I know that the only reason you subscribe to this channel is to follow my changing hairstyle. So today I'm giving you a special treat. My haircut. Poor on, poor on the comments. Probably the only thing you care to comment about. Otherwise, those of you who are legally blind and cannot behold my haircut. Please listen to the rest of this video. Today we are going to discuss late onset trauma. Trauma that happens much later in life, not in early childhood, in adulthood or even in late adolescence. Can such trauma distort and contort the personality to the point of yielding a personality disorder? The current orthodoxy in psychology is that personality disorders, at least some of them, are the outcomes of early childhood, abuse, trauma, breach of boundaries, inability to separate and individuate, etc. In short, cataclysmic or traumatic occurrences in early childhood, usually involving one or two of the parents, typically the mother who is also known euphemistically as the primary object. Don't you just love psychology? But today we are going to ask the question, can we acquire a personality disorder much later in life, owing to some disastrous, unexpected, sudden, abrupt, all-consuming, all-pervading trauma? My name is Sam Vaknin, a proper trauma, and I'm the author of Malignant Self-Love, Narcissism Revisited, and also a former visiting professor of psychology. When you were all much younger, myself included, there was a diagnosis. It was known as IPCASE, E-P-C-A-C-E, and during personality changes after catastrophic events. In 1998 Judith Herman coined the term complex post-traumatic stress disorder. And ever since then, CPTSD, or complex trauma, as it had come to be known, evolved consuming other diagnoses, subsuming them. It is even about to take over borderline personality disorder. It's a form of emotional dysregulation embedded in as the outcome of CPTSD. So CPTSD is all the rage. I myself have spent the last few years trying to recast narcissistic personality disorder as a post-traumatic condition in effect, a form of CPTSD. One of the casualties of the emergence and the dominance of CPTSD has been IPCASE, and during personality changes after catastrophic events. At the time, the diagnosis required the patient to have a personality change that lasts for two years after trauma. Just to clarify, IPCASE was a part of the ICD-10, the International Classification of Diseases Edition 10, but not a part of any edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual, the DSM. It has been removed in the ICD-11, largely removed in the ICD-11, and merged, so to speak, or fused with the equivalent of complex trauma or CPTSD. And still, I think casting IPCASE as a form of CPTSD, while it has its merits, blurs the lines too much. And in a minute or during this video, I hope you understand why. But first, why don't I read to you in my charming operatic voice, why don't I read to you the criteria for enduring personality for IPCASE? So it's F62 in the ICD-10, and during personality changes, it's not attributable to brain damage and disease. And that excludes, of course, most politicians. I'm kidding. Disorders of adult personality and behavior that have developed in persons with no previous personality disorder, following exposure to catastrophic or excessive prolonged stress, or following severe psychiatric illness. This diagnosis should be made only when there is evidence of a definite and enduring change in a person's pattern of perceiving, relating to, or thinking about the environment and himself or herself. The personality change should be significant. It should be associated with inflexible and maladaptive behavior not present before the pathogenic experience. The change should not be a direct manifestation of another mental health disorder or a residual symptom of any antecedent mental disorder. And so this is F62, and it continues to provide examples and to kind of expound on the behavioral changes. So, enduring personality change after catastrophic experience, and during personality change, present for at least two years, following exposure to catastrophic stress, the stress must be so extreme that it is not necessary to consider personal vulnerability in order to explain its profound effect on the personality. The disorder is characterized by a hostile or distrustful attitude towards the world, social withdrawal, feelings of emptiness or hopelessness, a chronic feeling of being on edge as if constantly threatened and estrangement. Post-traumatic stress disorder may precede this type of personality change, but should not be conflated with it. So, the ICD gives a few examples. For example, concentration camp experiences and natural disasters, prolonged captivity with an imminent possibility of being killed, exposure to life-threatening situations such as being a victim of terrorism, torture. So, these are really extreme catastrophes. You should not and cannot diagnose hip-case in, for example, situations of domestic violence. Normal, regular, typical, run-of-the-mill, your neighbors' domestic violence. You could, however, diagnose hip-case if the domestic violence involved captivity, now known as coercive control, and resulted in an imminent or omnipresent threat to life. If it was a life-threatening type of intimate relationship, then perhaps you could diagnose hip-case rather than CPTSD. Remember that hip-case is not the same as post-traumatic stress disorder. And this is where hip-case is actually the bridge between PTSD and CPTSD. PTSD is a reaction to a single event. This case is actually PTSD for prolonged exposure to extreme events. So, when you have very extreme, sudden, life-threatening events and they take time, they last for months or for weeks or for years, you can't diagnose PTSD. It doesn't fall within the diagnostic criteria. On the other hand, the abuse, the torture, the coercion are so extreme that they fall outside the remit of complex trauma, CPTSD. And that's where hip-case is the bridge.  No. Should you be diagnosed with PTSD? No. But you could have been diagnosed with hip-case before it was erroneously, in my view, discarded. Let's go to F62.1. It is a variant of hip-case, which is actually pretty common. Enduring personality change after psychiatric illness, personality change persisting for at least two years, attributable to the traumatic experience of suffering from a severe psychiatric illness. The change cannot be explained by a previous personality disorder and should be differentiated from residual schizophrenia and other states of incomplete recovery from an antecedent mental disorder. This disorder is characterized by an excessive dependence on and a demanding attitude towards others. Conviction of being changed or stigmatized by the illness leading to an inability to form and to maintain close and confiding personal relationships and to social isolation. Stigma. Passivity, reduced interest and diminished involvement in leisure activities. Kind of anhedonia. Persistent complaints of being ill, which may be associated with hypokondriasis and hypochondriacal claims and illness behavior. Dysphoric or labile moods, not due to the presence of a current mental disorder or antecedent mental disorder with residual effective symptoms and long-standing problems in social and occupational functioning. Ip case, as distinct from CPTSD and or from PTSD, is how exposure to real catastrophe, prolonged exposure to real catastrophe, can change your personality. Again, let's provide differential diagnosis, a classification. PTSD, changes in personality behaviors and cognitions, attributable to a single event, a single catastrophic event, an accident, a natural disaster. CPTSD, changes in personality, emotions, cognitions and behaviors, attributable to very prolonged exposure to mild to moderate trauma. Ip case is in between. Changes in personality, traits, behaviors, social functioning, et cetera, et cetera. Attributable to catastrophic events such as equivalent of torture or the life threats or catastrophic events, which take time, which are recurrent, happen again and again, and take time. So that's the bridge between PTSD and CPTSD. This is an article which I want to recommend. It's titled How Catastrophe Can Change Personality. It was published in September 2019 by Gen Tanaka and Hansen Tang. And it's a very interesting article. It was published in Psychiatric Times, Volume 36, Issue 9, and it explores why Ip case is a clinically useful diagnosis. It advocates for Ip case the same way I do. As I told you at the beginning, Ip case has been eliminated from the International Classification of Diseases Revision 11, ICD-11. It was incorporated in ICD-11 as a variant of CPTSD in June 2018. But as I've just explained copiously, Ip case is not exactly CPTSD. It is CPTSD, which is a reaction to truly super extreme radical catastrophes. Ip case, say the authors, is defined as an enduring personality change lasting for a minimum of two years that a patient experiences following a catastrophic stressor. The events of the stressor must also be so extreme that one should disregard any genetic vulnerabilities or predispositions that would further influence personality changes. These experiences can include imprisonment, for example, in concentration camps, natural disasters, long-lasting capture with a persistent threat to life, etc., as I mentioned before. The ICD-10 Ip case represents, say the authors, represents the experiences of a particularly vulnerable group, one marked by great loss, separation from community and aloneness. So in Ukraine, for example, we are likely to diagnose PTSD and Ip case, not CPTSD. In the population, women who were raped, children who were dislocated, soldiers who have been exposed to battle conditions for months on end, they are much more likely to be diagnosed with Ip case than with either PTSD or CPTSD. The authors continue, such isolation from nourishing connections is a major dimension of deep and enduring personality change, especially in cases of massive psychic trauma, such as the Holocaust, involving the loss of an entire community and its way of life, fundamental bonds of social connection, trust and support are broken and the individual is left profoundly alone. Such effective changes point to the insufficiency of research on survivors left in such a devastated state. I would add to this list, refugees from cults, people who have left cults or when the cult broke down, they actually display Ip case, not so much CPTSD but Ip case. The authors continue, an Ip case based formulation can highlight such factors as extreme helplessness and aloneness where the human agency was the cause of the catastrophic event, whether the event involved humiliation of the survivor and whether the survivor remained in the zone of danger after the catastrophic event. These factors must be evident both individually and transgenerationally as they are in the suffering of some of the survivors of the Holocaust who remained in areas where anti-Semitism and its dangers continued to be prevalent. Now the authors provide a history of all our attempts, our desperate attempts I could say, as professionals to cope with the aftermath and the after effects of trauma. How do we classify? I think the reason for this taxonomic battle, if you wish, I think the reason for the failure of many differential diagnosis, the blurring of the lines, the comorbidities and essentially nonsensical terms like emotional flashbacks, I think the reason for all this is because people react differently to trauma. Trauma is not an objective thing. It's not an objective mental health clinical entity. Trauma is actually not a mental health event at all. Trauma is a reaction. It could be a reaction to an internal event such as psychiatric illness and it could be of course a reaction to an external event. It could be a reaction