Speaker 1: Hi folks, welcome back. This is part two of our
Speaker 1: long ass episode on attachment disorders. Hopefully you had a
Speaker 1: chance to listen to part one first. You really need
Speaker 1: to listen to part one or this is probably going
Speaker 1: to be very confusing. What do you think, doctor Shi.
Speaker 2: Though, Yeah, it is certainly your prerequisite episode to listen
Speaker 2: to for this one. And this is getting super interesting.
Speaker 2: I mean, we laid the foundation with attachment styles and
Speaker 2: attachment theory. Now we're going to get into the disorders
Speaker 2: that are out there and then just kind of follow
Speaker 2: this rabbit hole where it's.
Speaker 1: Taken us exactly. And one of the things that might
Speaker 1: be interesting to think about for our listeners or maybe
Speaker 1: even discuss when we have a chance to do a
Speaker 1: live stream is the idea of these actual disorders and
Speaker 1: how they might apply to the examples we gave in
Speaker 1: yesterday's episode. So let's graduate from insecure attachment styles to
Speaker 1: attachment disorders, or rather we're going to take a look
Speaker 1: backwards at where disorders form. And there are only two
Speaker 1: officially that are included in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual
Speaker 1: that is reactive attachment disorder and disinhibited social engagement disorder.
Speaker 2: So let's first look at reactive attachment disorder. This is
Speaker 2: a whole different level of disordered attachment. Reactive attachment disorder
Speaker 2: is a rare but serious condition where an infant or
Speaker 2: young child struggles to form healthy bonds with the parents
Speaker 2: or caregivers. Reactive attachment disorder usually starts in infancy, and
Speaker 2: there's little research on signs and symptoms of anything beyond
Speaker 2: really early childhood. It actually remains unclear whether it even
Speaker 2: occurs in children older than five, So this diagnosis is
Speaker 2: made pretty early on. Reactive attachment disorder can happen when
Speaker 2: the child's basic needs for comfort, affection, and nurturing aren't
Speaker 2: met and stable loving relationships with others just aren't developed.
Speaker 2: And I think, in a sense that's really putting it
Speaker 2: too lightly. Sometimes they talk about it like that in
Speaker 2: the literature. Generally this is going to be due to
Speaker 2: high levels of neglect, abuse, or frequent changes in caregivers.
Speaker 2: The combination and severity of these factors directly impacts the
Speaker 2: child's inability to form healthy emotional bonds. However, most children
Speaker 2: who are severely neglected don't go on to develop reactive
Speaker 2: attachment disorder. Remember we're still taking into account that humans
Speaker 2: and even children and babies are incredibly resilient, so children
Speaker 2: with reactive attachment disorder often show emotionally distant behaviors towards
Speaker 2: their caregivers and have difficulty managing their emotions. This can
Speaker 2: sometimes appear as aggression or violence, and to cope, they
Speaker 2: might even pull away from interactions with their caregivers, rarely
Speaker 2: seeking comfort when upset and showing little to no response
Speaker 2: when comfort is actually offered. Basically, the behaviors of the
Speaker 2: children fall into two categories. The first is social and
Speaker 2: emotional disturbances, so this is unexplained irritability, sadness, or fearfulness
Speaker 2: during non threatening interactions with caregivers, and then the other
Speaker 2: is aggressive or violent behaviors. Some children, even this young
Speaker 2: with reactive attachment disorder may display aggression towards their peers, animals,
Speaker 2: or even themselves, often as a result of unmet emotional
Speaker 2: needs and in a of course at this age to
Speaker 2: process really complex emotions. With proper treatment, children with reactive
Speaker 2: attachment disorder can learn to build healthier and more stable relationships.
Speaker 2: Treatment often focuses on creating a safe, nurturing environment and
Speaker 2: encouraging positive interactions between the child and caregivers. Counseling and
Speaker 2: education for parents or caregivers can also play a really
Speaker 2: key role in supporting the child's development and is absolutely key.
Speaker 2: So children who grew up in Romanian orphanages often had
Speaker 2: trouble adapting to their new lives after being adopted, and
Speaker 2: MRI studies found that these children had smaller brains than
Speaker 2: average children. So just like a footnote to show how
Speaker 2: impactful this.
Speaker 1: Can be, right for those of you who aren't familiar
Speaker 1: with that particular reference, it's one of those really difficult
Speaker 1: examples of we got a lot of research information from
Speaker 1: an absolutely horrific event. And this was without going into
Speaker 1: the whole history of why there were so many children
Speaker 1: in Romanian orphanages, because that's a whole other story. What
Speaker 1: happened was is that these infants and toddlers were placed
Speaker 1: in environments where there wasn't enough staff to pay attention
Speaker 1: to them at all. So infants were basically wrapped and swaddling,
Speaker 1: They were fed, they were kept warm, their diapers were changed,
Speaker 1: but there was no body contact and there was no attention,
Speaker 1: and there was also very very little stimulation. So the
Speaker 1: kids as adults, I mean now, historically we have figured
Speaker 1: out that there's a lot of developmental issues. I mean,
Speaker 1: it's interesting because the nurture informed the nature as it were,
Speaker 1: basically a lack of stimulation actually caused these individuals to
Speaker 1: have noticeably smaller brains than average for children at that
Speaker 1: physiological developmental stage. So again, if you want to go
Speaker 1: down a crazy, crazy but fascinating research hole, just go
Speaker 1: to the Wikipedia page four Romanian orphans and read on that.
Speaker 1: It's fascinating. Now, the good news is that there are
Speaker 1: some evidence based interventions for rad But while I'm just
Speaker 1: going to quickly in a bit rattle off a few
Speaker 1: of them, I want to be really clear about treatment.
Speaker 1: And this is for anybody that's out there that is
Speaker 1: the parent to special needs children, to people who have
Speaker 1: relatives that are parents the special needs children, or somebody
Speaker 1: that's witnessing a mountdown in public, of which you may
Speaker 1: not have any idea of what's going on. This is
Speaker 1: not a walk in the park. None of these treatment
Speaker 1: modalities is a magic wand to fix it. It's a
Speaker 1: slog at least the ones that I've witnessed. Although I
Speaker 1: have seen really really fantastic outcomes, it's not easy for
Speaker 1: the parents, and being such a stressful experience for both
Speaker 1: the parent and the child has to be understood that
Speaker 1: it requires a total buy in from parents or caregivers.
