Sanity and Society

This was a return to podcast form for my colleague Owen Scott Muir, M.D, DFAACAP and me. Since our earlier days of collaborating in the 2020s, awareness of “the manosphere,” a loose conglomeration of sometimes controversial, extremely online male-centric influencers, has skyrocketed, leaving us mental health professionals with the sacred task of educating ourselves on just what the men of the 2020s need, and how we can stay up to the ask of providing it. An informative written version of this interview will before forthcoming (think of it as an action-focused, research-laden transcript), but for now, here’s a succinct timestamp of our discussion, so you can navigate to the content relevant to your experiences or the needs of the ones in your life:

00:00 Introduction to the Conversation

00:15 Exploring Brain Medicine and Mental Health Tech

01:29 Understanding the Manosphere

03:05 The Exploitative Nature of the Manosphere

04:46 Dating Dynamics in the Modern Age

07:35 The Impact of Dating Apps on Men’s Mental Health

10:09 The Role of Male Friendship in Dating

12:59 Pain: Emotional vs. Physical

15:45 Rejection and Its Psychological Effects

18:42 The Importance of Interpersonal Skills

21:20 Modeling Healthy Masculinity

23:46 Equanimity and Emotional Regulation

26:15 Self-Fulfilling Prophecies in Dating

27:43 Navigating Date Dynamics

30:12 Understanding Online Dating Behavior

32:52 The Dark Triad and Attraction

36:41 Communication and Boundaries in Relationships

39:03 The Value of Connections Beyond Romance

42:45 Coffee Dates and Modern Dating Norms

Thank you Geraldine A. V. Hughes, Aramis, and many others for tuning into my live video with Dr. Paul! Join me for my next live video in the app.

Most people think technology is changing their habits.They underestimate how much it is changing their psychology.

In this episode, Dr. Paul and I traveled through embodiment, AI romance, transhumanism, dating apps, mirror neurons, the Zeigarnik loop, evolutionary psychology, and why your nervous system still thinks it is living in a tribe, and not an algorithmic casino.

Below is a full walkthrough, with timestamps, quotes, why it matters, and core ideas for each moment.

[00:00–00:54] What Tech Is Doing to Our Minds

Jeremy:

“We’ve heard all the storm and stress, all the fear mongering. I want to give people language they can hang their hat on, so they can stay human, stay mature, and stay sane.”

Why We Care:

Most people do not realize how much tech is rewiring their emotional expectations before they even notice the change.

Core Idea:

This is not another “phones bad” conversation.This is about attachment theory, developmental psychology, and the human nervous system, and crucially: how tech reshapes all three.

The goal from the beginning was not to moralize.It was to name the mechanisms through which tech interferes with:

* self development

* attachment

* embodiment

* emotional literacy

* agency

Takeaway:Write your one sentence philosophy of tech:

I will use technology for assistance, but never for attunement.

If you cannot name the boundary, the erosion has already begun.

[00:54–03:23] AI Is a “Massager,” Not a Partner

Dr. Paul:

“AI is aggregated data. It summarizes. It doesn’t think. It’s like a mechanical back massager. It can stimulate you, but it cannot adjust to your emotional or bodily reactions the way a real person does.”

This was one of his strongest analogies.A massager loops the same pattern forever.A human hand responds to the micro shifts in your body.

Tech gives stimulation.People give attunement.

And the difference between the two is what makes emotional maturity possible.

Why We Care:

A machine can stimulate you.It cannot attune to you.

Attunement is what builds a self; stimulation is what bypasses it.

Core Idea:

Tech delivers stimulation, not responsiveness.Human maturation requires responsiveness: the “I saw you wince, so I softened my touch” dynamic.

Takeaway:Ask of any tech habit:

Is this stimulating me or attuning to me?

Only one of those advances emotional development.