to other people. It could be a reaction to triggers, et cetera, et cetera. Trauma is a reactive pattern, a reactive pattern. And when it involves dissociation, it's a protective and defensive pattern of reacting, of coping with things that events that threaten to overwhelm the individual, to dysregulate the individual. Trauma is an attempt to re-regulate or at the very least to freeze and avoid complete meltdown and dysregulation and because each one of us is different. We have different haircuts. We are differently resilient. We have strengths and weaknesses of character. We have different backgrounds, different upbringing, different predispositions, genetic and otherwise, et cetera, et cetera. There are not two people who react to the identical traumatic event the same. Not two people react the same to the same event. So on the face of it, you would need millions of types of trauma reactions. But that's of course not doable. So what we do do, we have baskets. We have baskets of post-traumatic or after-traumatic reactions. One basket is CPTSD. And we had a third useful basket, IP case, which had been discarded for some reason. In between 1988 and 1992, there was a renaissance of this study of trauma. Personality changes which were reactive to trauma were studied very deeply by Herman and many of her colleagues and later confirmed by Peltron, Silove, Gabbard, Weine, Tedeschi, Nienhuys, Wola, Evans and many others. So I just gave you a whole bibliographic list. There was this renaissance, this flourishing of trauma studies and trauma and dissociations were rediscovered as perhaps the engines behind most mental health issues and disorders. We had the work of Dell and others later. So there was a question which arose very early on, I would say, in the late 1980s. How do you distinguish personality changes which are the outcomes of catastrophic events from personality changes which are the outcomes of other things, not catastrophic, not events even, other things. And at the time there was a task force appointed by the ICD-10 committee and the task force decided to include in the ICD-10 this diagnosis, IP case. Personality traits such as hostile or distrustful attitude towards the world, social withdrawal, chronic feelings of emptiness and hopelessness, being on edge as if constantly threatened by provigilance, estrangement, they all separated IP case, differentiated IP case from PTSD at the time. There was no CPTSD yet. And so the committee or the task force studied, for example, victims of genocidal trauma, including the Holocaust, extreme helplessness, humiliation, the destruction of a validating community, one's identity, sense of self-worth, ultimate existential loneliness, inability to rely on others, there are no others. Everyone is out for himself, there's a struggle for survival and there's a lifelong vulnerability to shame. And these personality traits emerged after these catastrophes and then became dominant. And what happens is, they became dominant but people learned in due time how to repress, control, regulate somehow, stabilize these unwanted artifacts and gifts of the catastrophic event. And yet, in different points at the life cycle, when triggered by disruptive events, everything re-errupted, everything re-emerged, the helplessness, the shame, the humiliation, the separation, the loss, the grief, even news events could trigger this, even news events. For example, Holocaust victims exposed to news reports about anti-Semitism reacted this way, they simply fell apart, they fell apart. Similar events result in divergent personality traits among survivors. As I said, there's a problem with that, we don't all react the same. Even with the same survivor over the lifespan or life cycle, we have a different psychological profile. When there is intensification of efforts to avoid massive grief or prolonged grief, we do it today and at the same time there's a counter-phobic adaptation, like I mentioned, repression and denial and everything. So there's this balance, this desperate attempt to not grieve anymore, to not fall apart anymore, to somehow cope well. But the triggers are everywhere and they can be very slight, so actually it's not working. Beltran and his colleagues tested actually the validity of the IP case diagnosis. They conducted a survey of clinical psychologists and psychiatrists. 89% of psychologists and psychiatrists surveyed, agreed that personality can be altered, can be changed by trauma, which occurs in adulthood. So almost all professionals think that late-onset trauma, trauma in late adulthood can create personality changes that amount to personality disorders. Virtually everyone, 90 to 91%, agreed that something like torture, something like concentration camp exposure, even maximum security prison with very dangerous criminals, they're likely to produce changes in personality. 72% of mental health practitioners thought, agreed that war exposure could create such changes. 66% agreed that aggravated sexual assault can cause this. 57% thought that hostage situations can alter personality. 52% domestic violence, 25% natural disasters, and 24% motor vehicle accidents. But notice a disparity. When the catastrophic event is mediated by a human being, when it's brought on by a human being, the effect is much bigger. When you are tortured by another human being, when you're sexually assaulted by another human being, when life is threatened by another human being, when human beings construct total institutions to imprison you or hold you hostage, or when other human beings are involved, the trauma is much bigger, much more pervasive, much more all-invasive, much more all-consuming, and changes your personality much more deeply for a much longer period of time. When, on the other hand, the catastrophic event is either natural or technical-mechanical, the impact is much less reduced. Only 25%, only one quarter of psychologists and psychiatrists agreed that natural disasters and car accidents, for example, should induce a change in personality. They disagreed, and they're right, because these events usually generate PTSD, post-traumatic stress disorder, not EAP case. And despite this consensus, which is rare by the way, it's rare to find such a level of consensus. Only 16% of clinicians had ever used EAP case as a diagnosis, either because of ignorance, or because they weren't quite sure how to apply it, because it's very rare to come across such a level of catastrophe. There's a symptom overlap, of course, between EAP case and depressive disorders, borderline personality disorder, of course, CPTSD. So this symptom overlap makes it difficult. You have to be daring to say, no, this is not CPTSD, this is EAP case. This is marked by stable changes in personality. Borderline and depressive disorders involve instability, they involve liability, they involve dysregulation. EAP case actually generates stable outcomes, outcomes stable for at least two years, very often across the lifespan. Post-traumatic avoidance of reminders by patients, infects the clinician. The clinician realizes that some things might trigger the patient, some things might re-traumatize the patient, so the clinician avoids these things. This limits the discourse and the honesty of the therapeutic alliance. The clinician begins to work on actions, especially in catastrophic trauma. And so clinicians steer away from this. They don't want to harm the patient or break the patient apart. And it's, of course, unfortunate. It's very unfortunate because the EAP case, characterized mostly by existential loneliness, as we said, EAP case is a breakdown in communal societal and cultural context. It's like being thrust out of your natural habitat or ecosystem, finding yourself in a totally alien and hostile planet, Venus or something. So there is consequently a transgenerational or intergenerational transmission of suffering. So EAP case would require group therapy as a vital modality. And several generations have to be treated together so that we can engender, we can foster transgenerational transmission of resilience. Beltran is one of the greatest advocates of EAP case. And in 2002, he conducted follow-up studies. He defined the broad aspects of the diagnosis. He identified the key criteria and so on and so forth. And there were 24 mental health practitioners and clinicians. They worked with patients who experienced war and sexual assault, and also with displaced refugees. And these 24 gathered all the information. And they discovered that the key attributes are a hostile or mistrustful attitude towards the world, social withdrawal, feelings of emptiness or hopelessness, a chronic feeling of being on edge, et cetera, et cetera, which I mentioned earlier, I mentioned before. But all these were excluded from the diagnosis of complex trauma or CPTSD. EAP case today is an extreme case of CPTSD. It is in the manuals in both the DSM and the ICD-11. But these critical features are nowhere to be seen. They're not there. So it's very difficult to diagnose EAP case. Other significant features which were largely... I mean, these features that I just mentioned are there, but not in the way that I mentioned them. So it's very difficult to kind of hone in on the difference between complex trauma and EAP case.  These are nowhere to be found in the text. While hostility, distrust, social withdrawal, emptiness, hopelessness, hypervigilance are somehow hinted at, not elaborated as they should be, but hinted at, the other features I just mentioned, from somatization to sexual dysfunction and self-harm, guilt, shame, they're not mentioned. They're simply not mentioned at all. And there, of course, they make the difference between EAP case and CPDSD. Manifestations of core symptoms of EAP case differ depending on viewpoints, type of trauma, the victim. There are multiple symptoms that could fit into the same vague sentence. So for example, if I say one of the diagnostic criteria of EAP case is a hostile or mistrustful attitude towards the world, what do I mean by that? Why do I mean by that? Anger, aggression, what do I mean by that? That's not specified, not defined. Holocaust survivors were identified as feeling as if the Holocaust experience was continuing. And these people were more likely to suffer symptoms of mental disorder. Those who avoided the traumatic memories altogether, they had a higher mortality rate due to illness. One way or another, the Holocaust continued well after 1945 and ended up killing them. Patients with EAP case, this diagnosis, isolate themselves, not only from communities, but often from mental health care. So what can we do about it? What can we do about it? EAP case, as it stands now, is under-researched. It lacks specificity. It's not properly normatively validated. It's insufficiently utilized. So it was worked by Merker and colleagues and the other ones who proposed to conceive of EAP case as a part of CPTSD, complex PTSD in ICD-11, Merker, M-A-E-R-C-K-E-R. Merker and his colleagues are responsible for subsuming EAP case under CPTSD. But was this the correct recommendation? CPTSD deals with patients with personality changes as a result to exposure to single or multiple traumatic experiences as long as the requirement of three core features of PTSD is met. Changes in effect, self-concept and relational function. That is CPTSD. But some of these don't apply to EAP case. When we modify the diagnostic criteria of CPTSD to consolidate EAP case and include it there, to shoo-horn, to push, to coerce other trauma-related disorder into CPTSD, the CPTSD diagnosis, this leads to mislabelling. And also we downgrade the seriousness of some personality changes. It's not only a question of effect or self-perception or its personality changes, the whole personality changes. It's like a different person. A different person and we, of course, overlook the potential for trans-generational transmission of these personality changes. Different experiences do produce different neurological and behavioral effects. I am not disputing this. I said it before. But it would be unwise to disregard the extent, the intensity of the event, how extreme it was, and its impact on effect. So I think we should embark on reconceiving of EAP case. We need maybe a set of diagnostic criteria, symptoms.  