Speaker 1: Both parents and clinicians are going to face really unique
Speaker 1: challenges because they have to navigate a very complex and
Speaker 1: emotionally charged process of healing. And as we've discussed so far,
Speaker 1: RAD is rooted in early trauma, neglect or inconsistent caregiving,
Speaker 1: and it leaves the children with deeply rooted trust issues
Speaker 1: and difficulties informing even understanding healthy relationships. The treatments are
Speaker 1: not about bandaging a wound, it is about demolation of
Speaker 1: some faulty emotional foundation work. So parents that are trying
Speaker 1: to help the child with RAD are often caught in
Speaker 1: a tsunami of emotional ups and downs, a literal emotional
Speaker 1: roller coaster, if you'll be patient with my massacring of
Speaker 1: etymology and metaphors. At the same time, kids with RAD
Speaker 1: can push caregivers away while simultaneously needing them desperately, so
Speaker 1: it's a confusing push pull dynamic for the kids. That's
Speaker 1: just exhausting for everyone, and it's not in common for
Speaker 1: parents to feel rejected or blamed for behaviors that they
Speaker 1: can't control or fix overnight, and sometimes the pushing away
Speaker 1: of any attempts at healing is a misfiring of defense
Speaker 1: mechanisms that individuals engage in because chaos has become the
Speaker 1: baseline for the kids. Techniques like attachment based parenting require consistency, patience,
Speaker 1: and empathy even when a child exhibits rad behaviors like lying, stealing, aggression,
Speaker 1: and the child's resistance to closeness that stems from early
Speaker 1: trauma can make parents feel like they're pouring love into
Speaker 1: a bucket that has a hole in it, right, so
Speaker 1: they need to manage daily life like school work, and
Speaker 1: it's easy to see why the burnout becomes a real concern.
Speaker 1: And in saying rejected or blamed, I don't want to
Speaker 1: minimize the impact that all this has on a harried
Speaker 1: and exhausted parent. The parent is trying to follow a
Speaker 1: prescribed treatment protocol, manage their kids explosive or angry damaging behaviors,
Speaker 1: and then manage their own adult reactivity to it. That's
Speaker 1: so much, and that's like something that an outsider cannot
Speaker 1: see or understand, Like if you're seeing you know it's
Speaker 1: just so easy to throw off judgment on how kids
Speaker 1: are being parented in your view when you just see
Speaker 1: something happening at Target or Costco, or in a parking
Speaker 1: lot or a restaurant or on a plane or something.
Speaker 2: Right, Yeah, I also want to say, I mean Scott
Speaker 2: is talking about how difficult this is. He doesn't think
Speaker 2: it's RAD. He's using the acronym if we hadn't used
Speaker 2: it before for reactive attachment disorder.
Speaker 1: Oh sorry, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, that's the acronym for it.
Speaker 1: And instead of like us kind of garbling our words,
Speaker 1: it is known as RAD. So clinicians working with RAD
Speaker 1: face their own set of challenges, and that, of course
Speaker 1: makes sense because every child's experience of trauma is going
Speaker 1: to be unique to them, meaning that there can't be
Speaker 1: a one size fits all treatment. It just doesn't work
Speaker 1: that way. And our culture really loves the idea of
Speaker 1: a single easiest pie, magic wand treatment, just it doesn't
Speaker 1: work like that. Modalities like diadic development, psycotherapy, trauma focused CBT,
Speaker 1: which is cognitive behavioral therapy or attachment and behavioral catchup
Speaker 1: can offer templates and frameworks, but carrying them out requires
Speaker 1: a good bit of flexibility and creativity to meet that
Speaker 1: particular kid's needs. As an additional challenge, RAD often comes
Speaker 1: with a side order of other behavioral or emotional challenges
Speaker 1: like ADHD, generalized anxiety disorder, or even conduct disorders, making
Speaker 1: diagnosis and treatment a really layered puzzle. As we've referred
Speaker 1: to in the past, Diagnosing children is a challenge, and
Speaker 1: it should be a challenge because quick diagnoses of children,
Speaker 1: at least to me, is just always a sign of
Speaker 1: a clinician phoning it in. Clinicians have to tread carefully
Speaker 1: with parents, ensuring that they feel supported but not blamed,
Speaker 1: as unresolved feelings of guilt or frustration can create roadblocks
Speaker 1: in the treatment process. All of these approaches demand long
Speaker 1: term commitment, and that can be tough for families juggling
Speaker 1: other responsibilities or dealing with financial strain. And the reality
Speaker 1: is is like, we're incredibly lucky here in southern California,
Speaker 1: Like we have so many resources within our schools even
Speaker 1: to help with these types of things, and there are
Speaker 1: areas of our country that don't have anything like this
Speaker 1: at all, and parents struggle. There's also the idea of
Speaker 1: cultural challenges that stem from class from socioeconomic status from
Speaker 1: age and such. I can't tell you the number of
Speaker 1: times that I've had to have really tough conversations with
Speaker 1: parents who refuse to accept diagnoses, and then those that
Speaker 1: get caught up in diatribes that begin with well, back
Speaker 1: in my day, we didn't have any of this nonsense,
Speaker 1: we didn't have all this autism stuff, we didn't have
Speaker 1: all this reactive attachment to sort. You know, they just
Speaker 1: want to kind of have a very closed view of it.
Speaker 1: But most of these treatment modalities require parents to be
Speaker 1: active participants, and of course that is going to feel
Speaker 1: uncomfortable if trust between parent and child is already shaky
Speaker 1: from the precipitating behaviors. So building a therapeutic alliance with
Speaker 1: a child who struggles to trust can take time, and
Speaker 1: lots of it. The progress can be slow, like glacially slow,
Speaker 1: and it can also be nonlinear or recursive, and that
Speaker 1: can leave exhausted parents and clinicians questioning whether or not
Speaker 1: their efforts are working. Patience is the key in one
Speaker 1: of the many challenges. So now that I've expanded on
Speaker 1: the challenges, there are really really great success stories out there.
Speaker 1: Amazing breakthroughs happen when a child starts seeking comfort, making
Speaker 1: eye contact, or expressing affection, it's a game changer. So
Speaker 1: healing from rad is a marathon, it's not a sprint.
Speaker 1: And while the journey is going to be really tough,
Speaker 1: the possibility of success will literally alter the path of
Speaker 1: the kid's life and that is well worth it. So
Speaker 1: just without going too far into it, Like diadic developmental therapy,
Speaker 1: it focuses on enhancing the relationship between the caregiver and
Speaker 1: the child and you know, fostering that sort of nurturing
Speaker 1: environment that may not have been there initially, and that
Speaker 1: focuses on the importance of creating positive interactions. Diadic development,
Speaker 1: I think is also the one where there are periods,
Speaker 1: especially in older children, where the kid has to sit
Speaker 1: between the parents hours a day, Like if we're going
Speaker 1: to eat dinner, if we're going to watch television, you're
Speaker 1: sitting between us so that actually our bodies are touching,
Speaker 1: which is very fascinating, right, Like I'm sure some people
Speaker 1: would have like an absolute terrible reaction to that, like, oh,
Speaker 1: what a terrible idea. But what you're doing is you're
Speaker 1: rewiring a person to understand that there's trust and safety
Speaker 1: in the containment of the relationship. It's fascinating stuff.
