co-domain has its pre-image not 1, 1 and f is not on 2 therefore function is neither injective nor surjective. Hope you understood the problem. Bye and have a nice day.