And this way we could still consider it a form of CPTSD, but with very highly specific criteria. And honestly, I don't think it should be a form of CPTSD. The current criteria for CPTSD, which, as I said, subsume the majority of people who used to be diagnosed with EAP case, you know, Kealy, K-E-E-L-E-Y, Kealy and his colleagues, they studied 18 diagnostic issues in CPTSD and the same 18 diagnostic issues in EAP case in order to see if the two are concurrent or concomitant. They are not. EAP case and CPTSD, the reactions to these 18 issues is absolutely not the same. Another argument against including EAP case in CPTSD is symptom overlap. There's a spectrum of post-traumatic disorders. As I said, there's overlap between diagnostic categories, even between PTSD and CPTSD. Actually, CPTSD, the core of CPTSD is PTSD. There's a lot of overlap, but these overlaps and similarities don't invalidate the clinical usefulness of a diagnosis. Otherwise, we wouldn't have diagnosis. All diagnoses have overlaps. All the lines are grandiose, exactly like narcissists. So should we not have separate diagnosis? Maybe not. My view is that we shouldn't, by the way. Bad example. But there are other examples. For example, in the manic phase of bipolar disorder, there's a lot of grandiosity. So should we say that bipolar and narcissism are the same? Of course not. There is overlap in symptoms because we are all human beings and we share the same wet wear, the same brain, the same processes and mechanisms. Watch my video on the IPAM model, IPAM. And so I'm not impressed or convinced by this argument. Oh, the symptoms are the same, or largely the same. We don't need another diagnosis. We need to be parsimonious. I'm not convinced by this. Similarly, I think that the rejection of masochistic personality disorder, sadistic personality disorder, negativeistic, passive-aggressive personality disorder, all these dead diagnosis, these are mistakes. These are real clinical entities, as distinct maybe from other clinical entities, which appear in the DSM, and which I would have eliminated without hesitation. They're not real. They are cultural artifacts. They are all kinds of fads and fashions and so on. So IPK should be a category. We should include it. With clinical reasoning, differential diagnosis, treatment planning, prognosis, everything. In the DSM-5 text revision, elements of complex post-traumatic stress disorder, complex trauma and IP case, were actually incorporated in a single diagnosis of PTSD. So in the previous edition, in the DSM-4, there was, and I'm quoting, the DSM-4 suffered from poor, inter-rater reliability of personality disorder diagnosis, poor stability over time, poor discriminant validity, and poor general coverage of personality disorder, as well as poor clinical utility. I agree. It was poor. The DSM-5 is poor. The DSM-5 is poor. It was poor. The DSM-5 is still poor, because it incorporates the DSM-4. DSM-5 requires that adult patients being evaluated for stress disorders meet eight symptomatic criteria following exposure to trauma. Galatza Levy and Bryant found that the current diagnosis for PTSD could give rise to, hold your breath, 636,120 unique combinations of the eight criteria listed. So the same eight criteria can give rise to, essentially, and I'm repeating the crazy number, 636,120 different types of PTSD. That's not a clinical entity. That's ill-defined. And one of the reasons there's such a mess is because we, in the DSM-5, they try to put in the ICD-11, they try to put all traumatic, all traumatic, post-traumatic clinical entities in the same basket. Whereas many personality disorders are just facets of one underlying personality disorder, something I've been advocating for 25 years. It's not the same with trauma. It's not the same with trauma because personality disorders are induced in early childhood when we are all very much the same. Children are not that different to each other. Well, they are different, of course, but not that different. Trauma can happen at any time in life. And by the time we encounter trauma, by the time we experience it and suffer from it, we are already vastly different to each other. And this is reflected in the need to have several types of post-traumatic diagnosis. One personality disorder is sufficient to cover all adverse childhood experiences and the said outcome of personality disorder. Many, but we need three or four types of post-traumatic conditions to capture the totality of the post-traumatic experience. And because there are so many possible permutations of these eight criteria, PTSD uses a basket diagnosis, an all-encompassing definition with no specificity and no real attribution or applicability. Trauma-related disorders shouldn't be a one-size-fits-all basis. We should consider the elements of the trauma and its disparate effects on individuals. So I think, and as you see many others think, that APK should be restored. APK should be restored. And the question is then following the trauma when there are personality changes. Are they comparable or do they amount to personality disorders? Are we talking about personality disorders? So there are studies, comparisons of late onset personality pathology due, for example, to wartime trauma, comparing these to prior personality disorders. So about one-quarter, 24.3% of the patients had a personality disorder developed only after exposure to catastrophic events. So the answer to this is yes, major catastrophic events can create the absolute diagnostic clinical equivalent of a pre-existing personality disorder. So if you have narcissistic personality disorder from age 18, dating back to age 18, and if you have borderline personality disorder dating back to age 12, someone who is undergun trauma such as war, torture, life threat, et cetera, et cetera, captivity and so on, can develop actually narcissistic personality disorder, borderline personality disorder, which will be indistinguishable from yours, will be indistinguishable from the real thing. Clinically diagnosable. When compared with those who had pre-existing personality disorder, those with late onset personality pathology had a three-fold higher rate of PTSD symptoms. That's a very important distinguishing feature. While in classical personality disorders, the kind we discuss on this channel, PTSD symptoms are subdued, they're denied, they're repressed, they're sublimated, they're refrained, they are converted. In people who suffer trauma in adulthood, the PTSD symptoms are very pronounced. And they are three times as pronounced. They occur three times as often as in typical personality disorders. Where higher rates, for example, suicidal ideation, self-reported emotional distress was much higher. So trauma in early childhood, believe it or not, is tackled, absorbed, assimilated, and coped with much better than in late life, later in life. Adult trauma is much more severe and has much more extreme pathogenic consequences than early childhood trauma. There's been additional research that's demonstrated that there are physical changes to the brain and transgenerational effects that pass from parent to offspring. So there's a link between catastrophic experiences, personality, neurology, or the neuroscience of the brain, and transgenerational societal communal function. So we need, of course, something that integrates all these in a separate diagnosis. This, everything I've just said, has almost nothing to do with CPTSD. And yet EAPCASE is now part of CPTSD, a lowness, helplessness, and helplessness about being alone, feeling ashamed, humiliated. These are major risk factors across this particular illness spectrum. In post-trauma, a lowness in itself leads to added grief. And persons who suffer from EAPCASE are very vulnerable people. And this compounds these risk factors. And so we need this important step of having a separate diagnosis to recognize all these differences. I refer you to the literature in the bibliography, but until then, I want to read to you an abstract of an article titled Lasting Personality Pathology Following Exposure to Severe Trauma in Adulthood, Retrospective Cohort Study. It was authored by Yasna Munizah, Dolores Brithwitz, and Mike Crawford. It was published in BMC Psychiatry, volume 19. And what do they have to say? They say early exposure to trauma is a known risk factor for personality disorder. But evidence for late onset personality pathology following trauma in adults is much less clear. We set out to investigate whether exposure to war trauma can lead to a lasting personality pathology in adults and to compare the mental health and social functioning of people with late onset personality problems with those with personality disorders. And so they go on, they studied, I think about 182 people and so on and so forth, and they conclude. They reached some interesting conclusions. Among 182 participants with probable personality disorder, 65, it's about 36%, reported, that these problems started after exposure to war trauma as adults. The most prevalent personality problems among those with late onset pathology were borderline, avoidant, schizotypo, schizoid, and paranoid. Participants with late onset personality pathology were more likely to have schizotypo and schizoid traits compared to those with classic personality disorders. Participants with late onset personality pathology were three times more likely to have complex personality pathology across all three DSM4 clusters compared to those with classical personality disorder. After we adjust for gender, marital status and so on, the prevalence of depression and social dysfunction were as high among those with late onset personality pathology as among those with a personality disorder. The conclusion is retrospective accounts of people with significant personality pathology indicate that some develop these problems following exposure to severe trauma in childhood. Personality in adulthood, I'm sorry. Let me read this again. I'm thinking of retrospective accounts of people with significant personality pathology indicate that some develop these problems following exposure to severe trauma in adulthood. Personality-related problems which start in adulthood may be as severe as those that have an earlier onset. These findings highlight the long-term impact of adulthood trauma on the mental health and have implications for the way that personality pathology is classified and treated. The authors then proceeded, actually, after the study and they say, we further examined the relationship between the two groups, personality disorder and late onset personality problems. According to the number of cases, meeting diagnostic criteria for personality traits across the DSM4 conceptual clusters. And so they analyzed various criteria and so on and so forth and they reached the following conclusions. Participants, the conclusion that I mentioned before, participants in late onset personality pathology group were likely to meet criteria in all three clusters, cluster A, cluster B and cluster C. And their pathologies, more than 80% of patients with late onset personality disorder reported having persistent feelings of emptiness, frequent mood changes and having anger regulation problems. Equally high proportion of these people, late onset personality disorder in adulthood, equally high proportion of these people reported avoidance of social interactions and