[03:23–05:18] Frankenstein, Emotion, and the Limits of Silicon

Dr. Paul:

“Emotion is energy. Chemical energy. It runs through flesh. Technology is stitched together in our image like Frankenstein’s monster, but it cannot feel anything through its own body.”

Why We Care:

Emotion is not data.It is chemistry, electricity, heart rate, breath, embodiment.AI has no nervous system, and therefore no emotional capacity.

He raises a point people avoid:Emotion is not metaphorical energy.It is literal electrochemical activity in the limbic system powered by food, which is powered by the sun.

Our nervous system is a solar-powered emotional engine.AI runs on electricity and statistical patterns.

The substrate matters.

Core Idea:

Human emotion is solar-powered chemistry running through flesh.AI runs on electricity and statistical prediction.The substrates differ at the level that matters for consciousness.

Takeaway:

Never outsource emotional regulation to something that cannot feel.

[05:18–07:50] Kohut’s Three Tasks and Why AI Fails All of Them

Jeremy:

“Kohut’s three tasks: mirroring, idealizing, and twinship, cannot be delivered by AI. You can get mirroring. You cannot get real idealization or twinship.”

Why We Care:

AI gives perfect mirroringbut zero rupture,zero resistance,zero challenge.And without rupture and repair, psychological adulthood never develops.

Without frustration and limits, people remain adolescent psychologically.

This is where we get into developmental theory:

* Mirroring: AI can approximate.

* Idealizing: You cannot grow toward it; it is not flesh.

* Twinship: It has no parallel path, no mortality, no embodied stakes.

Perfect validation without rupture = psychological adolescence.

Bowlby and Ainsworth always emphasized rupture and repair.AI gives no rupture.It gives you everything instantly.

And nothing stunts development like constant gratification.Core Idea:

AI can simulate the appearance of empathy, but it cannot provide:

* a human target for idealization

* a shared developmental arc

* twinship based on the human journey

* co-regulated rupture and repair

Takeaway:Once a week, intentionally choose a real interaction with the risk of misunderstanding or disagreement.

That is adulthood training.

[07:50–08:27] The Infinite Mind Problem

Jeremy:

“If you never forget anything, you never know when to stop thinking. A disembodied mind can get lost in infinite processing.”

This is an overlooked part of embodiment:Forgetting is a safety mechanism.Fatigue is a safety mechanism.You stop thinking so you do not burn out.

A disembodied mind has no natural “enough.”That is not transcendence.It is paralysis.

Why We Care:

Human cognition evolved with natural endpoints: hunger, fatigue, forgetting.Remove those limitations and you remove sanity’s guardrails.

Core Idea:

Embodiment provides boundaries.A purely digital mind has none, which leads to endless loops, obsessive thinking, and lack of closure.

Takeaway:

Practice intentional cognitive closure.Set daily “stop thinking now” points.

[08:27–11:27] Why Transhumanism Will Be a Male Drug First

Dr. Paul:

“What the body is to the biologic female, tech is to the biologic male. Transhumanism will be the male version of plastic surgery.”

Dr. Paul’s argument:

* Women have historically needed to protect bodily integrity for survival and fertility.

* Men externalize identity into tools, status, and cognition.

* Therefore men will rush into cybernetic enhancement, cognitive implants, and augmentation.

Women will do it reluctantly, if social or romantic pressure forces it.

Why We Care:

Men tend to externalize identity into tools, status, and cognitive enhancement.Women tend to guard bodily integrity due to biological investment.

This asymmetry will shape the future of tech adoption.

Core Idea:

Men will rush toward cognitive augmentation.Women will be more ambivalent unless social pressure forces conformity.

Takeaway:Ask:

“Am I using tech to grow, or to escape myself?”Before tech answers that question for you.

[11:27–15:02] The Surrogates Problem: When the Avatar Replaces the Body

Jeremy:

“In “Surrogates” [film], people live life through android doubles. It is a level of disembodiment we need to take seriously.”

