YT YouTube2Text

YouTube2Text → Transcripts → You Can See Everything Psychological Analysis by Clinical & Forensic Psychiatrists

You Can See Everything Psychological Analysis by Clinical & Forensic Psychiatrists — Transcript

by Psychofarm · 9,942 words · 1,572 segments · language en · Watch on YouTube

Open in transcriber Summarize with AI Download SRT/VTT

Full transcript

0:00This episode is independent educational
0:02commentary based on publicly available
0:04material, which may be incomplete
0:05[music] or inaccurate. We have not
0:06evaluated Elizabeth Holmes, Billy Evans,
0:08or anyone discussed in this podcast. All
0:10psychological interpretations are
0:11speculative. They're certainly not
0:12diagnoses, they're not factual findings,
0:14and they're certainly not any
0:15allegations of wrongdoing. We do not
0:16claim knowledge of anyone's private
0:17thoughts, motives, or mental health.
0:20>> Good morning, Dr. Malzberg.
0:21>> Good morning. How's it going?
0:24>> Oh, not too bad. Uh, we're doing
0:25something a little different today,
0:26aren't we?
0:27>> Yeah, what are what is it that we're
0:28doing?
0:30>> Uh, I think we both have interests in
0:32things like pop culture, society, and
0:35how personality plays into that area.
0:39And I think that the brilliant work of
0:41Nathan Fielder across the last few
0:43years, but especially just now in the
0:46last week or so, really puts us in the
0:48position where it's worth talking about
0:50these things on the podcast.
0:53>> Yeah, I think the movie that just came
0:54out, You Can See Everything,
0:56is uh, rife with psychological content
1:00that
1:01two psychiatrists can babble on about.
1:04>> That's right.
1:05So, in case there are any first-time
1:06listeners,
1:08who are you?
1:09>> Before I talk about who I am, I should
1:12say that whenever we do one of these
1:13podcasts, we expect to have tons and
1:15tons of listeners, so we introduce
1:16ourselves and tell the audience who we
1:18are, and then and then we don't tend to
1:20have a a huge audience. But who am I?
1:22I'm I'm Dr. Malzberg. I'm a clinical
1:24psychiatrist. Um, who are you, Dr. Fu?
1:28>> I'm a forensic psychiatrist. Uh, I work
1:30primarily in the criminal realm,
1:33uh, doing a variety of different
1:34evaluations for state of mind at the
1:36time of the
1:37um, criminal offense, but I also do some
1:39civil work, and outside of that, I'm a I
1:42teach psychiatry and my outpatient
1:43psychiatrist as well.
1:45>> And I think we both have a a strong
1:47interest in psychoanalytic uh, ideas,
1:50and I think that will come into play a
1:51lot with in this conversation.
1:54>> Yeah, I I think it's interesting, the
1:56film to me is a strongly psychoanalytic
1:59film. Uh even though I'm sure it wasn't
2:01intended as such. Um not getting too
2:04much into details, I think it's arguably
2:06true that Western art today
2:10just has psychoanalysis baked into its
2:13DNA. You know, when psychoanalysis was a
2:17lot more popular in the 20th century,
2:20probably the majority of artists,
2:21certainly Hollywood artists, were at
2:23least peripherally
2:25uh dialed into psychoanalysis. Many
2:28intellectuals and artists would read
2:31Freud and read psychoanalytic ideas. So,
2:34I think it's just kind of in there even
2:35if people today haven't gone back to the
2:38basics. And uh
2:40part of that
2:42is important to note because I think the
2:44film itself, you can see everything from
2:47Aben Fielder and the Lance Oppenheimer,
2:50right? Says name.
2:51>> That's right.
2:51>> Or Oppenheim? Okay. Uh it's also a
2:54projective test. You can see this
2:56already in the online discourse about
2:58this film. Uh and I think it's because
3:00it's purposefully ambiguous. Uh all
3:03ambiguous things are projective tests.
3:05They let us let our guard down and then
3:08we put ourselves into it in our
3:11perception of it, right? We assume that
3:13our favorite patterns or our way of
3:14being is what's happening and what we're
3:16seeing.
3:17>> Yeah, when you say projective tests,
3:19Rorschach is like the archetypal
3:20projective test. So, it's an ambiguous
3:23stimuli and then you bring your own
3:25stuff to it in that sense. Uh when you
3:27said it was psychoanalytic, what did you
3:29mean?
3:31>> Well, um well, before I go to that, I
3:33just wanted to say
3:35when you watch this film, then you
3:36should understand that what you're
3:38getting from it, what you're seeing is
3:40yourself.
3:42That's what I think, anyway.
3:43So, uh in terms of how it's
3:45psychoanalytic, uh
3:47you know, I don't want to get too much
3:48into that, but I also found that
3:49Nathan's interviewing style in the film
3:52was kind of interesting. If you watch
3:55his persona in the rehearsal or in
3:57Nathan for You, it's a very different
3:59Nathan, in my opinion. This one I
4:01presume is closer to who he actually is,
4:04but also still a character of some kind,
4:06maybe. I don't really know.
4:08But, he's more direct, and his
4:11interviewing style, I think, capture
4:13really well the psychoanalytic
4:15techniques of clarification and
4:17confrontation. We discussed this in
4:19another episode elsewhere.
4:21Even if his interaction with other
4:23people in this film doesn't
4:25doesn't have the other major aspects of
4:27therapeutic work, it's still kind of a
4:29therapeutic film trying to uncover
4:32what is really lurking beneath and
4:34motivating people to do what they do.
4:36>> Yeah, and
4:37I probably probably shouldn't have said
4:39this earlier. Disclaimer, this is going
4:40to have a bunch of spoilers. So, if you
4:42haven't seen the film and you want to
4:42see the film,
4:44maybe wait until you see the film to to
4:46listen.
4:47Yeah, I I actually I loved the way
4:51his interviewing style.
4:53He did such a great job of
4:57you know, it it seemed almost at times
4:59where it was like this battle of who's
5:00going to go first, but you could you
5:02could he would use his face in really
5:04really well to kind of
5:06get the other person to talk. And I
5:08think him and Elizabeth were almost have
5:10showdowns at time where they were just
5:11kind of stare at each other. And
5:13I think we'll we'll talk about
5:15Elizabeth's affect and her mental status
5:17exam in a bit, but I I loved the way
5:19that he
5:21used silence and the way that he he he
5:23brought out uh
5:24um
5:26he used his words very sparingly, but
5:28really powerfully.
5:31>> Yeah, I mean I mean it's to the extent
5:33that I would say it's almost
5:35um utilizable as a teaching film for
5:38therapists, psychiatrists, forensic
5:39interviewers,
5:41you know, and on top of the interviewing
5:43style, you can even see that there are
5:46defenses. People are deploying
5:47psychological defense in the film. Um
5:50that doesn't need to be overly
5:52technical. I think anytime you see
5:54somebody avoiding a line of thinking, a
5:56way of saying something, or uh in many
5:59cases in the film, literally running
6:01away from an interviewer by making some
6:03kind of excuse, you know, those are all
6:05good examples of psychological or
6:06interpersonal defenses.
6:08>> I do want to jump into our analysis of
6:13the defenses analysis of psychologically
6:16what's going on. Should Should we go for
6:18it?