preferring doing things by themselves to minimize contacts with others. More than two thirds reported feeling cold and detached and having difficulties showing emotions. The same proportion did not feel they could trust other people. More than 80% felt that they have been treated unfairly by others, including experiencing attacks on their character and reputation. Impulsiveness and identity problems were reported by more than 60% of participants in this group. More than half of people in this group reported feeling odd and eccentric, being rigid and inflexible and being sensitive to criticism. The results say the authors suggested that anxiety, post-traumatic stress disorder, PTSD, social functioning and suicidal thoughts significantly differed between groups when the demographics of the patients were not considered in the analysis. For all variables where there was a difference, outcomes were more likely in the late onset personality pathology group than in the personality disorder group. After adjusting for gender and marital status, significant differences in PTSD and prevalence of suicidal thoughts between the two groups remained. An additional and important finding was that people with late onset personality psychopathology, following exposure to severe war trauma, were three times more likely to meet the criteria for personality problems across all three DSM4 conceptual clusters than the personality disorder group, as I mentioned before. These findings suggest that the complexity and degree of personality-related problems in patients with late onset personality pathology is greater than in those with personality disorders alone. The finding indicating that a considerable proportion of patients met threshold for two or more personality traits is consistent with prior research, which suggested that most people with a diagnosis of personality disorder do not fit into a single personality disorder subcategory, comorbidity problem, yes? Instead, people tend to meet criteria for two or more subcategories within one cluster or across two or even all three clusters in late onset pathology. When compared to personality disorder patient, late onset personality pathology group had equally poor mental health and social functioning and similarly high rates of unemployment. Late onset personality pathology patients were three times more likely to suffer from PTSD than their personality disorder counterparts. These results indicate a strong need for trauma-focused therapies to reduce PTSD-related symptomatology, although these may not be readily available in cases devastated by war, for example. So if we take, for example, suicidal ideation, 68% of people with late onset personality pathology, 68% of people whose personality change owing to trauma in adulthood, 68% considered suicide. Compare this to 11% in borderline personality disorder or 47% across the lifespan of all people with personality disorders of all kinds. So people with late onset personality pathology have levels of emotional distress that are higher than patients with personality disorder. These symptoms appear to be enduring. The impact of interpersonal functioning is sometimes as long as 15 years following exposure to some catastrophic trauma. This is not a minor thing. This changes you. Such traumas change you. The proportion of people who are exposed to severe trauma, such as war, torture, captivity, and so on, they develop personality-related pathology in adulthood. Patients with late onset personality problems had equally poor mental health and social functioning when compared to personality disorder patients, as we said. And these findings highlight the long-term impact of severe trauma. Long-term impact on mental health and implications for the way the personality pathology is classified and treated, we need a case simply because it's very real.


My name is John Evans. I'm a professor of sociology of religion at the University of California at San Diego and The question of whether or not religious public is in conflict with science is something we hear all the time You know the most famous of these supposed battles was Galileo versus the Catholic Church long ago Another battle that's often mentioned is over Darwin Scientists look at the fossil record and conclude that the earth is a certain age and humans came from a certain place and Religious people supposedly looked the Bible and come to a different conclusion So if you listen to people like Richard Dawkins, he would say that religion and science are incompatible ways of knowing about the world And how would you determine the age of the earth? The scientists would say it's you know 4.5 billion years old as we can tell through chemical analysis of rocks and so on or in a conservative Protestant version The earth is six to seven thousand years old that would be known through the Bible These are supposed incompatible ways of knowing about the world So since this is I believe the only social science lecture in this course I'm going to emphasize how a social science perspective is different from that you'll be hearing from theologian scientists historians and philosophers So here's what I'm going to be talk about in the lecture here first I want to talk about the sociology of religion and Science versus other academic perspectives we could be taking on this topic. I Want to introduce debates over human evolution as an ongoing example that I'll be using throughout this course and Then I want to talk about three possible ways that Religious people and science could be in conflict what I will call systemic knowledge conflict Secondly propositional knowledge conflict and finally moral conflict I want to talk about official teachings in the major traditions about religion science in the West And then the evaluation of whether or not empirically it is correct that religious public is in conflict with science and then Evaluation at the end of whether or not it's possible that Religious public is in what I will call moral conflict with science So the first obvious question is I just claimed that I'm a social scientist. What does that actually mean? a social science is the examination of The essentially the relationships between people and why people do things So the best example is to compare to psychology psychology looks at individuals and the Individuals mindset and the like things like attitudes and personality and the like Social science ultimately is about their interactions between people The other thing to know about social science and this is in comparison to many other of the lectures you'll hear in this course Is that it's typically not normative in its analysis? It tries to be essentially scientific in objectively analyzing data Even though social scientists might use their own values to decide what topic to investigate but once they start to investigate they try to be as neutral as possible Now when I say social science Whereas in theory any social scientist could be examining religion and science for degrees for reasons of sort of the history of the social sciences It's really sociologists and anthropologists who've examined this exact question so let me Briefly make a distinction between the social science approach to religion and science and the others So let's look at theology Theology is based upon logical derivations from faith claims So it might ask, you know, does the Bible really say that the earth is 6,600 years old for example, and I'm sure as you'll be hearing in other lectures in this course You could ask, you know, are certain theological concepts consistent with scientific descriptions of the world Philosophy on the other hand would ask is there a justification for saying that the earth is 6,600 years old is this logical Sociology asks a different question in social science more generally What sort of person thinks the earth is 6,600 years old? Where did they learn that for example? Why do conservative Protestants believe this fact claim and not some other fact claim? Social sciences do not answer religion science questions directly, but ask how others such as the public answer them and why? So history is actually interesting. It's the same approach as social science But the obvious difference being that it looks at historically the same sorts of questions But you know, what would people in the 19th century have thought and why? but now There's a major difference that I will talk about here in this lecture, which is Theology philosophy and science are all engaged in what I would call elite behavior Sociologists don't mean by elite something negative. There's a just basic factual term But if you look at theologians and philosophers who are in this and debate They all have a PhD in something which already defines them as some very rarefied slice of the public historians often try to look at what regular people at the time would have thought but Historically, especially the further you go back in time the only records that are available are from elites, so The social scientists are really the only people who get to look at what ordinary Citizens of the world think about these sorts of issues Now depending on what you're interested in there's a drawback to this So I'm interested in Influential ideas in a society and what ends up happening. So who gets to influence for example laws About what's taught in schools and the like and therefore? I don't talk about different religious systems that there are very few people who are members of in a society so in the United States, which is my Focus I'm not going to be talking about Hinduism Islam Buddhism and the like because there are so few practitioners of these religions in the US So I want to give one final caveat, which I'm sure you can tell from my accent Which is I'm an American and I've largely focused my research on the American context So I'll be using mostly examples from that case If I was going to focus on Europe, I think there have to be a larger focus on Islam Islam in the United States is a little bit under 2% of the population at present What I want to use as my recurring example here Is human origins which has been an ongoing debate about religion and science and my ongoing example? Let's start with the Christian perspective on this which comes from the book of Genesis and I will not read every last bit of this for you But this comes from the book of Genesis and basically God saying let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds so God creates various sorts of animals and Then let us make mankind in our image. In other words, God created humans through a divine act all at once And then says be fruitful multiply and essentially be in charge of all of creation so God created animals on one day God created humans from essentially the dirt on another day God emphasized that humans are not animals because God put humans in charge of the animals in the plants The first humans were called Adam and Eve and this all happened six to seven thousand years ago I think most people are familiar whether or not you believe in this or not most people are familiar with this narrative Now the contrasting view is this Scientific version of human evolution most famously associated with Charles Darwin, so you know in contrast To that perspective humans started with bacteria and evolution you go through fish up into various sorts of primates and in the very end of the story there's a separation between you know chromagnoman and other sorts of pre-human primates you ended up with us humans so You know you could go into great detail about the distinctions between the various for Primates over time, but that's the basic story that the scientific version of human origins So this will be my recurring examples The to use which is do you believe the traditional Christian version of human origins or the scientific version of human origins?