Speaker 2: And with all of these, I mean sometimes we're defaulting
Speaker 2: to the term parent, and often that is not the case,
Speaker 2: that it's a biological parents, right, because these children are
Speaker 2: not still with caregivers who are the ones who have
Speaker 2: really significantly abused them. So these can be foster parents,
Speaker 2: adopted parents, other caregivers who are now doing all of
Speaker 2: this rewiring with the child that they are caring for.
Speaker 1: Right. Another one is attachment and biobehavioral catchup, and that
Speaker 1: again it's going to help the caregivers provide nurturing care
Speaker 1: even when the child doesn't ask for it, and it
Speaker 1: focuses on the kid having more self regulation skills. Then
Speaker 1: there's parent child interaction therapy. This one is absolutely fascinating
Speaker 1: to watch. At my master's level training center, we had
Speaker 1: two way mirror sessions where we would watch people being
Speaker 1: given instruction on how to interact with their kids. Now
Speaker 1: ours was done with an old timy phone, which sounds
Speaker 1: incredibly archaic, I know, but there are really incredible videos
Speaker 1: online on YouTube of people engaging in parent child interaction
Speaker 1: therapy where parents have like a bluetooth microphone in their ear,
Speaker 1: and there's a clinician outside the mirror coaching them on
Speaker 1: how to give their kids praise. And this one is
Speaker 1: actually done with the parents who basically, because of their
Speaker 1: own upbringing, really didn't have any parenting skills. Sure, and
Speaker 1: the transformation that happens is unbelievable. Like you just see
Speaker 1: the kids break into these huge smiles when they get
Speaker 1: a compliment and immediately just launch themselves physically at their
Speaker 1: parents for a hug. The parents are just they're emotional
Speaker 1: in the interviews afterwards because they're sharing, you know, now
Speaker 1: I see how powerful this was. I wish I had
Speaker 1: had this, but I definitely want to have this, you know,
Speaker 1: for my child. Then there's also trauma focused cognitive behavioral therapy,
Speaker 1: and this one is really important and different from the
Speaker 1: other ones because it's looking through that window of children
Speaker 1: who have experienced trauma, and it integrates trauma sensitive interventions
Speaker 1: with cognitive behavioral techniques are at the level the child
Speaker 1: can understand, and the idea there is to reduce trauma
Speaker 1: related symptoms. So if you reduce the symptoms, then you
Speaker 1: can go do the foundational work. So many other things
Speaker 1: involved here. You have to have an assessment that is
Speaker 1: really comprehensive. It can't be a fifteen minute interview by
Speaker 1: telehealth with a nurse practitioner who has no background in this,
Speaker 1: like you just you can't have that. You have to
Speaker 1: have caregiver involvement, like you've pointed out so beautifully, It's
Speaker 1: not necessarily going to be the biological parents. It may
Speaker 1: maybe the biological parents have realized that what they were
Speaker 1: doing was neglectful or abusive and they're being allowed back
Speaker 1: into the process. That's always great. Our studies show as
Speaker 1: much as we have a reaction to or you know what,
Speaker 1: I won't even generalize it to other people. My bias,
Speaker 1: which is incorrect. I have an incorrect bias that I
Speaker 1: am sharing. My incorrect bias is to say, take the
Speaker 1: kid out of that environment, get them out, get them out,
Speaker 1: don't let them back in. Maybe that's because of my
Speaker 1: own avoidant attachment style. That could be it, because the
Speaker 1: studies show that generally speaking, children will do better in
Speaker 1: their biological environment if the offending behaviors, if the aberran
Speaker 1: or the unhealthy toxic behaviors can be modified, and we
Speaker 1: have to hold hope right that they can. If we
Speaker 1: can do.
Speaker 2: People can do better.
Speaker 1: Ye better, skill can do better. So caregiver involvements so important,
Speaker 1: and then we have to be really careful of falling
Speaker 1: into the habit of coercive therapies. This might sound obvious
Speaker 1: at first, but therapies that are labeled as coercive do exist.
Speaker 1: So controversial treatments that lack empirical support, like holding therapy,
Speaker 1: are not recommended and can be harmful. Do you know
Speaker 1: what holding therapy is?
Speaker 2: I do want you explain it.
Speaker 1: Holding therapy involves a person, usually a parent, holding their
Speaker 1: ASD child tightly in a way that ensures eye contact
Speaker 1: between them, and allegedly the aim of that was to
Speaker 1: deliberately provoke distress in the child until the child needs
Speaker 1: and accepts comfort. It's kind of weird to think that
Speaker 1: this was actually an approach. I know, it's like today
Speaker 1: from what we know.
Speaker 2: It's like, let's take learned helplessness and hold this child
Speaker 2: down until they just sort of give in to it. Right, Yeah,
Speaker 2: I mean, with anything, right, interventions really need to be
Speaker 2: evidence based, and even more so in this case, holding
Speaker 2: therapy is not evidence based clearly, and the interventions need
Speaker 2: to focus on creating that supportive and empathic environment for
Speaker 2: the child. If you're interested in looking up more information,
Speaker 2: the legitimate sources we suggest are the American Academy of
Speaker 2: Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, the Mayo Clinic, and the Journal
Speaker 2: of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry. This
Speaker 2: episode is just makes me so grateful for the work
Speaker 2: that people who specialize in child psychology and psychiatry do,
Speaker 2: because man, what a really tough road some of these
Speaker 2: can be. And I say it all the time, there's
Speaker 2: a mental health professional cutout for every type of work
Speaker 2: there is, and I'm just so grateful for those that
Speaker 2: are drawn towards this type of work. The prognosis on
Speaker 2: RAD indicates that with early and appropriate intervention, children with
Speaker 2: this disorder can develop healthier attachment patterns and improve their
Speaker 2: emotional and social functioning. However, without treatment, RAD can lead
Speaker 2: to persistent relational difficulties and an increased risk of mental
Speaker 2: health issues later in life, as well as the acting out,
Speaker 2: violent or severe behaviors that we've highlighted already. So again,
Speaker 2: treatment and early early identification and then intervention so important.