6:19>> I mean, you can. Uh I'm going to follow
6:22certain ethical rules. I won't say
6:24anything that isn't supported or
6:25inappropriate, but let's see how far we
6:27can get.
6:28>> Yeah, and uh that's because Dr. Drew
6:29follows the Goldwater rule. Um
6:32I I will be talking about, you know,
6:34just some some general concepts. I think
6:36this is a film that I I think we're
6:37allowed to analyze films. I think uh I'm
6:39not actually talking about the
6:40characters. I'm talking about the
6:41characters as they were displayed in the
6:43movie.
6:44>> You're You're not talking about the
6:45people. We're talking about the
6:46characters as they are portrayed, yes.
6:48>> Correct. And the thing that I saw and
6:50that I think is important for people to
6:52understand, if if we were to say, you
6:53know,
6:55borderline personality organization, I
6:57think is probably the most important
6:59concept to understand to understand I
7:01think a lot of what was occurring
7:02between the two main characters, uh
7:05Elizabeth Holmes and and Billy.
7:09>> That's one frame, right? I think a lot
7:11of people are going to reach for another
7:14uh frame of understanding people
7:16uh when it comes to saying what's going
7:18on. And we have no way to say which one
7:21is more or less accurate. You know, but
7:24I will say that that's something that
7:28is worth discussing, for sure.
7:30Uh I actually, before we get to any of
7:33that, I think it's just worth
7:36commenting on Elizabeth Holmes and how
7:39she appears on screen.
7:42You know, I'm sure a large part of that
7:44is the
7:47directorial element of the film, what
7:49they chose to show, how they chose to
7:52frame. I don't know if you noticed the
7:54uh literal aspect ratio of the film was
7:57basically a square rather than wide
7:59screen, you know, kind of like a classic
8:01frame of a picture frame uh to show
8:04people's faces.
8:06And she just has a very unusual face and
8:09a very unusual way of showing emotional
8:12expressions. I don't think that is
8:14controversial to say. To me, uh watching
8:17that film, it made me feel that
8:19Elizabeth Holmes is like this fay-like
8:22creature. She's like some kind of elf or
8:26fairy that comes out of the European
8:28forest in order to entice humanity in
8:32some fashion and lead them astray. That
8:34was just kind of the emotional feeling I
8:36got from this. But just watch the film
8:39and compare her uh interpersonal and
8:42emotional responses to almost every
8:45other person that appears
8:47in the film.
8:48There is a lot of difference. The
8:50emotional reactivity is restricted and
8:54uh pretty
8:55kind of samey in the sense. There is a
8:57lot of frequent uh almost inappropriate
9:01smiling and wide-eyed prolonged eye
9:04contact and there's almost a
9:07uh
9:08I don't know what word to describe this
9:10aspect, there's a lot of nodding going
9:12on, a lot of nodding going on, right?
9:16>> Yeah, what really stuck out to me is
9:18there was a constant smile. Um even in
9:21the most her when she's crying, she's
9:24smiling. And the the nodding, it's this
9:28uh constant just little up up and down.
9:30Now, I'm curious, you used the word
9:32unusual. Um I guess what what do you
9:34make of it? How do you make sense of
9:35that? What it
9:38Why is Why does she have an unusual
9:39affect?
9:41>> So, I think we need to draw back from
9:43the frame of the film
9:45when we ask that question. We need to
9:47wonder
9:49uh to what degree can this film portray
9:53a reality and to what degree can any
9:55documentary
9:56uh or work
9:58even written non-fiction portray
10:00reality. Because every time we try to
10:02make sense of reality, we utilize some
10:04kind of a frame. But, the use of a frame
10:07obscures in multiple ways, the least of
10:09which is that it removes context and it
10:13removes other information.
10:15And at least for this film, it's very
10:19obvious that uh everyone on the film
10:22knows that they are in a film for the
10:24purposes of doing something, right? So,
10:29it's therefore entirely possible that
10:32every single person we see
10:36on screen has changed, altered their
10:39behavior, or put themselves on as some
10:41kind of persona. So, is it real? Is it
10:44not real? I think it's extremely vague
10:46and it's completely impossible for us to
10:48tell.
10:50>> Yeah, and I I I I actually think we need
10:53to do I need to do my formulation before
10:55talking how I make sense of these
10:56things. But, so you mentioned that with
10:59the way you make sense of it is we don't
11:00actually know if that's uh if if she's
11:02putting on in some sense. And you also
11:04don't know if you know, when when
11:05they're they're not filming is is her
11:08affect significantly different.
11:10>> Um yeah.
11:11>> And uh
11:12you know, I I think this is
11:14the the the beautiful the the the film
11:17was named beautifully if you could see
11:18everything because that's that's the
11:20almost the big joke of like you could
11:22see everything that we choose to show
11:24you. And the film actually plays with
11:27this idea a lot in that it's highly I I
11:30I we'll we'll talk. It's almost Billy's
11:32idea if we can show you everything.
11:34Good. What's his idea of showing us
11:36everything? It's you get to see what I
11:38can what I tell you is which is what
11:41you know, I'll stop when things are
11:42going too far. You can see my penis cuz
11:46because my body is a part of everything.
11:49>> Yeah, we're we're just going to go out
11:50and full frontal nudity of him. Early in
11:52the film.
11:53>> Um but almost like a a childish view of
11:55like and this is everything. You you're
11:57seeing absolutely everything without
11:58like the obvious context of like no, you
12:01know the film is is running. Uh of of
12:04course this is not everything.
12:06And within the first I I I don't know
12:08exactly what day it was of filming.
12:10Within the first day they closed the
12:11door and start talking behind the scenes
12:13of like should we be talking about that
12:14during when when the film is running.
12:16It's it's a like it's a huge joke.
12:20>> Yeah.
12:21>> But I do want to say what what do you
12:23make of the strange affect? You know,
12:25even when someone's putting on you can
12:27see in previous films that she has this
12:30constant smile, this little bit of head
12:33nod. It almost feels like a like a
12:35Parkinsonian kind of thing. But it's
12:37not. I'm not saying
12:37>> Well,
12:38that's a good point. I I immediately
12:40wanted to know after I finished watching
12:42the film because I actually have not
12:43followed the Elizabeth Holmes story too
12:45closely.
12:47The most exposure I had to it before the
12:51um The Dropout came out, which I didn't
12:54watch. I saw someone else watching.
12:57But before that came out, I'll tell a
13:00little anecdote. My
13:02experience about Theranos and Elizabeth
13:04Holmes was I was in a car
13:07with some other physicians.
13:09And one of them, a PhD researcher,
13:13and MD,
13:14was just gushing about all the things
13:17that Theranos was achieving. And I said,
13:20"What are they claiming exactly?" And
13:21they said, "We can get
13:23They're They're saying they can get all
13:24these tests out of one drop of blood."
13:26And I immediately said, "That's
13:27impossible." That is not physically
13:29possible, and that's not going to work.
13:32Okay.
13:33Um and I'm not a research scientist, but
13:34I I did have some experience with that
13:36as an undergraduate. And you know what?
13:38I I just felt very validated when it
13:40ended up not necessarily working. Okay,
13:42that's enough plugging myself in the
13:44sense. Um what did I make of the
13:46behaviors? Well, yeah, I immediately
13:48went and looked up uh
13:51interviews from before the fall of
13:53Theranos.