A lot of people won't checks, but bosses cut checks. So, you know, we don't cut a lot of checks up here. Absolutely. And you've cut a lot of checks, too, you know what I'm saying? So you got to realize, you know, we want the money, but we also got to use the money to make the money. Right. You know what I'm saying? So it's really about having that mentality that you're ready to work. You know what I'm saying? Because that's what it's really all about. It's not the reward come when you get down and you get on your grind. If you don't, do not complain about what you didn't get from the work you didn't put in. Mm.


Great. Well, there's the last set of news that gets up. So I was in crypto bringing on a bite-sized pieces I'm actually going to try to do that today and break things down into the smallest pieces as fast as we can Within reason so first we'll take a look at what's going on the market is a little bit of a slump today Then we'll take a look at maybe the main reason you're here for the thumbnail of title Which was Gary strikes again as they come out and sec is listing nine different cryptos as Security so we'll take a look at why that is and some insider trading over at Coinbase surprise Then also we'll take a look at the big story I'm not gonna spend much time about it with because everybody's covering it already which is Tesla sold some Bitcoin. Wow shocker Not surprising and we'll talk about Some videos I put out over a year ago We talked about the same exact thing and lastly we'll take a look at another free app that you can use to earn Crypto while walking and then lastly we'll just do some Q&A at the very end So just stick around for that. Let's jump into it. Take a look at the market slump today today is the 21st 21st of July and Looking like pretty much how I kind of expected it to kind of roll out We're looking at Bitcoin down just a little bit sit there. I'm down Remember we had a marvelous run look at that those seven-day numbers 14% for Bitcoin 39% for a three now that could be because of yes Tesla did sell off like a hundred million dollars worth of Bitcoin, but who cares? I mean in the grand scheme of things. It'll just be a blip on the radar Today's just one of those days wherever down just a touch a smidge as some might say And of course as people sell off they get in a tether and USD coin. We can see how they're up That's weird tethers up by 0.6 percent. Interesting. Yeah, whatever Binance USD same thing and then of course over the last 24 hours a little bit of a downer But man, I gotta tell you a polygon makes it makes a big run We've covered a couple of stories about them them getting accepted in that Disney program and then those ZK rollups Which which could be infinitely? Scalable and also reduce The Ethereum fees and we talked about this was a yesterday. It was yesterday We're talking about how because of this maybe Ethereum could be almost unstoppable. So check it out later Avalanche and just a little bit of jostling here down around Cosmos hub. Congratulations Cosmos holders 10% That's great. So I mean nothing to write home about almost 1.1 trillion So I'm happy with that even though we're down 2% and that's what the markets holds Let's talk about the big story the big show. What's going on Gary Gary strikes again Gary Gensler. I have nothing. I have no problem with Gary Gensler I know some people hate him here, but I mean in all honesty some of the calls that he's had I know people don't like don't they hate when I say this but I'll say it again He's right on some of these things. He was actually correct and when he stopped coin base for those earned programs said look You can't co-mingle these things. It's not gonna make any sense for consumer protection Look what happened with Voyager and Celsius just saying don't hate me but put in the comments But he was right on that one But not everybody's 100% right So here's what's we got sec lists nine crypto tokens as securities following coin base Inside our trading chargers and let me just say this The sec doesn't Create law that's not their job. Their job is to enforce said laws So when they come out and they say that this security that's a security That's not for them to really put it out there. That's really for The legal branches of government to say this is what we believe it is this what it is Securities and exchange commission. They're just there to enforce those laws So this is very interesting how this comes through and and before anybody says well, what about this one by that? I'm not a lawyer. I can just tell you what's going on. I think it's just very odd. Here's what we got The sec is listed nine cryptos on coin base that it says our securities This was contained within a complaint arresting and a charging a former coin base employee and two others with wire fraud What's that you say? Well, what's this former coin base product manager arrest on inside training? This is just today July 21st Former employee coin base was arrested His brother and friend also faced charges in connection to an inside trading scheme Which profit of them at least 1.5 million and of course what we're gonna talk about today and separate charges sec claims at nine of the assets traded were securities and if you haven't been to Coinbase I'm actually having I've been pushed there ever since Voyager took a big big hit as we'll say a big dump whatever and Coinbase has about a thousand different cryptos now, and I guess what happened was somebody said hey These are gonna get listed. There might be a coin base effect And he told his brother and some friends and they made a 1.5 million. Well, yes He seems like you can't do that And we're gonna charge you we we're okay with JP Morgan those guys doing that but not you now And they actually come out in JP Morgan, too. So here's the here's the cryptos that they said are securities amp Rally DDX XYOR GT LCX power Dfx and crumb I gotta tell you out of all these I don't know any of them except for amp and amp was one of those big ones that were talked about is potentially being Linked to Amazon or Walmart and it looked like a pretty good project and did not really happen so far So let's just take this back. Let's let's take a look at it. How much of this effective first of all Here's amp. It's Frank number 76 It's supposed to be for Payments and to be you know Integration these different platforms and so on and so forth. It took a hit of 6% is that like massive? I mean, we just saw Bitcoin going on 3.5 percent. So I don't think it's that big of a deal right now and actually Last 24 hours. Well actually right now it actually came up. So whatever But that's the amp price now. Let's see. What else we got? rally DDX Rly, I'm just gonna do a couple of these because I don't know any of them rally Apparently is now considered a security but again This is for the laws to be passed by Congress to determine What exactly is a security and not a security and the krypton then digital asset space over the last 24 hours? Actually went up. It's pretty funny and then let's see. I'll go. I'll look at power P. P of WR Let's see what that is. I don't know what that is POW are right number 252 and most of these are outside the top 100 and That's just they're just saying these are what they are these probably because this was what was listed For that case is when they when they came down from inside of trading So maybe all these things were listed recently. So this is 24 cents down 5% Not too bad in all honesty as being enlisted as a security So that's all we have as far as those nine and I can tell you right now. That's just the first stop They're gonna start to move forward. They're gonna start to label things as securities That's going to accelerate Congress and hopefully sent the alumus and the rest of her cohorts to come down and actually say Here's the rules and regulations.  We got to move this we got to keep getting this move forward because if we don't So we're just gonna sit around here and twiddle our thumbs and let Gary just decide. Well, this is curious not a security It's not how it works. It has to go through the process They have to go through the legislation and say this is what we believe it to be true And then we can get the rules when you get the rules Then of course you can bend the rules is the same thing that people do with taxes It's the same thing that people do with capital gains. It's the same thing all the way around I never understood why people say we don't need regulation Well, how can you get anywhere without knowing what the rules are so you can move yourself around it makes no sense to me That's just my little rant. All right, let's finish this this article up so This is the SEC our message with these charges is clear fraud is fraud is fraud whether it occurs in the blockchain or on Wall Street They know about that The complaint today implies that the SEC is largely keeping with the view that the majority of cryptos are Securities so before we go on what does this mean? If let's say everything besides Bitcoin Is labeled as a security? What does that mean that we can't? Get our get our hands on securities. No, we get our hands of securities all the time It's over on Robinhood. They're called stocks and equities. Those are securities So also I see is that all the thousands of the crypto that you guys know that we all know are worthless All those people have to now list themselves with the SEC and they can't do that because there's a big long process It's expensive legal fees paper and all that stuff So there's gonna be wiped away and not actually they're gonna be left in the dust and that's fine The other mid-tier ones will get picked up by the bigger projects and go We want to absorb you and actually you know get bring you into our ecosystem We're also going to absorb your developers and that's really how it goes for businesses I could be wrong That's just how I see things and the grand scheme of things the ones that are really gonna hurt and suffer Are gonna be the exchanges because now they have to list themselves with the SEC They have to pay a lot of money They have to go through a lot of regulations and guess who's gonna be able to do that Probably the bigger exchanges that have the money and the power to actually do that. That's just how I see things We think that everything's decentralized Things are becoming more centralized at a rapid pace and it does concern me So that's what we have. Let me know what you think about that in the comment section and then Let's move into a story that I think everybody knows about it was covered quickly But this is what it is Elon Musk Dismisses crypto as a sideshow, but it's open to buying more Bitcoin sometime. That's funny It's like he's pretty much saying this is this is clown show But I'll buy at some point like it's an afterthought. So just know who you're dealing with anyhow Tesla may have just jumped 75% of its Bitcoin and admitted to losing tens of millions of dollars on its investment in the crypto But Elon Musk says the car maker isn't finished just like he's not finished with Dogecoin Tesla's main goal is to speed up the transition to renewable energy Which makes crypto a sideshow to the sideshow and not something we think a lot about just kind of like a red-headed step child Just whatever you want to do. We don't really care But we're gonna buy some here and there on Wednesday's earnings call Tesla CFO Zachary Kirkhorn said that the company sold the Bitcoin for a Realized gain good for those guys Which I knew they would Yet the car maker also made of the Bitcoin It still owns is now worth much less than what it paid for it and that the decline is large enough to offset the sum Tesla gain from its Bitcoin sales. So they sold this in Q1 probably around 30k or something like that good for those guys again There are no diamond hands. I mean some people say well Michael sailor Okay, Musk said Tesla decision to sell its Bitcoin was not due to the declining value of the crypto Whether he blamed China and its COVID lockdowns Tesla's Bitcoin sales should not be taken as some verge on Bitcoin and that's important to note Don't just think because one big company sold it.   