Speaker 2: Research shows that attachment disorders in juvenile's behavior generally falls
Speaker 2: into three categories. So typically we look at antisocial conduct,
Speaker 2: which is like lying, stealing, manipulation. We look at aggression,
Speaker 2: both verbal and physical aggression are common, especially when children
Speaker 2: feel threatened or abandoned. And then we look at emotional
Speaker 2: and dysregulation. Are there extreme outbursts, what's their impulsivity, like
Speaker 2: the difficulty of forming friendships because of the emotions that
Speaker 2: go along with that. So let's quickly examine a couple
Speaker 2: of real life cases based on behavioral patterns commonly associated
Speaker 2: with attachment related issues. So not all disorders necessarily, but
Speaker 2: at the very least insecure attachment styles, or perhaps there
Speaker 2: are some suspected attachment disorder going on here. So first
Speaker 2: one is the case of Mary Bell from nineteen sixty
Speaker 2: eight out of England. At age ten, Mary Bell was
Speaker 2: convicted of the manslaughter of two boys age three and four.
Speaker 2: The murders involved asphyxiation and acts of mutilation. So in
Speaker 2: terms of Mary's attachment background, she grew up in an
Speaker 2: abusive household where she experienced neglect and was exposed to
Speaker 2: violence and exploitation. Her mother was reportedly physically and emotionally abusive,
Speaker 2: contributing to severe attachment disruptions, and then behaviorally, Mary exhibited
Speaker 2: a lack of empathy. She showed greater impulsivity and an
Speaker 2: inability to form meaningful social bonds, which are all hallmarks
Speaker 2: of disorganized attachment.
Speaker 1: One of the things that's really fascinating about the case
Speaker 1: of Mary Bell, that maybe at some point we'll be
Speaker 1: able to expand on, is that after she had committed
Speaker 1: these crimes, she went to the home of the parents
Speaker 1: of one of the boys and just very innocently asked
Speaker 1: where they were, asked about what had happened, knowing that
Speaker 1: these parents were distraught, knowing that she had killed them,
Speaker 1: because she was basically getting stimulation from this act of cruelty.
Speaker 1: So was that learned behavior from the emotional and physical
Speaker 1: abuse that she experienced. It's hard to tell at this point,
Speaker 1: but it is very interesting and very uncommon. You don't
Speaker 1: see that type of abject cruelty in children. Eric Smith
Speaker 1: nineteen ninety three, USA. At age thirteen, Eric lured a
Speaker 1: four year old boy into the woods and killed him
Speaker 1: by strangulation and blunt forced trauma. Smith reportedly endured bullying
Speaker 1: and emotional neglect, and this may have contributed to feelings
Speaker 1: of alienation and anger. The home environment in which he
Speaker 1: resided may have aggravated his difficulties in forming secure attachments.
Speaker 1: And then the noted behavioral traits that we have access
Speaker 1: to are indicated as isolation, anger, and really an inability
Speaker 1: to connect with his peers, And all these three definitely
Speaker 1: would be indicative of attachment disturbances, all right. So the
Speaker 1: other diagnosable disorder under attachment disorders is inhibited social engagement disorder.
Speaker 1: It's also diagnosed in childhood. In this case, the child
Speaker 1: lacks appropriate nurturing and affection from parents for any number
Speaker 1: of reasons, emotionally unavailable parents to just full on intentional neglect.
Speaker 1: As a result of these unfulfilled needs, the child is
Speaker 1: not closely bonded to parents and is as comfortable with
Speaker 1: strangers as they are with their primary caregivers. That could
Speaker 1: be maybe seen as an advantage, but we could also
Speaker 1: see how that could absolutely be problematic. Right. It's not
Speaker 1: good to immediately trust everybody in your environment as a child.
Speaker 1: The symptoms can look like this. No fear of adult
Speaker 1: strangers and no shyness when meeting new people for the
Speaker 1: first time. Behavior that is overly friendly or talkative to strangers,
Speaker 1: including hugging or cuddling of unknown adults. Another way to
Speaker 1: look at this is that there's no hesitation around strangers.
Speaker 1: Even when departing with an unfamiliar person. This individual does
Speaker 1: not look to parents or their caregivers for permission to
Speaker 1: approach strangers. So it's like this defense mechanism that we
Speaker 1: just assume is normal in children just doesn't exist at all,
Speaker 1: And you can see already in this description how it
Speaker 1: can be problematic. Symptoms like this can continue into the
Speaker 1: teenage years, where clearly that can get you in a
Speaker 1: lot of trouble, especially as a young woman, right but
Speaker 1: the condition is not known necessarily to last into adulthood.
Speaker 1: There are some similarities with RAD in terms of the
Speaker 1: etiology of the disorder, but the child with RAD is
Speaker 1: not necessarily friendly with unknown people. And as far as
Speaker 1: risk goes, infants and young children between the ages of
Speaker 1: six months and two years are more at risk of
Speaker 1: developing d SD if they've been institutionalized. And as far
Speaker 1: as risk goes, infants and young children between the ages
Speaker 1: of six months and two years are at more risk
Speaker 1: of developing DSA if they've been institutionalized, for instance, after
Speaker 1: being abandoned or left in orphanages after the loss of
Speaker 1: birth parents, or if they spend time in changing or
Speaker 1: inconsistent family environs like foster care. I think it's really
Speaker 1: important for us to note that although most of the
Speaker 1: research has been done with children who were in foster care,
Speaker 1: by no means do most children in these situations end
Speaker 1: up experiencing DSED. The data shows that about one quarter
Speaker 1: of young children in foster care developed this disorder, So
Speaker 1: it's higher than it should be. It's higher than we
Speaker 1: want it to be, but we're not saying just across
Speaker 1: the board that all kids in foster care will develop this.
Speaker 1: There are parts of the research community that specialize in
Speaker 1: this area that question whether or not DSD should continue
Speaker 1: to be classified as an attachment disorder, because there's a
Speaker 1: camp that asserts that the indiscriminate friendliness exhibited by these
Speaker 1: children is thought to be independent of the child's attachment
Speaker 1: or lack of attachment primary caregivers. So there actually is
Speaker 1: a diagnosis that has to do with brain structure that
Speaker 1: puts some children more at risk of this, and we
Speaker 1: won't go into that because it's fascinating. Law and order
Speaker 1: I think is done like two or three episodes about
Speaker 1: kids that get trafficked because they can't discriminate like this.
Speaker 1: But it's another area that'll be determined by more robust research.
Speaker 2: Sure, sure, yeah, I think it's so interesting to know,
Speaker 2: like this is a window inside of imposter syndrome and
Speaker 2: just even this fart into it. Sometimes how much I
Speaker 2: second guess myself are ourselves that I we're putting this
Speaker 2: outline together and I'm having to google do attachment disorders
Speaker 2: exist in adults? You know, because I had to like
Speaker 2: recognize that really the only two disorders are in children
Speaker 2: and beyond that, you know, we're talking about styles that
Speaker 2: are impacting adult behavior. But when we're talking about d
Speaker 2: s D and it said that really like this isn't
Speaker 2: a thing necessarily in adulthood. I think it speaks to
Speaker 2: the power of how social norms then start to shape
Speaker 2: our behavior at a certain yes point, right.