13:55And she's showing the same behaviors.
13:57It's not considerably different. I
13:58wanted to know if it was an act put on
14:01specifically for the Fielder film. And
14:03it doesn't seem to be, you know? And you
14:06can also hear her speaking in a
14:08particularly deep voice, even deeper
14:11than what you see in the film. So,
14:14it seems to be something close to at
14:18least what she's used to portraying on
14:20the film. Uh who knows if there's any
14:24difference in how she acts outside of
14:27filmed or recorded situations.
14:31But let's just break down the things. Uh
14:33first, the unusual affect. To me, that
14:36is when you see that it
14:39for whatever the underlying reason is,
14:41when a person doesn't have the
14:43microexpressions
14:44that match another person during a
14:47conversation, it's some kind of a
14:50breakdown of the ability of that person
14:54uh to fully and very rapidly comprehend
14:57what is going on in the other person
14:59emotionally.
15:00Okay.
15:01There are a lot of different possible
15:04uh mental states or disorders that can
15:07cause that, and I'm loath to speculate
15:09on them directly. You're free to do so,
15:11okay? But the point is that I think
15:13there's a breakdown in the emotional
15:16understanding, the implicit uh emotional
15:19understanding of the other person. The
15:21second thing is the nodding. The nodding
15:23feels almost defensive. It feels almost
15:25automatic, some kind of inborn motor
15:29tick that
15:30just wants to say constantly yes, yes,
15:33yes, yes, yes. Never no, never no,
15:35always yes, and I'm with you. I agree
15:37with you. So, those those are the major
15:39things I took away from that.
15:41>> Yeah, I I I agree. I I
15:43It almost as if her affect is
15:46and I I I think what I'll have to give
15:48my formulation before kind of fully
15:50understanding how I'm thinking about it.
15:52But, her affect almost like mimics like
15:54exactly what you read in research
15:56studies for what people do to trust
15:59other people or what people do to like
16:02for CEOs. Um you know, like I feel like
16:04I've read studies of like when people
16:06are nodding, they seem like they're in
16:07agreement and they trust you more.
16:09Uh the deep voice is something I've
16:10we've all read before of people with a
16:12deep voice,
16:14uh
16:14CEOs with a deep voice develop, you
16:16know, have
16:18are are trusted more. Uh people think
16:20that they're they're more powerful, all
16:22these different things. And also, I'm
16:24sure I've read somewhere that like, you
16:26know, people people like other people
16:28who are smiling. It's It's almost as if
16:29she's like a collection of research
16:31studies on like what a CEO and uh
16:34someone should do to be powerful and and
16:37develop trust immediately. Um
16:40and I'll I think I like I said, I'll
16:42have to give my formulation for how I
16:43understand her with regards to why I
16:45think she's able to make these long-term
16:47adaptations that I think other people
16:49would have uh more difficulty adopting.
16:53>> Yeah.
16:55Watching the film, I began to think,
16:59feel, remember about a older concept, a
17:04concept called the as if personality.
17:07The as if personality is not super well
17:10defined, uh but it was originally
17:15the the reason why it's named that way
17:16is that it was supposed to describe
17:19personalities where they kind of looked
17:23and functioned as if there was some real
17:26self
17:27within them,
17:29uh but closer look would show that their
17:32self was quite malleable,
17:35uh kind of taking in various
17:37characteristics, attributes, and values
17:39from the people around them,
17:41um
17:42generally a bit narcissistic at least,
17:45and um also kind of high-functioning as
17:48well. And this is a concept that's been
17:50written about and discussed in a lot of
17:52different ways uh across time, but it's
17:55it's overall a question about uh how
17:58malleable is the self? How much can we
18:02allow ourselves
18:04to just take in uh other people's
18:08desires and wants or to be what someone
18:13else wants or needs us to be, or to be a
18:16different person for some kind of
18:20outcome. Right? And and that's a type of
18:24dissociation we can argue, right? Uh
18:27that if we can do that then we're going
18:30to be a lot more likely to be able to
18:33form or portray different characters.
18:36Now, the adaptive or at least socially
18:38normative version of that is playing
18:40pretend, role-playing,
18:42uh or acting, right? Uh those are just
18:46general human characteristics, but uh
18:48the idea I think is that in a state of
18:51personality health, the true self is
18:54simply being uh put aside temporarily,
18:58and that we would never act um or think
19:01beyond the way we truly feel and think
19:03inside unless we're very prone to lying
19:07without feeling bad about it.
19:09>> Yeah, my understanding of the as if
19:11personality, uh maybe I'll be repeating
19:13what you kind of said is is their
19:16sense of who them who they are is
19:19essentially just not there. And so they
19:22they they take on other people's
19:24attributes as a replacement for the fact
19:26that there is no real idea of who they
19:29are in inside.
19:31Um
19:32and from the outside they seem well
19:34adapted. I think that's what they
19:36on on the things that I've read it's
19:37like from the outside they seem totally
19:39normal but when you actually get to know
19:41them deeper it's all almost like a a
19:44collage of what they think they should
19:46be doing and there's no real like
19:48underlying structure for who who they
19:50are. Um and when you go and and like go
19:54to try to understand the emotional world
19:55of this person it's uh
19:58it's not quite there. So it's like as if
20:00it's like on on the surface they seem
20:01fully adapted. They're they can do well
20:04in in creative and business pursuits but
20:06there's no real sense of who who they
20:08are. They're just doing what they think
20:10they should be doing.
20:12>> Mhm. Mhm.
20:13And of course this is something that's
20:15captured in modern more mainstream DSM
20:19understanding under identity
20:21dysfunction, right? In the alternative
20:24model for personality disorders DSM-5
20:27alternative model
20:29personality functioning is split up into
20:31self and interpersonal. And under the
20:33self realm we have identity
20:36and we have self-direction. So when
20:39thinking about the as if personality
20:42they can be directive but they don't
20:45necessarily self-direct. They may direct
20:48based on the needs, wants, or values of
20:51others that they take on for themselves
20:53and their identity is fundamentally weak
20:57in some fashion, dissociative, empty to
21:00some degree,
21:02and they have a sensitivity. They may be
21:06very unstable in their self-esteem
21:08unless they're able to achieve certain
21:11kinds of outcomes.
21:12>> I know. So, I think that as if
21:14formulation works really well with the
21:16borderline personality organization
21:19formulation. Do you mind if I kind of go
21:20into that?
21:22>> Oh, I mean, you should absolutely
21:23because personally I do think the
21:25alternative model, DSM-5 alternative
21:26model, their personality functioning is
21:29essentially the same thing as borderline
21:31personality organization.
21:33>> Um so, first I guess I'll uh give my
21:36super
21:37uh oversimplified understanding of of
21:40borderline personality organization. And
21:41the first thing we need to understand is
21:43kind of how uh uh a oversimplified idea
21:46of development. Um so,
21:49I think Dr. Phil, you'll probably push
21:50back cuz this is probably too
21:51oversimplified, but uh yeah, I'm going
21:53to give it a shot anyway.