So you know what I'm saying So I should even have to mention that it's just that we're concerned. We were concerned about overall liquidity of the company Giving shutdowns in China. You got to stand they need look they need liquidity They're open up new giga factories one in Austin, Germany, and of course China has problems over there They need a lot of money. I don't blame them. They got to sell it But I just want to remind everybody from now on could we just all agree amongst us the OGs that are here that? Institutions aren't here to save us. They're not here to make sure that we do well What they're here for is for their shareholders to do well. So when a bunch of Institutions move forward and they start to buy more things moving, you know in the future, which will happen Let's just agree that they're gonna sell at some point and diamond hands isn't on their agenda And I actually talked about this a long time ago There's a link in the description. Let me see here Hmm And it looks like this They'll sell no video number one they'll sell buddy number two and this was back in March 8th of 2021 And I talked about how calls for Tesla and other corporations to sell Bitcoin Here's why and when they'll probably sell I got the dates wrong But they were pretty pretty wide wide range and I just told everybody I'm like they're gonna sell There's no doubt in my mind that they will sell and then of course on May 19th, 2021.  They will buoy us forever and I'll never go down. Sure again I've been wrong many a time in this channel But I just want to make mention or just really put it out there that institutions again Just because they're here don't think that we'll never go down They're here to make a profit and they did so good for them. Anyhow, let me just think about that in the comment section and Lastly we'll finish up with a free app a free app It's called smiles or Satoshi miles before anybody asked me Rob did you get paid for this? Hold on now So and stop asking me so if I get paid for something I have to disclose that and there's a little check marks And we'll see like this is a paid blah blah blah I have affiliate links in the description of every one of my videos if you don't click on those I don't get paid for that But if you don't use those affiliate links you also don't get any perks So if you were gonna go to like I trust something like that you go right to I trust right But you won't get paid that big dollars in Bitcoin So do whatever you want to you can go right to it with this smiles and sweat coin You go right to it.  No, but it's an affiliate links Let's just move on from there. Shall we so? Smiles is a free app Just so everybody knows I've downloaded on my phone and it works pretty well actually not to be a jerk But you can do whatever you want to I'm not your dad so Like let me stop this screen so you can see if I see Let me show you my phone Ready so let's see here. Oh There is the all-important what a burger app if you ever want to eat like I do trying to be healthy So anyhow Satoshi miles So there's a link in the description, of course it isn't affiliate link I think I don't know what I get but I think I get some kind of Satoshi So I would guess but it's pretty cool because like you just download it and it's free and It's like for every I got 7,000 steps. That's pretty good Let's see for every I want to say like Thousand steps or something like that. You'll get one Satoshi. So right now What do I have? Oh Look at that. I've had this for a while about over a couple weeks now And I just wanted to check it out, but I've got 37 Satoshi's which is not worth It's like pennies, you know, but who knows what it could be worth in 20 years. You don't know I don't know. I've no one has a crystal ball So I thought it was interesting that you could earn these things and the question I had was well How the heck did they get paid because if it's free doesn't make any sense.  That's all it is I thought it was pretty good because like you can get it and everything else and that's awesome What's this news? National Geographic and so on and so forth. So yeah, and then what I thought was interesting also is that I could Well, it says it says here send sats If I send it Yeah, you have to get at least a hundred Satoshi's to send it out That's pretty cool. I can send it right to my an anniversary awesome And then there was one really cool thing that I must show you I thought this was pretty neat is that you can play like chess games Let's see Play chess and if you win like I'm in I'm a moron so I'll just do this So like if you win the chess match you get so many Satoshi's so for you chess players That would be pretty awesome That's not a good move. All right, so that's what we have for that one and then switching gears Sweat coin is also another one that you could download again. It is free and You earn sweat coins which is not worth anything right now just so everybody knows But what's pretty cool about this Is that we have a Challenge going on so if you can beat me Which everybody's beating me right now actually 15 people are beating me today. Dang it. How am I doing this week?  Just want to make sure you know, it's free. So when I do these steps The top three people that beat me either come on the show I give them 50 sweat coins or do a portfolio review and also for this one the question might ask is well How do they make money? It doesn't make any sense. Well, I'm glad you asked that question So let me stop this screen real quick Let me share it again And First of all whoops, so I want to show First of all links in the description and I got both of them now. So right here. These little running people these little icons Here's the sweat coin again It's an affiliate link just so you know and then the s miles Satoshi Satoshi miles It's also an affiliate link. There's a link right there or you can go right to the I don't know whatever you want to do I don't care but For sweat coin There's a couple ways where it makes it makes money, how does it do that? Well first your question might be well They probably track me and sell my data to whoever they don't do that and the next thing you might say is well They're gonna it's all about the coins and they're gonna you know for the coins Actually, I have to buy that like a step in like Nancy and do that either so all the ways that it makes money I did a deep dive on this Sweat coin which they're gonna be this kind of it's gonna be called a token generation event on September 12th Of this year so every sweat coin that you accumulate 1,000 steps is one sweat coin. This has been out for over gosh three years now They're going to airdrop you these sweat coins need every want to and I show you exactly how they make Their revenue through this app. It's pretty interesting actually and then just so you know It took them 21 days to create two million wallets because they are the number depending on what day you go to it They're either the number one or number five They're always fluctuate in that health and fitness app for iOS and Android. So just so you know They just crossed 11 million wallets themselves for sweat coin So I think this might be a big thing and you might ask yourself. Well, how long did that Bitcoin take? Well, let me show you something so for Bitcoin These are this is a end of the block if they wanted to get for addresses or for wallets It took them a good and there's different ones. There's total total with balance total zero balance We'll just go total just to make things simple 11 million about three four years or so occur, of course now we have a lot more We have one billion addresses, but that doesn't tell the story actually if you want to do like Total with balance right now. We've only got 41 million addresses. So just so you know So I just think it's interesting that sweat coin which again free. Did I say it's free? It's free They made they hit 11 million wallets a couple of days ago, and they've only been around for I mean They've been around for three years. They started the crypto part about three months ago So that is what is going on for the free apps and lastly for everybody who's Who's wondering why is Dan teaches crypto so fast? Well, let me tell you something. There's a website. It's a hundred percent free I made it a hundred percent free because not a lot of people can afford five bucks a month or Ten bucks or a hundred bucks or whatever else it is I made it free because that's what I wanted to do Unfortunately, I use GoDaddy for the hosting and GoDaddy is not the greatest Because of when you start to get like right now we have over 30,000 members for the free website and It bogged the website down so much that I had to transfer over to another hosting platform and now it's much faster It's much more expensive, but it's super fast So just so you know Dan teaches crypto comm hundred percent free as the link in the description like everything else and If you're looking for some of my concern you this was a great video with me and stash. I love this one What's the metaverse? There's there's six different. Let me go And I go now look at that There's six different modules basic safety investing reviews How do I do stuff in metaverse one of the ones that a lot of people have been giving me good feedback on is the safety part and also I talks about how to use a ledger. What's a public private key? How do you set up your ledger live apps delete and restore a nano and you know Basic stuff that you need to know especially with the debacle that happens with Voyager and Celsius So that's today for all the news So look I tried to go as concise and quick as I could and that took 22 minutes I was just seeing how fast I could actually go and that's as good as I'm ever gonna get I think so that's what's up So look that concludes the day for the news if you like today's video do me a favor hit the like you don't have to subscribe I come here every day you can stop by I'll be here That's it for for that part if you want to stick around for a little Q&A I'll answer all your burning questions the best of my abilities and we'll go there but Before we go. Thanks for stopping by. I do appreciate it. I know sometimes I see a little bit gruff I just got a lot of things to do today, so I'm trying to get things moving usually. I'm a little bit a Little bit not so rough around the edges. All right, that's what's going on. Let's go on to some Q&A