Speaker 1: Because absolutely, as adults you.
Speaker 2: Start realizing, like there are reasons I keep myself safe
Speaker 2: from people I don't know or strangers or just observe
Speaker 2: or be cautious.
Speaker 1: Yeah, there's a bigger context. And like we've talked about
Speaker 1: like the idea of personality disorders as also having flavors. Yes,
Speaker 1: you know that may or what is that flavored water
Speaker 1: that everybody laughs about where it's like, oh, yes, this
Speaker 1: tastes like lemon if the lemon was behind a dumpster
Speaker 1: two blocks away, right, Yes, any of the flavored waters really,
Speaker 1: any of those flavored waters. But the idea of people
Speaker 1: like falling into this trap of labeling themselves when they're
Speaker 1: in distress, like, you know, I, you know, is something
Speaker 1: wrong with me? Do I have borderline? Am I antisocial?
Speaker 1: And do I am I? This? Am I that? And
Speaker 1: you know the way we respond to that is that
Speaker 1: many adults, when under duress, when you are not in
Speaker 1: your best functioning or your best regulation, you may tend
Speaker 1: to exhibit something that is reminiscent of one of the
Speaker 1: ones that we used to say, the word the cluster be.
Speaker 1: But it doesn't mean that you have antisocial personality disorder,
Speaker 1: doesn't mean that you have narcissistic personality disorder. It means
Speaker 1: that when you're under a great deal of stress, this
Speaker 1: may be a default position that you take temporarily just
Speaker 1: to keep yourself safe. So when we talk about attachment styles,
Speaker 1: I feel like there's nuance to be explored in that way.
Speaker 1: I don't think we'd have to dig very far in
Speaker 1: the examples that we used just now with the kids
Speaker 1: and then in yesterday's episode with the adults to think that, Yeah,
Speaker 1: the nature, the environment of growing up in these particular
Speaker 1: environments clearly is going to have an impact. Maybe it's
Speaker 1: not a full on result of a style that is
Speaker 1: permanent and unchanging, but certainly there's going to be an
Speaker 1: influence and something that is reminiscent of the parameters we've
Speaker 1: been discussing.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I mean, I really I'm feeling more and more
Speaker 2: like there almost needs to be another episode or a
Speaker 2: part three or a bonus where and I'm taking notes
Speaker 2: here on my white table of the overlap with psychopathy
Speaker 2: and personality disorders and then conduct disorder right and kids
Speaker 2: and especially is just I'm going to talk a bit
Speaker 2: about some patterns of criminal behavior that are linked to
Speaker 2: attachment disorders. And I think you'll probably see very quickly
Speaker 2: how there's this concerning overlap to many of the criminals
Speaker 2: that we gave brief profiles on earlier, but generally what
Speaker 2: we're going to see, and primarily we're still talking about
Speaker 2: kiddo's here juveniles in terms of these disorders and how
Speaker 2: they're starting to act out. One very common one is
Speaker 2: theft and substance abuse. Right, kid who repeatedly is stealing
Speaker 2: from stores, experimenting with drugs, This is going to be
Speaker 2: an indication that the child is really trying to figure
Speaker 2: out how to regulate their emotions and their behaviors. Not
Speaker 2: that they're having that very clear thought, right, but they're
Speaker 2: just trying to sort of control what's inside. So the theft,
Speaker 2: the substance abuse could be sort of searching for that controller,
Speaker 2: coping for the type of emotional pain that they are experiencing.
Speaker 2: That is absolutely related to those attachment disruptions, is we've
Speaker 2: been I.
Speaker 1: Love that idea of attachment disruptions. That's a great phrase.
Speaker 2: Yeah, yeah, I think it's great. It encompasses things that
Speaker 2: can be on again a spectrum of what's being impacted
Speaker 2: by non secure attachments. We also see property crimes, so
Speaker 2: you know, this could be a kiddo with a history
Speaker 2: of neglect, maybe setting some fires, citing feelings of underlying
Speaker 2: anger or maybe a little bit of a need for attention.
Speaker 2: Those can really reflect unresolved anger and disrupted attachments. Really,
Speaker 2: we want to look at what is happening here in
Speaker 2: the thought process, the cognitive process of this child. Is
Speaker 2: the action the behavior for stimulation or is it an outlet,
Speaker 2: right for some inner turmoil that's going on, and it's
Speaker 2: being done by, Hey, I'm going to violate these social norms,
Speaker 2: which is scary, right. It's sort of the precursor of
Speaker 2: conduct disorder, which is a precursor to antisocial personality disorder
Speaker 2: later down the line. So, really, as much as it
Speaker 2: can be examined, teased out, and then understood, what we're
Speaker 2: dealing with a child at this age.
Speaker 1: And again, so let's just riff on that for a second.
Speaker 1: So the idea that if there is knowledge that they're
Speaker 1: violating social norms, is that a distorted expression of autonomy,
Speaker 1: Because the healthy version of that, as parents or caregivers
Speaker 1: or you know, engaged family members, aunts and uncles, is
Speaker 1: that we understand that kids have to learn to make
Speaker 1: their own decisions, and they have to make mistakes, and
Speaker 1: they have to actually experience consequences, and that the healthy
Speaker 1: version of that makes you a better person. Sure, but
Speaker 1: this seems to be like a distortion of that behavior
Speaker 1: and it goes just beyond and are they going just
Speaker 1: beyond because they were raised in an environment where the
Speaker 1: baselines were off to begin with. It just raises a
Speaker 1: lot of questions, doesn't it.
Speaker 2: Yeah, absolutely, I think this gets ramped up even more
Speaker 2: when we are talking about violent crimes, right, violent crimes
Speaker 2: against people where the rights of others are now violated.
Speaker 2: It's not just the social norms in terms of like
Speaker 2: property crimes or acting out, but when you are now
Speaker 2: crossing the line into injuring or killing someone else. So
Speaker 2: this could be severely in appear in a fight, and
Speaker 2: then little remorse is shown afterwards. Insecure, avoidant or disorganized
Speaker 2: attachment may underpin this lack of emotional connection that we
Speaker 2: then see. Remember we were talked about these attachment styles
Speaker 2: do at times impact the way people view themselves, but
Speaker 2: certainly also how they view others.
Speaker 1: So here's a.