21:54>> Oh, before you do so, shouldn't we just
21:56at the outset say it is not the same as
21:58borderline personality disorder, which
22:00is a more constrained and older um not
22:03necessarily older, but it's more
22:05constrained DSM simplified model. And
22:07borderline personality disorder as
22:09people popularly talk about is only one
22:12category within the organization,
22:14borderline personality organization,
22:16which would include things like
22:17narcissistic, antisocial, histrionic,
22:19and other types.
22:20>> Absolutely. So, borderline personality
22:22disorder is uh a part that patients with
22:24that have a borderline personality
22:25organization, but uh not all patients
22:27with borderline personality organization
22:29are BPD.
22:30Um
22:31>> That's right. So, let me give my first
22:32very very brief understanding with
22:34regards to development. And it I'm going
22:35to also connect it to uh the the film.
22:38So,
22:39initially there's a differentiation
22:42between self and other. So, as a person
22:44kind of, you know, there's
22:46when you're a baby there's like this
22:48oceanic experience where everything's
22:49one. And then
22:50through a series of minor frustrations,
22:54a person individuates. So, they start to
22:57understand what's what's me and what's
22:58the other person. And whenever there's
23:00is any sort of like massive frustration,
23:03concepts of who what's me and what's the
23:05other person can get disrupted. Now, we
23:07see a ton of that in the film with
23:10regards to the way that Billy and
23:12Elizabeth describe how they understand
23:15each other on and and the way that they
23:17talk about each other shows that there's
23:18a real lack of clear differentiation
23:21between me and another person.
23:24We'll get to that in a second. Now,
23:25borderline personality organization. So,
23:27first you have the split between me and
23:29another person.
23:30And then there's what we call the
23:32libido, which is you know, a
23:34psychoanalytic term which is I can kind
23:36of consider like the life energy mental
23:38energy is how I like to refer to it.
23:41Yeah, and and I think of it is like the
23:43more positive connecting force. And then
23:45there's aggression, which is the more
23:46negative
23:48aggressive force. And our idea of self
23:51and other also
23:53So, our self differentiates according to
23:55lines of of the libidinal force and the
23:59aggressive force. And the same with the
24:01other people. So, we have
24:03how we view other people as what we call
24:05like {quote} all good or {quote} all
24:08bad. So, the the things derived from the
24:11libidinal force is all good and the
24:13things derived from the aggressive force
24:14is all bad. How do I think about this?
24:16So, when I see my nieces and nephews and
24:20they they view my my sisters
24:22when
24:23when my sisters they adore my sisters
24:26and they love their mom and their mom
24:27takes care of absolute everything. But
24:29then when my mom says that or when their
24:31mom says they can't have the ice cream
24:34they go into this full temper tantrum
24:35and they they hate my they hate my
24:37sister. So, there's really no
24:40understanding that the the mom that
24:42tells me that I can't have ice cream is
24:44also that same mom that
24:46I adore and need. So, what happens is
24:49again through a series of minor chronic
24:52frustrations that
24:53improve uh, your ability to understand
24:56that the all good mom and the all bad
24:59mom are the exact same thing.
25:01So, splitting develops when that process
25:04is interrupted in such a sense that
25:06there the images of the all good and the
25:09all bad can't be merged.
25:11So,
25:12>> Yeah, that that that's that's a great
25:13description. I'd like to clarify a
25:15little bit uh, if I will. Um, we have to
25:19as adults, we think of mental
25:21development as adults, so it can be
25:23confusing. We want to remember and
25:25consider that young children and people
25:28with underdeveloped or poorly developed
25:30uh, personality function, uh, they may
25:33not think and feel in the way that most
25:35adults are used to, right? So, it's not
25:39an and that the emotional development is
25:41a different set of skills or development
25:45than the cognitive intellectual
25:47development. So, someone can be very
25:49high functioning intellectually and
25:51still be emotionally childlike or
25:54underdeveloped.
25:56So, what you refer to here are about
25:57emotions and specifically emotions as
26:00they refer to other people and
26:02ourselves, right? And I also want to say
26:04that splitting then is not just
26:07something that happens when you get
26:09older. Splitting is the original state
26:12of the human being. Human beings
26:14originally, um, just think about black
26:16and white and aren't very realistic and
26:19it's only if we are given the right
26:21development and support that we can
26:22integrate uh, good and bad together and
26:25see them in the same person.
26:27>> Yeah, you did a great job. Um, and and
26:29please feel free to keep adding things
26:30cuz I'm sure there's tons of uh, little
26:32nuance that I'm I'm missing that is
26:33important to kind of understand this
26:34concept. But, the core of borderline
26:37personality organization is that this
26:40the the merging kind of doesn't take
26:42place. So, splitting is the fundamental
26:45uh, defense mechanism that they use. So,
26:47splitting protects the ego from uh,
26:51from any sort of conflict by maintaining
26:54uh, dissociation or an active keeping
26:56apart of things of strongly conflictual
26:58nature. So, the way I think about it is,
27:01you know, the easy way to view it is
27:02these
27:03people with BPO have they think things
27:05are either all good or all bad. And when
27:09whenever things are all good, the the
27:13the way that they think about things
27:14takes on so the all good takes on the
27:16full uh, the way it's put in like
27:19Kernberg puts it takes on the full
27:21emotional ideational and motor
27:22consciousness. So, in a sense, if I'm
27:25thinking of there's only two ways to
27:27really view myself and they're mutually
27:28exclusive. I either view myself as all
27:30good, uh, I'm I'm doing really well,
27:33things are wonderful, I'm
27:35I'm incredible
27:36or I'm terrible and the worst thing in
27:39the world. And these two things don't
27:40coexist. So, patients with this they
27:44don't have
27:45a comprehensive realistic view of
27:47themselves and other people. It's either
27:50and so that's that's why we see
27:53other characteristics with BPO are
27:55identity diffusion,
27:57um, a reliance on primitive defenses,
28:00uh,
28:01really the big difficulty is difficulty
28:03integrating positive and negative
28:05aspects of relationships. And that's
28:06really what we see in this movie.
28:08Um,
28:09so
28:10>> Yeah, to put it simply, um, there's a
28:13lot of jargon, there's a lot of history,
28:15and that can really lead the layperson
28:17astray. The the ultimate takeaway is
28:21that it's a stunted or slowed or
28:24difficult emotional development,
28:26interpersonal and emotional development.
28:29How to understand ourselves and feel
28:31about ourselves and about our
28:34relationships and other people.
28:35>> Absolutely. So, this is what I think is
28:38underlying Elizabeth. And then I also
28:40see, uh, in terms of you know, what
28:43other uh,
28:45flavors of of pathology, I see very
28:47strong narcissism. So, I think there's a
28:50a very big grandiosity that goes along
28:52with Elizabeth with regards to thinking
28:54that she is going to do this incredible
28:57thing that's going to save humanity.
28:59So, how how do I make sense of her her
29:02relationships with regards to splitting?