Now let's look at some of our other motion equations in two-dimension. As a reminder, these are some of the one-dimensional motion equations I had for general motion in one-dimension. I could define my average velocity and my average acceleration, my instantaneous velocity, and my instantaneous acceleration. The instantaneous versions use the derivatives, where the average versions just use the delta x and delta t versions. And because I was only working in one-dimension, I just used delta x as my position vector when I was doing my velocity. If I want to work in two-dimensions, let's look at each one of these equations separately. So in two-dimensions, my average velocity vector is the displacement vector, which is now delta r over delta t. Because this delta r was a vector, I could break that down into its components to find that my average velocity vector has an x component and a y component, where the x component is delta x over delta t, and the y component is delta y over delta t. I could also write this out explicitly by saying my delta x over delta t is the x component of the average velocity, and the delta y over delta t is the y component of the average velocity. If I use derivatives, it works out the same sort of way. It's the position vector here. So I've got a dx dt and a dy dt giving me my i and j components. And I could write this out in terms of the dx dt is the x component of the velocity. And the dy dt is the y component of the velocity. Average acceleration works the same way, where now I'm using the change in the velocity vector. And so I've got a change in the vx component and a change in the vy component, giving me my two components for the average acceleration. And that means my delta vx dt, the change in the horizontal velocity divided by the change in time, is my x component of the average acceleration. And the change in the vertical velocity over the change in time span gives me the y component of the average velocity. It's a little bit neater again when I move to the derivative version here, but it's the derivative of the vx component and the derivative of the vy component. And that gives me my ax and my ay. And that's my two-dimensional motion equations.


So many people who want to improve their digital opsec spend way too much time obsessing over low-level technical details like whether or not Tor or some other anonymizing network can be trusted. And I think that this kind of obsession over the technical details is what fuels these endless online conversations I see about whether or not you should use a VPN together with Tor or whether one operating system is going to be you know more secure or give you better opsec over another or even whether you should use Librebooted hardware you know an open source BIOS on hardware that's a decade old for certain operations. And of course it makes sense to at least be aware of these different technologies and to experiment with them for educational purposes or to possibly even learn how they work to work them into your operations and improve your opsec. But if we look at ways that hackers actually get caught you know the mistakes that they made and thus what details should really be obsessed over there's rarely a complicated technical mistake at play. It's almost never a zero day in the Linux kernel that gets them caught. It's never the Intel management engine. It's almost never a flaw with Tor's protocols or someone's encryption being broken. But what is always involved is someone saying too much and even in these extreme cases where you know a lot of money and resources are thrown into creating some advanced malware like Pegasus or even something like Stuxnet where you know the state is deploying malware. And information leak somebody saying too much is what ultimately leads to that malware's target being picked. And in the case of Stuxnet intelligence was actually gathered about the target which was Iran's nuclear program and the machinery involved with that enrichment process prior to the malware being developed that intelligence helped them develop the malware because then they knew you know what machines were going to be used and so they could make the malware to attack those devices directly. So let's look at some examples of how Tor users hackers that were using Tor got caught. So this is Hector Montseger also known by his hacker name Sabu who was a member of Anonymous and the founder of another hacking group called Lulsec. That was a pretty notorious hacker group that was active in the early 2010s. So he had actually gotten doxed by members of Backtrace who were former members of Anonymous prior to his FBI arrest but Sabu was under FBI surveillance at this time and so that's why Backtrace actually took down their dox that or at least the links to the dox that they had published because you know he once mistakenly logged into an IRC channel where he was discussing operations with other hackers without using a proxy to mask his real IP address. So this exposes his IP and then of course the FBI can get his name from that but what also aided the FBI in catching Sabu and Backtrace in doxing him in the first place was his frequent mentions of a personal website that he had in the early 2000s called prvt.org where he had his real name and phone number and email listed in the contact information for the domain. So anybody could have just done a who is on prvt.org and get Sabu's dox which is probably what Backtrace ended up doing to get his dox and of course they had tons of screenshots from IRC chats where he's just saying too much you know he's giving away a lot of information about where he lives and things that he does so that they're able to correlate that with the who is details. So yeah obviously Sabu leaking his IP that was a big fail since the FBI just got his info from the ISP but the who is dox and Sabu talking about this website in IRC corroborates that IP address evidence and it gets twice as much surveillance sent to you twice as fast and it's pretty much over once close surveillance starts because the FBI once they surveilled him quickly realized that Sabu was taking care of his two young cousins and so they were able to use that against him when the FBI raided his house apparently according to him they didn't bust down his door do anything crazy like that they basically just knocked on the door and told him to cooperate with them or he was going to go to jail for life and the state would take his younger cousins away and so Sabu became an informant and this led to others in his ring like Jeremy Hammond to get caught. Now what's interesting about Hammond is apparently he didn't make any technical mistakes like signing on to IRC without using a proxy at least not during his involvement with lolsec but again he talked too much and he let these various identities you know various hacker identities overlap so you can see that he's got numerous hacker aliases in his indictment but there were multiple incidents in recorded IRC chats and you should be assuming that any every IRC chat is recorded where he would have one username but then he would respond to another or he would use another username and then tell people that he's this user as well. The whole point of using multiple identities is to reduce how much someone knows about you so if you let those identities overlap then that's going to unravel all of your efforts so we can see here I mean this is a perfect example of saying too much so this is the indictment for Jeremy Hammond and it says in a chat with covert witness one this would be Sabu on or about July 21st 2011 an individual using the alias NR chaos later identified as the defendant Jeremy Hammond told Sabu that he had been arrested for weed and did two weeks in county jail and then later in that same chat the individual said don't tell anyone because it could compromise my identity but I am on probation I've done time before though it's all cool so quick tip if you've got to tell somebody not to tell anybody else that's something that you shouldn't be telling that person in the first place because they could be an informant as you see here but regardless of who you're talking to this kind of information you know saying that you got arrested for weed and that you're on probation stuff could very likely be used by a civilian to get your docs it can definitely be used by an FBI agent obviously here it was used by the FBI to get his docs so you got to be aware when conducting these kinds of operations really you've got to assume that every single chat is going to be read by an FBI agent at some point and we can also see that Hammond when he used the alias sub G was telling Sabu that he was involved with these anarchist groups he described himself as an anarchist communist and said that he supported the anarchist movement and that he was also involved in militant anti-racist groups now obviously this was another huge mistake because the FBI were able to talk with the Chicago PD to get information about Hammond's arrest for involvement in various anarchist protests and involvement in the hacking of a white supremacist site years prior and that's something that he wasn't even charged for that's just something where you know they had his details because I believe he didn't mask his IP address the whole time when he was breaking into that white supremacist site he did make technical mistakes in the past but not you know so many when he was again involved with lull sack but a lot of the arrest information right typically arrest information and you know things that you're convicted of end up becoming public record which is why divulging this information about yourself which isn't even relevant to your current operations is such a grave error you know people who aren't even in law enforcement would have been able to dox him with this with all of these details plus introducing a bunch of political stuff or stating your strong political opinions when it's not necessary to your current operation in a group like this is a bad idea because it could set people with opposing opinions against you you know like these are controversial ideas like I guess you could consider lull second anarchist hacking group to some extent but as they've stated many times they mostly hacked for the lulls so telling people that you're a pot smoking anti-racist freaking anarchist that's currently on probation in the midwest in a hacker IRC channel is truly a horrific opsec you know it doesn't matter if you always used a quantum resistant vpn with tour if the feds have your name and they know you're in Chicago then they can identify you as the guy with weed and the anarchist t-shirt getting lunch out of a dumpster now in addition