Speaker 2: Good example of how that's playing out in terms of
Speaker 2: whether there's empathy or remorse for this to even occur,
Speaker 2: and then after it has occurred. So like we were
Speaker 2: talking about Mary Bell, she committed these horrendous crimes, but
Speaker 2: then leveled up a little bit in the cruelty to
Speaker 2: kind of torture the parents. And then lastly, of course,
Speaker 2: you know kind of a hallmark. We look at animal
Speaker 2: cruelty because that's sort of that in between of injuring
Speaker 2: or killing a living being that is not an adult.
Speaker 2: So this, for an example, might be a younger child
Speaker 2: who kills small animals in secret, and this behavior can
Speaker 2: often correlate with disorganized attachment and with that comes a
Speaker 2: lack of empathy that can be stemmed from those abusive environments.
Speaker 2: It could also be a reflection of a lot of
Speaker 2: other things, right, I mean kind of a skezoid presentation
Speaker 2: where that we've talked before about that devoid of emotional
Speaker 2: connection to even the concept of life and suffering. So
Speaker 2: you know, we've seen interview after interview with children that
Speaker 2: have done this where they say they killed the animals
Speaker 2: because they wanted to kind of see how all of
Speaker 2: that worked.
Speaker 1: Yeah, that fascination with cutting the animal open and seeing
Speaker 1: it like as they're disconnected from the idea that it
Speaker 1: was a living, sentient, right being, and it's like, oh,
Speaker 1: I want to look at the mechanics inside as if
Speaker 1: it's just like sort of a machine in a way. Yeah,
Speaker 1: very very interesting.
Speaker 2: Yeah, but you know, I mean to wrap up with
Speaker 2: attachment theory, like with any theory out there. There are
Speaker 2: criticisms of it, mainly that it seems as a little
Speaker 2: too simplified to assume that kind, honest and respectful parents
Speaker 2: will then have kind, honest and respectful kids. It's kind
Speaker 2: of like the you know, life isn't fair. Just as
Speaker 2: you do the things you're supposed to do, doesn't mean
Speaker 2: it's gonna turn out that way.
Speaker 1: And also, I've seen absolute shit heels of people who
Speaker 1: have wonderful kids.
Speaker 2: And vice versa. No, I'm just kidding. Additionally, you know,
Speaker 2: I think it doesn't consider some other non Western societies,
Speaker 2: and we kind of touched on this at the beginning,
Speaker 2: but you know, there are cultures where child rearing duties
Speaker 2: are more evenly distributed among a broader group of people.
Speaker 2: And then, of course others say that it really underestimates
Speaker 2: again the resiliency of people to overcome some really intense,
Speaker 2: non ideal childhood environments as well as some other things.
Speaker 2: But those are those are kind of the babies.
Speaker 1: Yeah, And that sort of ties back to what we
Speaker 1: discussed earlier, the idea that not everybody turns out. There
Speaker 1: are people who come from absolutely horrific, horrific childhoods that
Speaker 1: I'm not saying that they don't have PTSD, but they
Speaker 1: may not have this additional baggage of really distorted attachment styles. Yeah,
Speaker 1: that develop. So when we give some examples of this
Speaker 1: and entertainment, we've got some childhood and some adult examples.
Speaker 1: You know, when we were putting together the outline for
Speaker 1: the show, you said, we've already we've already used this
Speaker 1: example before, and we may have. At two hundred plus episodes,
Speaker 1: we may have. So I apologize, folks, but it's also
Speaker 1: for Shiloh and I that we gave up on The
Speaker 1: Walking Dead at various points just because it went off
Speaker 1: the rails. But we thought, you know, the first few
Speaker 1: seasons were was such a really good show.
Speaker 2: I see time and time again. That pilot episode is
Speaker 2: one of the best pilot episodes.
Speaker 1: It's so good. And even Fear the Walking Dad's pilot
Speaker 1: was like amazing. Just the first episode is so great
Speaker 1: and then it just like, well, mom, But Walking Dead
Speaker 1: season four episode entitled The Grove Lizzie Samuels so Lizzie also,
Speaker 1: now it's just amazing because she's like a twenty two
Speaker 1: year old actress who has been in so many other
Speaker 1: things since this but this is really a challenging role
Speaker 1: for a child to take. Her character, Lizzie exhibits behaviors
Speaker 1: that can be understood through the lens of attachment disorders
Speaker 1: and trauma really really clearly, particularly disorganized attachment styles. She's
Speaker 1: erratic and extreme in her actions, and this suggests that
Speaker 1: she struggled to form a stable sense of trust or
Speaker 1: safety in her relationships. I mean, clearly that's going to
Speaker 1: be aggravated by living in a post apocalyptic world where
Speaker 1: caregiving figures are inconsistent and dying all the time and
Speaker 1: life threatening situations are just the norm. So what the
Speaker 1: writers do really well is they create this character that
Speaker 1: shows a profound misunderstanding of relationship and emotional connection. And
Speaker 1: it can be that she over cares about certain people
Speaker 1: or certain objects while showing an inconsistent or lack of
Speaker 1: empathy and difficulty distinguishing reality from fantasy. Again, really good writing,
Speaker 1: really good acting. Lizzie has this belief that the Walkers
Speaker 1: are the zombies, but I don't use the zombie word,
Speaker 1: that there's still people, and she just engages in dangerous
Speaker 1: actions that she keeps secretive for several episodes, and this
Speaker 1: highlights that she has an awareness that what she's doing
Speaker 1: is not going to be accepted by the adults that
Speaker 1: are really supposed to be taking care of her, and
Speaker 1: it shows that she's really has challenges navigating these social bonds,
Speaker 1: regulating her emotions and such, and those kind of behaviors
Speaker 1: really do align with traits that are seen in children
Speaker 1: with disorganized attachment. I don't want to go too far
Speaker 1: into it because I just think it's fascinating, but she
Speaker 1: has this weird, giggly presentation towards one of the walkers
Speaker 1: that looked like he was like a good looking kid
Speaker 1: in his twinings before he died, and you know, she
Speaker 1: feeds him on a regular basis. She'll feed him animals
Speaker 1: and stuff. And then they find where she's been dissecting frogs,
Speaker 1: and she knows that she's got to hide it because
Speaker 1: it's going to get her in trouble. It's a heartbreaking
Speaker 1: character arc that really beautifully done, and just I love
Speaker 1: the way that that's presented.
Speaker 2: Yeah, yeah, she's a great, like you said, a greatly
Speaker 2: written character. Somebody did their research, which was kind of
Speaker 2: cool when you see that. I think one that comes
Speaker 2: to mind also is Norman Bates from psycho. So we've
Speaker 2: seen several different adaptations of this over the years, and
Speaker 2: really really good ones. Of course, he operates this secluded
Speaker 2: motel and kind of exhibits a split personality, right, he
Speaker 2: embodies himself and then of course his domineering mommy. So
Speaker 2: it's interesting because the did I hear something? You know?