29:04I actually think that her there's a few
29:08things that kind of happen in the movie
29:09that that really hammered this home. The
29:11The first thing is my understanding of
29:13how she uses relationships. So, there's
29:16a big repetition compulsion that kind of
29:18occurs with all of her relationships and
29:19we actually watch the repetition
29:20compulsion kind of taking place within
29:22this movie. So, I think she actually
29:23uses her male partners as a sense to cut
29:27off the all bad aspects of what her
29:30goals are. So, I think she has these
29:31very grandiose dreams of saving the
29:33world and she's able to only whenever
29:37you're uh
29:38very ambitious and trying to take on
29:39goals that have, you know, it's
29:41build a giant corporation. That that
29:43entails uh you
29:45fudging the numbers, uh that that
29:47entails firing people, that entails a
29:48lot of a negative things. She uses these
29:51strong it
29:53these these these dominant uh uh
29:56controlling men to to cut off from the
29:59negative aspects of her high ambitions.
30:03So, she's able to use these men to uh
30:06compartmentalize
30:08and have the things that she does in her
30:10world be only the good things. And then
30:12the men in a sense, she completely like
30:15cuts off from the fact that she's having
30:16them do their negative biddings.
30:19Uh when when [snorts] Billy when she
30:22walks away and has Billy discuss the
30:23money, it's almost like childlike. It's
30:25it's it's incredible how
30:28she doesn't think twice about the fact
30:30that he's going to be taking care of the
30:31money. So, I think she uses In terms of
30:33like what does she get out of of of
30:35these men? Well, I think she uses them
30:37to to do all the the all bad with
30:39regards to her grandiose visions.
30:43>> Well, you know, that that's that's the
30:45theory of the film, I think, anyway.
30:48Uh the film seems to put that forward,
30:50but I think that's even less interesting
30:52than the question of being
30:55can you only do this knowingly?
30:59Can this be done unconsciously? And
31:02which one is it? Right?
31:05Uh I I think it's
31:07one possibility is that if somebody has
31:10this pattern of relationship uh
31:14being in relationships, that it is done
31:16unknowingly. And I do think that most
31:19people in life, they go through patterns
31:21in their relationships without having
31:23any clear awareness of that at all. Even
31:25when it's so clear to an outside
31:27observer, even a friend or a colleague
31:29that has no professional training, it
31:30can be very clear. We have trouble
31:32seeing ourselves because it can be
31:34painful or unacceptable to see ourselves
31:37in a certain way, right?
31:38At the same time, especially if you look
31:41at certain data that is out there
31:43uh about this specific case, uh I think
31:46it's pretty reasonable to have doubts
31:48that someone can be completely innocent
31:52and have no knowledge uh about what they
31:55are doing that may be wrong or at least
31:59uh shielding or uh
32:02denying the truth.
32:04>> Yeah, and I think I think the thing that
32:06captures this the most uh was when
32:09Nathan asks her, "Have you ever lied?"
32:12And she says, "I I've never lied."
32:14And this to me perfectly epitomizes how
32:17this split works. So, because things
32:19need to be all good and all bad,
32:22her her idea her her image of herself is
32:25such that nor even normal human lying is
32:28something that she she is completely
32:30outside of her awareness.
32:31Uh so, I mean, like, he captures it
32:34perfectly of like,
32:36I I forget how he says it, but he's
32:37like, "Liz, are you for real? Like like
32:39how could you make sense of that you're
32:41one of the most famous liars in in in
32:43current times and you're saying that
32:45you've never lied, which is inconsistent
32:47with any human life." Um but this is
32:50really how her
32:51you know, this this is the splitting.
32:53Her her idea of herself is such that
32:55never it's such an an absurd extreme.
33:00>> Yeah, that that is an area where
33:04and this is not the first time I've seen
33:05this kind of thing. Okay. That is where
33:08I begin to think, "Oh,
33:10this is not necessarily just
33:14run-of-the-mill mendacity,
33:16run-of-the-mill attempts to deceive
33:18someone. When the lie gets
33:21so big or so contrary to the shared
33:25reality, the undisputed facts for most
33:29other people, but one person is there
33:32saying,
33:34"It doesn't matter about any of that.
33:37This is what happened."
33:39You see that
33:40not infrequently in serious cases and
33:43you see that not infrequently in cases
33:45with personality problems.
33:47Uh but why does that happen?
33:49Why might someone insist on one reality
33:54when it seems like 99% of the world
33:57believes otherwise?
33:59There are a lot of possible
34:00explanations, but I do think that in
34:03many of these cases
34:05it becomes something emotional and that
34:09it is
34:11just so impermissible, as you say, to
34:13not live that reality
34:16uh that it just cannot be acknowledged
34:18at all because it's it a master
34:21manipulator, a master liar wouldn't make
34:23that kind of claim because they'd
34:25understand that the other person would
34:26never believe it. So, why might someone
34:29make a incredible claim like that? I
34:31think it's to soothe themselves, to make
34:34themselves have the identity and the
34:36emotions that they need in order to
34:39survive mentally. And, you know,
34:41watching the film, I really thought of
34:44the classic George Costanza bit from
34:46Seinfeld because this is frankly a
34:49technique that can be used by people. Uh
34:52it's not a lie if you believe it.
34:56It's not a lie if you believe it. And
34:58you know, in in support of this, uh I if
35:00you read Nathan Fielder's recent uh
35:03published interview with Wired magazine,
35:05I'm going to read from it here. Uh he
35:07says,
35:09"It almost feels at times that it's not
35:11so black and white what's going on in
35:13her head.
35:14A lie, a classic lie, is someone who's
35:16like, 'Okay, I'm saying something that
35:19I'm consciously knowing is not true in
35:21this moment.'
35:22But it's not just the word, it's the
35:24it's the design of every aspect of her
35:26life that feels like a part of what is
35:28going on.
35:29What's interesting about her to me, I
35:31think, just goes beyond that in any
35:33given moment.
35:35I can't piece it together. She makes
35:37these claims that are like, 'How could
35:39anyone believe this or say they've never
35:40done this?' Is it a lie in that moment?
35:44Is it a lie if she believes it to be
35:46true?"
35:49>> And yeah, we
35:50I He kind of captures it perfectly. And
35:54I I think the the thing the the reason
35:57why this is occurring is because the way
35:59her brain operates is different than the
36:02way my brain operates, especially the
36:04way that she uses language. And
36:07the
36:08I I truly think, like, is she
36:11manipulating? Yes.
36:13Is what she's doing manipulative? Yes.
36:15Is she manipulating? No.
36:17>> [laughter]
36:18>> Um and and and I think, like, in in her
36:22in her mind, I don't think she's telling
36:25a lie.
36:26Uh but I I think the way her brain works
36:28is
36:29is a manipulative process.
36:33>> Well, you know, I originally thought
36:34that in the first part of the film.
36:36But then, as time passed, and especially
36:40after the film, I began to doubt this.
36:42Because I think
36:44today, in October 2026, we are now
36:49seeing repeatedly that big, outrageous
36:53lies work.
36:55Okay. Uh, even if the viewer might
36:58think, "This is outrageous and no one
37:01would ever believe it."
37:03There's someone out there that will
37:04believe it.
37:05Because, again, it's the matter of
37:07function and projection.
37:09If it is adaptive or pleasurable in some
37:12way, we will believe it. That's just
37:14human nature.
37:16That, by the way, as an aside, I thought
37:18it was it was a very interesting thing
37:20about this film as a piece of art. You
37:23know, Nathan Fielder is a magician.