to giving away too many details about his personal life and past operations he had taken part in Hammond was giving away too many details about how he was conducting his current operations with lull sec so for example he stated on IRC that all of his connections were being made over tour over the tour network and he even complained about stuff like youtube being really slow over tour he also said that he used an apple laptop so of course during the surveillance phase the fbi confirmed that he was sending all of his traffic through tour and that the mac address of his computer matched to an apple computer it's not necessary to divulge those details to anyone you know even the people who you're working with in your current operation don't need to know that you use a mac or that you're always using tour or tour with a vpn or residential proxies or whatever it doesn't matter you really should treat your IRC chats or any online chats for that matter like you're talking directly to the police after you've been morandized especially if you're engaging in this kind of activity and you know speaking of that like if you're paid attention to the wording of the morander rights and i'm sure the other countries have a similar version of this but here in the states when the cops arrest you before questioning they tell you that you have the right to remain silent everything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law what that means is the only things you say that are going to be written down and remembered by the cops and used are things that can be used against you in court not for you which is why a good lawyer is going to tell you to not say anything after you've been morandized you know even if you say something that might exonerate you later on something that makes sense to you know like oh i wasn't there it wasn't me that statement isn't going to be written down it's not going to be remembered by the people talking to you and it's not going to be used in court right and not unless somehow your lawyer can get a recording of that and try to get it entered into evidence the cops and the da certainly aren't going to enter it into evidence if it makes you seem not guilty uh so yeah it turns out when it comes to opsec simply shutting the fuck up is so much more important than what vpn proxy or operating system you're using


Simir Osmanagic, a Bosnian-American businessman now based in Houston, Texas, has long claimed that a particular and uncannily angled hill, long presumed as a natural formation, is actually the largest human-made ancient pyramid on Earth. The claims have predictably been met with hostility by those in the academic world who protect modern paradigm. His work has also been heavily criticized, not only as a hoax, but damaging to the other areas of Bosnia which are authentic and mainstream accepted ruins. However, regardless of these hostilities, Simir has continued his research and promotion of the area as a tourist attraction. Furthermore, what he has since discovered from numerous excavations is curious, clearly artificial and massive ancient activities now hidden beneath several meters of strata. Not only have these discoveries of ancient masonry corroborated his ancient claim, but there is also evidence to suggest that incredible efforts were made to divert and control the flow of local water systems, channeling them into and beneath the structure. Regardless of these discoveries, mainstream sources continue to dismiss his claims, and indeed further supporting discoveries, continuing to retain a position of complete denial, claiming that, quote, there is no evidence that they were shaped by human construction. The European Association of Archaeologists has condemned the so-called Bosnian pyramids as a cruel hoax, along with various other scholars, end quote. There are others, however, who have looked into the research and indeed Simir's efforts in depth, and from this have come to realize that there is much about this curious hill still to be unraveled, and regardless of the skeptic's unrelenting hostility to said claims, they have discovered something rather extraordinary. According to radiocarbon dating, done on an artificially constructed tunnel which penetrates the pyramidal feature, if accepted by mainstream academics, they would also have to be dated at over 32,000 years old. Could this be the reason for such hostilities, in regard to fully exploring the site? The tunnels found in Ravney Park 2 have been carbon dated by the archaeological park Bosnian Pyramid of the Sun Foundation. We have ourselves in the past explored the casing stones upon the great pyramids of Giza. These stones clearly have a much younger age than the stone in which they are now preserving. Severe erosion upon these earlier stones, we feel, may also be indicative of a similar age to that found at the Bosnian site. Simir commented on the latest find by stating, quote, according to the results of the examination of stalagmites found in the new tunnels. We discovered an antiquity of 26,200 years old. It means that these entrances and tunnels, which until now have remained hidden from the public, go deep into the past of the region. He continued, when we add the time needed to prepare the base for the creation of stalagmites and corrections for calibrated age to the radiocarbon age, we arrive at about 32,000 years. This is exactly the age of the Bosnian Pyramid of the Sun and the underground tunnels of Ravney, and they are all part of the same culture, concluded Osman Aghaj, speaking to Denevni Avaz. These discoveries, along with Simir's earlier work, regardless of the skepticism which predictably surrounds the site, we find highly compelling. According our research, we have stumbled across countless legends and accounts from history, which tell of ancient giants. Not only legends, but photographic evidence, and an equal amount of initial newspaper reports of their discovery. This often accompanied with the mention of the Smithsonian Institutes, insatiable interest in such finds, and then an inevitable erasure of said finds from future research. Rarely has an ancient giant been allegedly found, with the remains seemingly slipping the net of said institute's attention, making it into mainstream research and an ally's collection, before the Smithsonian was able to make said discovery vanish from history. Captua being one of these particular finds, which not only matches the initial claims, but has remained in mainstream historical research. Evidence of a two-headed, 11-foot-tall giant are not only corroborated by photographic evidence, but the actual mummified corpse of the giant himself. The initial discovery of this incredible being was made back in 1673. An ogre, or two-headed giant, is said to have assaulted a party of Spanish sailors, who fortunately overcame said giant with cunning. After trapping the giant, the sailors planned on killing it, fearing repercussions if released. The cause of the giant's death, however, has long been debated, but what cannot be denied is the astonishing remains which eventually made their way to London. The mummy then vanishes from the history books for nearly 400 years, reappearing in 1914 on the shores of the Birnbeck Harbor in the UK. The mummy inevitably became an extremely popular attraction, with people traveling from thousands of miles away to come and peer at this once monstrous two-headed giant. It remained in the public eye until 1959, a rare exhibit which escaped the clutches of those who would wish to hide it, with many photographs and other research projects allowed to be undertaken on the giant's remains by Lord Howard. This incredible giant, thanks to the Lord's dedication to said curiosity, remains in existence within the public's domain. An undeniable verification of a lost race of giants, which we have long claimed to have had first-hand experience of in their past discovery. A magnificent three-meter-tall mummified corpse of an ancient giant does indeed exist, due to its age and primitive technologies available to said claimed sailors when initially discovered the possibility of it being an elaborate stitched-together hoax has been seemingly debunked, but also ignored by mainstream media due to the controversial nature of said finds. Who was Captois? Was he part of a race of beings in Patagonia, a race we have merely seen these remains of? Is the corpse authentic? If not, how was he constructed to such an astonishing detail so far back in history? Captois is undoubtedly highly compelling. The Space Research Institute at the Russian Academy of Sciences recently published a series of photographs, taken by the Venera probe over 30 years ago on the surface of our closest neighbour, Venus. The photos, according to Leonid Ksanformeliti, present evidence of living organisms upon Venus, one of the most inhospitable places for human life in the solar system. The second planet from the Sun, it's believed to have once been Earth-like, although the constant temperature there now is around 480 degrees Celsius, hot enough to melt, bled, even hotter than Mercury, which is tremendously closer to our Sun. According to Ksanformeliti, who is Doctor of Physical and Mathematical Science for the Institute of Space Research, the images reveal the movement of extremely strange objects on the surface of Venus. Predictably, NASA, along with many other institutes of research, have attempted to debunk his discovery, stating that the objects are nothing more than a lens cap and noise generated by the second-hand pictures, claiming that some of the objects are not present in the original images.  Quoting Ksanformeliti in an article for the Russian journal Solar System Research Magazine, they all just emerge, fluctuate, and then disappear. What if we forget about the currently held theory regarding the non-existence of life on Venus, and boldly suggest that these objects, these morphological features captured within these images, could allow us to say that they are indeed living? Scientists have not ruled out that once, in the very distant past, Venus might have supported life in a time when the planet had giant oceans before the greenhouse effect created the temperatures that rule over the planet today. However, they firmly refute the possibility of living creatures alive on the planet's surface today. As Ivan, writer over at Ancient Origins, eloquently put it, the problem with science and scholars in search for extraterrestrial life is that mankind believes that for life to exist elsewhere in the Solar System or universe, a planet should have similar climate and conditions to those of Earth. End quote. In support of his argument and in staunch defiance of the rigidly held views upon the environment needed to sustain life, a reality discovered in 1977, hydrothermal vents deep within our oceans, which belch steam from deep within the Earth's mantle, have temperatures just as hot as the surface of Venus. They are also home to countless previously thought impossible creatures, showing humans, especially the skeptics, that anything is possible.