Speaker 2: There's this theme, right of this intense pathological attachment to
Speaker 2: his mom that stems from this really immeshed I think
Speaker 2: is like the hallmark of what we think of an
Speaker 2: ameshed relationship in media. And then you and I are
Speaker 2: always like, wait, what are we doing pathologizing the mom
Speaker 2: and what did the mom do wrong? What was a
Speaker 2: podcast we met in London? Don't blame the mother, don't
Speaker 2: blame Yeah, a lovely woman who does a podcast and
Speaker 2: she's well, at the time we're in London, she's pregnant.
Speaker 2: So we told her we love the name of her show,
Speaker 2: because we're often saying things like that. But anyway, back
Speaker 2: to Norman, I mean, I think some people can say,
Speaker 2: you know, this is the epitome of this development of
Speaker 2: dissociative identity disorder, but clearly he has not been able
Speaker 2: to form healthy relationships and those attachments or lack of
Speaker 2: attachments have resulted in very violent behaviors, but he hides
Speaker 2: under that influence of his mother persona.
Speaker 1: Did you see the remake, the shot for shot remake
Speaker 1: with Vince Vaughn, Yes, I did so, huge controversy. A
Speaker 1: lot of people really really hated it. I thought it
Speaker 1: was amazing an hash Vince Vaughn. I'm blanking about who
Speaker 1: else was in it. Vigo Mortensen was in it, yes,
Speaker 1: but again it was shot by shot, which was really
Speaker 1: kind of a fascinating thing. Was it Gus van Sant?
Speaker 1: I think Gus van Sant was the director. But what's different, Oh,
Speaker 1: Julian Moore is in it too, So what's different is
Speaker 1: that he allowed the actors to have their own interpretation,
Speaker 1: so it wasn't like Vince Vaughn based his performance on
Speaker 1: line readings on the original Norman Bates in Psycho, and
Speaker 1: what you get to see, which I think is really
Speaker 1: well done by Vaughn, is just how odd Norman is
Speaker 1: because the original portrayal, so Anthony Perkins has a great
Speaker 1: interpretation of this character. It's classic, you know, and there's
Speaker 1: I have no criticisms of it, but I think that
Speaker 1: something that Vince Vaughn does in terms of attachment is
Speaker 1: that he's a little bit more obvious. It's like it's
Speaker 1: not quite so subtle, which I think is way more
Speaker 1: appropriate for someone that has dissociative identity disorder, that lives
Speaker 1: an isolated life, that has engaged in these types of
Speaker 1: killings before, has this fascination with death, Like, you know, like,
Speaker 1: let's not make it quite so attractive because Vince Vaughn
Speaker 1: is a good looking guy, but he's acting so quirky
Speaker 1: and buggy and weird, right, Like he makes it more sense.
Speaker 2: Yeah, like the social isolation would cause him to not
Speaker 2: know how to hide it very well. Does that make sense?
Speaker 1: Yeah, great observation. Yeah, I love that. That's cool. So
Speaker 1: another great example Tom Ripley from The Talented Mister Ripley
Speaker 1: now in a movie, portrayed in a movie, and portrayed
Speaker 1: in a mini series. Both of them have great critical acclaim.
Speaker 1: The character was created by Patricia high Smith. Ripley is
Speaker 1: a con artist and a murderer who assumes other people's
Speaker 1: identities to achieve his desires. The author paints a picture
Speaker 1: of a really troubled and emotionally neglectible upbringing that shapes
Speaker 1: Ripley's manipulative behaviors and his a moral personality. I think
Speaker 1: what is really cool, though, is that the movies build
Speaker 1: out this idea. Yes, he's manipulative and he's a moral
Speaker 1: The movie builds out with Matt Damon desperately needing these attachments,
Speaker 1: almost like a dommer in the way like I don't
Speaker 1: know how to make it work long term, but I
Speaker 1: need these things, or I need the accouterments of this lifestyle.
Speaker 1: And then of course with the mini series there's really
Speaker 1: a lot more psychopathic interpretation of the character that also
Speaker 1: is really great. But in the novel, high Smith writes
Speaker 1: Ripley as an orphan from a very early age because
Speaker 1: his parents drowned in an accident when he was a child,
Speaker 1: and then he was raised by an abusive ant. The
Speaker 1: ant is described as emotionally abusive and often belittles him,
Speaker 1: mocks him, and it's a toxic relationship. And it's meant
Speaker 1: to understand that this person has developed with a true
Speaker 1: sense of inadequacy and mistrust of the world around him.
Speaker 1: In the books, he's really depicted as a loaner, somebody
Speaker 1: who seems never able to form any meaningful connections with
Speaker 1: anybody during his formative years. So he's also and this
Speaker 1: is a great window that you get from the novels,
Speaker 1: is that he is really aware from a young age
Speaker 1: of his socioeconomic difference from the people that are around him,
Speaker 1: and he wants to escape that. He wants to be
Speaker 1: successful and have all of the bells and whistles that
Speaker 1: come with that. Interesting, I just as I'm saying this,
Speaker 1: I'm looking at our notes. The tender Swindler kind of
Speaker 1: emerges as somebody like that, the idea that comes from
Speaker 1: this incredibly radically poor background and just creates this whole
Speaker 1: fantasy that he's able to keep going over the years
Speaker 1: and taking advantage of people. But Ripley's childhood appears to
Speaker 1: align with the traits of disorganized or avoidant attachment styles
Speaker 1: because he demonstrates with a lack of trust he can't
Speaker 1: form genuine connections, and also he has this ability to
Speaker 1: manipulate others without any remorse.
Speaker 2: There you go, Okay, I have one more which makes
Speaker 2: I mean at first might be like hmm, interesting, but
Speaker 2: makes a lot of sense after as much as you
Speaker 2: and I have talked about people who fake their own
Speaker 2: disappearances over the last few years, So that would be
Speaker 2: Amy Doune from Gone Girl. So, of course you know,
Speaker 2: in the book or the film that people are familiar with,
Speaker 2: she orchestrates a very elaborate plot to fake her own
Speaker 2: disappearance that then implicates her husband as the one who
Speaker 2: has actually murdered her somehow. But both the book and
Speaker 2: the movie do a really good job of showing how
Speaker 2: her parental influence has started to shape some of her personality.