37:25He's apparently pretty good if he's a
37:26member of the Magic Castle. Uh,
37:29there's this concept from the film The
37:30Prestige. Um,
37:32I don't know if it's actually real in
37:35magic, but they talk about how
37:37uh magic tricks follow the structure
37:39where there there's a pledge, where you
37:41kind of show something that seems
37:43ordinary, the turn, where you show
37:45something that uh seems to be out of the
37:48ordinary and it can't be explained, and
37:49the prestige, where you uh rewrite
37:51things again, but in a manner where uh
37:54it's satisfying, emotional, and people
37:56just don't understand what happened. Um,
37:59I've kind of feel like this film takes
38:00that structure. It's like a magic trick
38:02itself. It shows you Elizabeth Holmes,
38:04who we all know and understand to be a
38:07scammer and liar. That's the pledge,
38:09right? And then the turn is showing her
38:12as human and indeterminate, and just
38:15this person who has hopes, dreams, and
38:17wishes, and the family, but there's
38:19something odd about her, too, right? And
38:21then the prestige, I think, is bringing
38:24us to the end, but instead of showing us
38:26something ordinary, we're showing the
38:29extraordinary. That
38:30That we can't be sure that the
38:32characters in the film can't be sure
38:34about the truth.
38:35Perhaps the people themselves,
38:38the subjects, cannot be sure what's true
38:40or what's not, and we, the viewers,
38:42cannot be sure what is true or not as
38:44well. Of course, that I think follows
38:45more strongly if you've followed Nathan
38:47Fielder's work across his career.
38:50>> If you like the show and want to support
38:51us, the easiest way is through the
38:53psychopharm membership. Just head on
38:55over to psycho.farm, p s y c h o.farm, f
39:00a r m. The URL's a little silly. The
39:02membership includes a lot of awesome
39:04resources, as well as a great community
39:06forum, a book club, and access to our
39:08live Q&A's. We have awesome prescriber
39:10guides to help make prescribing the
39:11medications much easier. We have awesome
39:13patient handouts that helps communicate
39:15the important information of the
39:16medications to the patients. We put
39:18together an awesome guide builder for
39:20patients that allows you to add the
39:22medications the patients are taking, add
39:24some really relevant skills for the
39:25patients, and then add important
39:27resources for the patients. [music]
39:28You also get access to our community,
39:30our live Q&A's, and we're starting a
39:32book club this month. Separate from the
39:33membership, you can go to
39:34psycho.farm/resourceplan.
39:36That is a helpful little tool to help
39:38you find the highest yield book or
39:39resource. So, head on over to
39:41psycho.farm and check all that stuff
39:43out. Let's get back to the show.
39:45>> Yeah, and that that this really captures
39:46like the brilliance of the film
39:49and the fact that he was able to get
39:50linked with Elizabeth Holmes because
39:53Nathan Fielder's whole stick is like you
39:54don't know you don't know who the real
39:56Nathan Fielder is. Where Where is the
39:58act end and where does he start? And he
40:01managed to get linked I don't know how
40:04this is ridiculous that Elizabeth Holmes
40:06agreed to this. He managed to get linked
40:08to a person where that
40:10also exists, but in in a different
40:12sense.
40:13So, it really is like an unstoppable
40:14force meets an immovable object uh with
40:17two. And he he did a really good job of
40:19of capturing
40:21um
40:21with with Elizabeth not knowing what's
40:24true and and and and and where the
40:26acting where the acting starts and ends.
40:29And then uh to add just a million meta
40:31elements of of bringing in the actress
40:33playing her and
40:35having that kind of mirror the exact
40:36same situation.
40:38>> Yeah. I got a kind of feeling from the
40:40film that it was like two thieves
40:42recognizing themselves recognizing each
40:44other in the night.
40:45And themselves, right?
40:46>> The Spider-Man game?
40:48>> Well, you know, yeah. Look, a thief
40:50always recognizes another thief in the
40:52night. All right? Um and at I think
40:54there was a line that Fielder says where
40:56he's he says like uh
40:58oh, it's personal for me. You know, he
41:00want he personally wants to make sure
41:01he's not hoodwinked because he, I think
41:04I I'm guessing feels that he is suddenly
41:08subject to the same thing that he does
41:09to other people.
41:11Right? And he's not sure what is going
41:13on with that. Um it's very uh telling, I
41:16think, that he tells that story about
41:17David Blaine
41:19who I think famously puts up spike
41:22through his hand, uh but he actually has
41:24a hole in his hand, you know, uh the
41:26trick is real.
41:29So, overall for me, this film is about
41:30the hyperreal. It's about our role today
41:33in 2026 as observers, as watchers, not
41:37participants, but watchers, not even
41:39watchers, but people who are viewing
41:41something and we know we're viewing
41:42something. Right? It's this recursive
41:45thing that just goes over and over in
41:47Nathan's work, and I think it says
41:48something about uh how we exist as
41:50subjects within the social media
41:52landscape.
41:52>> Is that a post-postmodernism?
41:55>> Yeah, [laughter] kind of.
41:56>> Um and also, I think uh
41:59how we exist as individuals with our
42:01culture and the political landscape and
42:04uh
42:05not knowing where
42:07uh where the acting begins and where's
42:10we're being controlled and where is uh
42:12the truth?
42:14>> Yeah, because there's an argument I've
42:16read from some people that what
42:17Elizabeth Holmes did was pretty much par
42:19for the course
42:21for a lot of people seeking venture
42:22capital.
42:23You know, that these kinds of Silicon
42:26Valley startups that what you do is that
42:28you lie. I think it was the engineer in
42:30the new company
42:32that was kind of referencing this before
42:33their
42:35interview got cut off, but
42:37is this just something that everyone's
42:39doing or at least a small subset of the
42:41population does to great effect and if
42:44you
42:45manage to fool people long enough until
42:48you get a viable product, you win. And
42:50then if you don't, you lose.
42:53>> Yeah, and I you know,
42:54I think the motto in in in startups is
42:57break things as fast as possible, which
42:59is a wonderful thing when you're selling
43:01books. It's not such a wonderful thing
43:03when you're dealing with patient care.
43:05Which is you know, I think yeah, venture
43:08capital in in medicine is is
43:11Yeah, we'll leave that for another day.
43:13Switching gears to another topic that I
43:15really wanted to touch on
43:17and it has to do with Billy and
43:19Elizabeth and how they describe their
43:21love. So, going back to the borderline
43:24personality organization, one of the
43:25fundamental
43:27defense mechanisms with regards to
43:29relationships is what we call
43:31idealization and devaluation. So, as I
43:34was mentioning, the way that they view
43:36other people and themselves is all good
43:38or all bad. So, when we're talking all
43:40good, you you hear these people
43:43someone can't just be
43:45you know, when when when you think of a
43:46good relationship, it's like think of
43:48your partner, it's like yeah, they're
43:49special to me and you know, I I adore
43:51them and I love them
43:53and and that's you know, they have
43:54flaws, but when we're talking about
43:56someone with these kind of psychologies,
43:57the all good
43:59links in in a sense with their
44:01grandiosity or can link with their
44:03grandiosity. So, when Uh, their their
44:05relationship isn't just a good
44:07relationship. It's special in a cosmic
44:09sense. The all good takes on grandiose
44:12elements of, uh, you know, this is this
44:14is a cosmic love of, uh, unfathomable
44:17proportion.
44:18And
44:19we we really see that the the
44:22idealization phase of how they kind of
44:24interact with each other, that the way
44:26they talk about the relationship is is
44:28almost otherworldly. And there's a sense
44:31of like other people can understand. Uh,
44:33this this is a magical type of
44:35relationship.
44:36>> Well, there's one point where she even
44:38says something like, uh,
44:40was it her? She says like, "I'm coming
44:42to an understanding that, uh,
44:45God is love itself, right?" But then
44:48that's right after talking about the
44:50love between her and her partner,
44:53which is saying that our love is God
44:55almost,
44:56>> Right.
44:56>> Yeah, yeah, it's like this this
44:57>> That is that is quite a thing to say.
44:59>> Uh,
45:00huge
45:01>> Now now that being said, that being
45:02said, I do want to emphasize that
45:04idealization and devaluation is very
45:06human, and we all do it, right? Uh,
45:08that's not the unique part. I think it's
45:11the degree, you know, the degree and,
45:14uh, how it seems to manifest. And I
45:16think maybe both of them, or at least,
45:19uh, Billy make reference to this feeling
45:22that,
45:23uh, "I can know what they are thinking
45:25because they are inside of me."
45:27Uh, that made me really think of the,
45:29um, common, uh, concept of introjection
45:32that we hold people we care about or
45:35aspects of them within ourselves. We
45:37take it into ourselves and keep it with
45:39us, right? And that's a very, uh, normal
45:42part of development.
45:44It's something we all do, uh, but it's
45:46it's sort of like, um, how much do you
45:49do that as an adult?
45:50Uh, well, maybe you do that more if you
45:52don't have a lot of yourself to begin
45:54with. And then you can dissociate more
45:57and take in, uh, or cast off various
46:00different traits, attributes, and values
46:02depending on the context.
46:04>> Yeah, and he to me really represented
46:06his poor self and other differentiation.
46:09Um in that he felt like
46:11I when when he uh that they were talking
46:13about the Twitter and and some and
46:14Nathan asked um like did she write it?
46:17And he basically said like, "Well,
46:18basically, uh you know, it's I I
46:21Well, I typed it, but you know, I'm I
46:24Basically, I I could write for her." But
46:26there really is a really poor self and
46:28other boundaries. And uh with regards to
46:32what I was saying with the idealization,
46:33at first off, I think I categorize Billy
46:35as as highly narcissistic. Um I also
46:38think of antisocial as a subsection of
46:41narcissism, so I think he's uh on on on
46:43the antisocial spectrum. But the way
46:46that uh
46:47she would talk, you know, when we're
46:48talking about the idealization, she
46:50would I I forget the exact quote, but it
46:52was something like, "I want to spend my
46:53life building monuments of dedication to
46:55our love."
46:56You know, this the
46:58the
46:59uh uh Kohut calls it like I think Kohut
47:02talks about like the the the twin
47:04countertransference, where um people
47:06with these kind of pathologies uh
47:08the the way that they view the other
47:10people needs to be idealized to such an
47:11extreme extent that it takes on a
47:13magical, almost like uh spiritual
47:15quality of of of shared uh specialness.
47:18And uh
47:19>> Yeah.
47:19>> Yeah, like the the
47:21>> Well,
47:22it was all reason.
47:23>> Yeah, that's that's pretty much all I
47:24had.
47:25>> I will say uh for me, it's a bridge too
47:27far to go to diagnosis. We don't have
47:29the data for it, you know? Um
47:32I think what's more important to note is
47:34that you can watch this stuff and you
47:36can say these are not ordinary people. I
47:38think they're a lot more ordinary than
47:40we want to give credit for. I think we
47:42have a lot more of this or at least a
47:44capacity for it within ourselves and
47:46everyone around us than we give it
47:47credit for. And to deny that and to say
47:50it's only uh one or two people who are
47:52like this and uh they're the problem and
47:54I'm not, I think that's why we're in the
47:55situation we're in today, all across the
47:58world. But this is not new. This is what
48:00humanity has been doing for the entire
48:02time that we've been around, if uh
48:04history is any indicator of this.
48:06Uh but I do take your point. This uh
48:08idealization, uh this sense of fusion
48:12between the self and others in the
48:13partnership, right? Uh it's there's a
48:16there's degrees to that, and at a high
48:18degree, uh it's as if you're the same
48:21person. But we need to counter that. We
48:24need to remember that even if we can
48:25feel this way,
48:26there's a strong argument that we never
48:28really know anybody else. That it's
48:30impossible to truly know everybody else,
48:32and that our experience of other people
48:35is always a simulation of some kind that
48:37we take into ourselves, right? Because
48:40the frame of our existence does not
48:42allow us to occupy uh the position or
48:45the subjectivity of an entirely other
48:47different person. All we get is a little
48:49box frame, just like in the film.
48:52>> Absolutely. And I I think um you know,
48:54I'm I'm glad you said that. I think all
48:56the
48:57things that we intuitively, when we're
48:59watching, it feels uncanny or kind of
49:02ridiculous that uh
49:03you know, Elizabeth and and uh Billy are
49:06engaging in, they're
49:08typically more extreme versions of
49:09things that we kind of all do.
49:11Um
49:12and actually, sorry, I'm going to use
49:14that as a a riff to an another uh point
49:16that I wanted to make with regards to to
49:18Elizabeth. Um
49:20talking about her turtleneck, uh I don't
49:23I this is before the the movie, but she
49:25would wear the same turtleneck that was
49:26like pretty much Steve Jobs. Um and I
49:29and her voice, uh
49:30how do I make sense of why she kind of
49:33engages in those things? So, the
49:34turtleneck, you know, first off, it's
49:36it's normal to internalize and take on
49:39characteristics of people that we look
49:41up to. I actually have an an example
49:44from this podcast. You often say, Dr.
49:47Foo, you'll um if if you explain
49:49something and it's not that much it's
49:50not that clear, you end it by saying, um
49:53what do I mean by that? And then you
49:54kind of explain a little bit further.
49:57Since we've been podcasting, I've caught
49:58myself saying it.
50:00I was listening back on a podcast and I
50:01said, "What do I mean by that?" Which is
50:03something I've never said before. But
50:05since we've podcasted together,
50:07I started saying it. So, you know,
50:09what am I doing? And I think I I
50:11appreciate you Dr. Drew. I think I I
50:13look up to you and and I you know, I
50:15take on little characteristics. Now,
50:17what's important to know is
50:18>> I will say for a moment and you know, as
50:21a good example of lack of self insight
50:23that's normal to everybody. I didn't
50:24know I had no idea I did that. Because
50:27>> Yeah, so the the thing is it's I I I I
50:31don't have the the most perfect stable
50:33identity in the world, but I I have a
50:34relatively decent sense of who I am. And
50:37when I adopt someone else that I look up
50:39to, I don't wholesale steal what they
50:41do. I don't I didn't start I haven't
50:43started talking like Dr. Drew. I still
50:44have my own opinions. I still think very
50:46differently from you. But you know, I I
50:48look up to you. I like your opinions.
50:49And you know, there's little small
50:50nuances that it's like, "Oh yeah, I
50:52guess I did start you know, that did
50:54that did kind of integrate into to how I
50:55talk." But with Elizabeth, the way that
50:58she takes on things, it's almost like a
51:00childlike quality of adopting things.