Speaker 2: So her parents are quite narcissistic, quite detached in terms
Speaker 2: of how their parenting style was, which tends to show
Speaker 2: how probably you know, her distorted thinking and behavior formed
Speaker 2: and is underneath kind of her very well put together
Speaker 2: presentation on the outside. Yes, so Amy's manipulation and her
Speaker 2: deceitful behavior obviously goes really really dark, but it points
Speaker 2: to an anxious, preoccupied attachment style. There is the fear
Speaker 2: of abandonment, there is the desire for control, and that
Speaker 2: really tends to lead some extreme actions to maintain some
Speaker 2: sort of weird perceived relational stability in her life through
Speaker 2: doing this to her husband and to her family and
Speaker 2: to the media and the community. So I have a
Speaker 2: chance to read the book, I never read the book.
Speaker 1: So I read the book first and enjoyed it so much.
Speaker 1: I may have even made these points before. I mean,
Speaker 1: I can't if this is a spoiler. I mean, like,
Speaker 1: if you haven't read the book and you haven't seen
Speaker 1: the movie, I mean, you probably have the concept of it.
Speaker 1: It's still worth But if you haven't read the book
Speaker 1: and you haven't seen the movie, stop listening right now
Speaker 1: and go read the book right now, and like right now,
Speaker 1: because I'm going to give a spoiler away that is
Speaker 1: really fascinating. I thought it was really fascinating. First is
Speaker 1: like she's such a brilliant manipulator, and Gillian Flynn writes
Speaker 1: this so well that in the first few chapters you
Speaker 1: really don't know what's happening. You don't know, I mean,
Speaker 1: it seems like it's all real. But then you start
Speaker 1: questioning everything, like maybe her husband is crazy. Does the
Speaker 1: sister even exist? Nobody like you know, because they're all
Speaker 1: these things of like he has these conversations, but nobody
Speaker 1: else is acknowledging the sister until they do. So there's
Speaker 1: like it's really great because it's very unsettling. Yeah, but
Speaker 1: one of the things that the movie does not elaborate
Speaker 1: on is. I mean, they talk about it, but you
Speaker 1: really get the impact of it in the books is
Speaker 1: that her parents are so narcissistic and amy is such
Speaker 1: a narcissistic extension for them that she doesn't really exist
Speaker 1: except to fulfill their needs and their authors of children's books,
Speaker 1: and they write books about her adventures. But then there's
Speaker 1: these questions of what did they set her up for?
Speaker 1: And she ends up really taking advantage of people throughout
Speaker 1: her life. She ruins several people's lives as from when
Speaker 1: she's in high school all the way through college and
Speaker 1: young adulthood. And you kind of see a taste of
Speaker 1: it in the movie where he goes to interview people,
Speaker 1: but in the book you see a much more terrible
Speaker 1: depth of what she does to people and just completely
Speaker 1: ruins their lives. And you realize that part of it
Speaker 1: may have been so that her parents would have something
Speaker 1: to write about how she overcame this awful thing that
Speaker 1: she actually set up very very interesting stuff. But again,
Speaker 1: like we're saying in the big picture of all of
Speaker 1: this is that these attachment styles, if you think of
Speaker 1: them conceptually within a then diagram, there's overlap between personality disorders,
Speaker 1: neurodevelopmental issues interspersed with like organic and traumatic brain injury,
Speaker 1: all sorts of things that come to bear to give
Speaker 1: us an understanding of these factors. It's just fascinating stuff.
Speaker 2: Yeah, it's like we should never say nature versus nurture again,
Speaker 2: it's always nature and nurture.
Speaker 1: I love that.
Speaker 2: All right, let's let's help you right it, put it
Speaker 2: out and do something with it.
Speaker 1: Trademark Nature and Nurture.
Speaker 2: Oh my gosh. All right, wow, Part two there we
Speaker 2: are ending. There you go right at the end of
Speaker 2: the second hour, Noice. Well coming up for you. At
Speaker 2: the end of this month, we are going to release
Speaker 2: the live stream of our wonderful talk around Christmas time
Speaker 2: with the ladies of Rebel Tours out of London. So
Speaker 2: we talk with them about essentially the ethics of crime
Speaker 2: tourism and crime history and what they are doing about
Speaker 2: that with their tour company in London, specifically with a
Speaker 2: very popular tour that you will absolutely bump into on
Speaker 2: the streets of London if you are visiting. Meaning there
Speaker 2: are so many tour companies out there doing it wrong
Speaker 2: and they are doing it right, and I will just
Speaker 2: kind of leave it at that to give you a
Speaker 2: little taste fantastic conversation. We can't wait for you to
Speaker 2: hear it anything else. Doctor Scott's no.
Speaker 1: As we said, there's a lot that we need to
Speaker 1: build on from this episode, so look forward to within
Speaker 1: the next couple of months, we're going to kind of
Speaker 1: dip our toe back into this and discuss the intersection
Speaker 1: with personality disorders and attachment styles, which I think you'd
Speaker 1: be fascinating because there's a lot more, lot more examples
Speaker 1: to pull from and discuss.
Speaker 2: And yeah, okay, well, we will see you next time
Speaker 2: on La Not So Confidential. Thanks guys, Bye, folks, We
Speaker 2: sincerely thank you for spending some time with us today.
Speaker 2: La Not So Confidential is part of the Caral Space
Speaker 2: Media Network. Each episode is hosted, produced, and written by
Speaker 2: Doctor Scott and Doctor Shiloh. Our post production, editing and
Speaker 2: sweetening magic is handled by the multi talented Jason Usri
Speaker 2: of ear Cult Productions.
Speaker 1: Our theme music, entitled Cool Vibes Film Noir, is composed
Speaker 1: and performed by the talented Kevin McLoud. He graciously allows
Speaker 1: us to use his music via a Creative Commons attribution license.
Speaker 1: Please check out all of Kevin's amazing work on YouTube.
Speaker 2: All of the resources for each episode can be found
Speaker 2: on our website at La Dash not dash soo dash
Speaker 2: confidential dot com. You can find us on Instagram at
Speaker 2: La No So Podcast, on x at La no sopod,
Speaker 2: and on Facebook at La not So Confidential. Media inquiries
Speaker 2: and bookings are scheduled at Alienist Entertainment at gmail dot com.
Speaker 1: Once a month, we go live on YouTube on Saturday afternoon,
Speaker 1: so pay attention to our social media announcements to join
Speaker 1: our interactive broadcast entitled Behind the Couch, where we interview
Speaker 1: guests on a number of psych criminal, justice and true
Speaker 1: crime topics.
Speaker 2: And lastly, we'd be honored if you joined our Patreon
Speaker 2: at Patreon dot com slash La not So Podcast. With
Speaker 2: a subscription, you get an ad free listening experience, additional content,
Speaker 2: host interaction, and you'll be the first to know about
Speaker 2: upcoming live events, social gatherings, and super cool swag.
Speaker 1: Thanks for listening and join us next time on La
Speaker 1: Not So Confidential.