51:03It's not
51:05when when I read about Steve Jobs, I was
51:07like, "Oh, that's actually pretty good
51:08idea. I'm going to you know,
51:10have have a have a closet with only you
51:12know, six shirts that I can wear with
51:14most other shirts."
51:15But no, she she wholesale takes takes on
51:19his his full identity. There there
51:20really is a lack of
51:22a strong sense of self in such that it's
51:24not like she's taking one little feature
51:26and and integrating it into a
51:28well-developed idea of who she is. She
51:30wholesale steals in this sense. It's to
51:33me very childlike. It's like, you know,
51:34when a a child looks up to to
51:36Spider-Man, they go full on as
51:38Spider-Man. They don't just take on
51:40little qualities.
51:42>> Well, I mean again, I I think steal is
51:44too strong of a word, right? We don't
51:46know what the motive is. It could be
51:48fully automatic, it could be unknown.
51:51Who knows, right? It's very difficult
51:53thing to tell. By the way, did Steve
51:54Jobs actually only have six outfits?
51:57>> I think he just always wore the black
51:58turtleneck. He wore the same exact thing
52:00every single day.
52:00>> Okay. That's true. He did that, huh? I
52:03don't know. Just kind of made me think,
52:05you know, speaking of Bay Area type
52:06people, if we will, when I was a kid, I
52:09read a Dilbert cartoon where Dilbert had
52:12a closet full of all the same outfit,
52:14and that's why he's always dressed the
52:15same. And I thought, you know, that's a
52:16really good idea.
52:18>> [laughter]
52:20>> Find one outfit that works for you and
52:21follow the day.
52:23>> Um and then lastly, I I haven't heard
52:25anyone ever give a a good take on the
52:27voice.
52:28Uh how I make sense of the voice, again,
52:30um I remember when I was in like ninth
52:32grade, I read something like a deep
52:33voice, you know, people trust you more
52:35if you have a deep voice, and for the
52:36next 20 minutes, you I I talked a little
52:38bit a little bit lower. But then 20
52:40minutes went by, and I totally forgot
52:41about it, and I wasn't able to keep it
52:43up because naturally, my voice is not my
52:45my voice isn't that low. Uh when you
52:47have an unstable identity, I think the
52:49how low or high your voice is something
52:51even something as intrinsic as the
52:53biological
52:54uh frequency of your voice is something
52:56that's a little bit more negotiable. So,
52:58I think it really underpins uh
53:01uh
53:02a sense of self that isn't that strong
53:04that even even biological aspects of you
53:06can be adapted and really feel like you.
53:09>> Well, that that's one way of saying it.
53:11You could say that it's because self is
53:13weak, and therefore, you can do that,
53:15right? And then, I would say the obverse
53:18of that is that um because the self is
53:21weak, we must do it. We must take on
53:24other characteristics in order to
53:26survive, to feel whole, uh to feel alive
53:29or good enough, or else we fall into
53:31that deep pit of despair where we are
53:34uh awful, terrible, or even nothing.
53:37Dead.
53:39>> Oof, that's a little scary.
53:42>> Well, that's object relations. It's a
53:43lot of fun uh writing in literature in
53:45that area even if you don't fully
53:47believe everything that they believe.
53:49>> Uh
53:50you know, one uh
53:52another thing that I thought was silly
53:53just right now just random things that
53:54popped in my head. I I sent you a a
53:56message about this.
53:58At the beginning of the film when they
53:58were calling her Liz,
54:00it really reminded me of that office
54:01scene where uh
54:03Andy Bernard comes back from anger
54:05management and he goes up to Pam and Pam
54:08goes like, "Andy, how are you doing?"
54:09And he's like, "It's It's Drew now. It's
54:11Drew."
54:12Uh
54:13>> [laughter]
54:14>> it really reminded me of of the office
54:15scene where it's like, "Okay, you take
54:17out a new name and but we're supposed to
54:18supposed to completely forget about who
54:20you were before?"
54:21>> Uh that's a that's a solid reference.
54:24>> Um all right, I see we're at 55 minutes.
54:27Is there anything else you want to touch
54:28on before we uh
54:29>> No, I just hope this was kind of
54:30interesting to people. I mean, we're
54:31usually educational podcast, but you
54:33know, I do like this kind of stuff and I
54:35think there's a lot that can be said
54:36about it and um frankly, uh you know, I
54:39once heard a tale of I think it was a
54:41New York psychiatrist faculty somewhere
54:43who would advocate uh deducting his
54:45movie tickets as business expenses. I
54:48can tell you right now that is not
54:49kosher when it comes to the IRS, but uh
54:52there's something to that, you know.
54:53It's uh knowing pop culture, media, art,
54:58and just general culture uh that is so
55:00important to doing psychiatry correctly.
55:02So, uh I hope people enjoyed it.
55:04>> Yeah, and I feel like uh I could keep
55:06rambling. I have I had a bunch of other
55:07theories with regards to um
55:10you know, kind of what how how I think
55:11about Billy. Uh I feel like I didn't get
55:13into um
55:14uh a lot of my theories with regards to
55:17uh
55:17the
55:18yeah, Elizabeth. So, I don't know. If
55:20people like this we can I can do another
55:21one.
55:22>> Yeah.
55:23Yeah, I'd be open.
55:24>> All right.
55:25>> All right. Well, until next time.
55:27>> Take care.
55:28Thanks for listening. If you enjoy our
55:30show, please leave us a review on Apple
55:32Podcast or Spotify. I know it seems like
55:34a small deal, but it actually helps us
55:35out a lot. And if you want to support
55:37the show or get more content, head on
55:39over to psycho.farm,
55:41not dot com, psycho.farm. p s y c h o
55:45dot f a r m. There I have a very
55:48comprehensive video-based antidepressant
55:51course. You can also get access to our
55:53memberships, which include a community
55:54forum, very awesome prescriber guides,
55:57patient medication sheets. On Amazon, I
55:59also wrote a book, which is a guide to
56:01medications. On Amazon, just search
56:03psychopharm and Molsberry, and it should
56:05pop up. So, if you want to support us,
56:06please do leave a review, and then check
56:09out psycho.farm. Um we really appreciate
56:11it. Thanks for listening.

About this transcript

This page contains the full transcript of You Can See Everything Psychological Analysis by Clinical & Forensic Psychiatrists by Psychofarm, generated from the public captions YouTube serves with the video. The transcript has 9,942 words across 1,572 segments, with the original timestamps preserved so you can click any line to jump to that moment in the embedded player.

What you can do with it

Use the transcript to take notes, quote the speaker, build a study guide, generate a summary with ChatGPT or Claude via the YouTube Summary tool, or export it as a timed subtitle file with YouTube to SRT. You can also re-open it in the transcriber to translate the transcript into 100+ languages.

Free YouTube transcript tool

YouTube2Text is a free YouTube transcript generator — no signup, no daily limit. Paste any YouTube link and get the full transcript instantly, with timestamps, click-to-jump, translation to 100+ languages, AI prompts for ChatGPT, Claude, and Gemini, and exports to TXT, SRT, VTT, or Markdown.