This part touched on:

* the movie Surrogates

* bodily risk

* how women have historically had to guard the body

* how men treat the body as an instrument of acquisition

Disembodiment has different psychological costs depending on sex, history, and evolutionary pressures.

Why We Care:

Disembodiment creates psychological drift:

* less agency

* less courage

* less resilience

* more abstraction

* more fantasy

Historically, women have been more aware of bodily risk; men more willing to treat the body as a tool.

Core Idea:

When the avatar replaces the body, the psyche loses contact with consequence.

Takeaway:Do one daily action that reconnects you to physical reality: handwriting, cooking, lifting, gardening, cold exposure, or walking barefoot outdoors.

[15:02–18:29] Eggs, Energy, and Emotional Investment

Dr. Paul:

“An egg burns fifty thousand times the energy of a sperm. Women have two to three hundred eggs in a lifetime. That investment shapes psychology even after menopause.”

He connects:

* reproductive risk

* energy expenditure

* relationship selectivity

* emotional commitment

His conclusion:

Men often stay in relationships they are not emotionally invested in because their focus is external.Women are more likely to leave if the emotional climate deteriorates.

Why We Care:

Evolutionary investment shapes:

* attachment behavior

* emotional thresholds

* selectivity

* break-up patterns

* relational risk assessment

Core Idea:

Females evolved with high reproductive cost; males evolved with high exploratory and provisioning cost.This echoes in modern emotional needs and tolerances.

Takeaway:Make the emotional climate in your relationships explicit, not just logistics.

[18:29–21:07] AI Romance and the Narcissism Spiral

Jeremy:

“If AI gives you everything you want, one day you become unbearable to real people. No one challenges you. That is how narcissism is formed.”

Here we compare:

* the pop reaction (“that’s weird, dating a robot”)

* the clinical reaction (“what need is this meeting?”)

Katherine Dee told me:

* For some, AI may be the only place they can get companionship.

* For others, it will prevent them from becoming pro social.

This is not about morality.It is about developmental arrest.

Then Jeremy connected it to The Matrix:

* The first Matrix was too perfect.

* People died.

* Humans require friction.

Why We Care:

AI companions give:

* endless affirmation

* endless patience

* no rupture

* no frustration

* no competing subjectivity

This is the recipe for fragility, the opposite of resilience.

Core Idea:

The first Matrix failed because it was too perfect.Humans die psychologically in perfection.We grow through friction.

Takeaway:If AI comforts you, balance it with weekly “discomfort reps” in real relationships.

[22:05–29:45] Why AI Cannot Be a Relationship

Dr. Paul:

“It is not a relationship unless it is mammalian. Real relationships are between nervous systems, not data sets.”

He pulls together:

* the triune brain

* mirror neurons

* story-based memory

* the mammalian bonding system

And he makes an underrated point about dating apps:

“The matchmaker used to be an embodied mammal who knew each person. Dating apps replaced her with a calculator.”

That replacement changed the entire structure of mate selection.

Why We Care:

Relationships require:

* co-regulation

* mirror neurons

* rupture and repair

* embodied presence

* narrative continuity

* sensory attunement

AI offers none.

Core Idea:

Dating apps removed the mammalian matchmaker and replaced her with a silicon dataset matcher.AI partners repeat the same mistake, but deeper.

Takeaway:Reintroduce mammalian matchmaking.Let real humans introduce you to real humans again.

[29:45–36:14] The Heart, the Zeigarnik Loop, and the Chinese Room

Jeremy:

“When something triggers an epistemic feeling, the heart races, the body reacts, and the brain searches for closure. A disembodied system cannot replicate that.”

Dr. Paul adds:

“Avicenna’s Flying Man argued that mind exists even without sensation, but embodiment still shapes consciousness.”

Dr. Paul adds:

“Avicenna’s Flying Man argued that mind exists even without sensation, but embodiment still shapes consciousness and behavior.”

This is where we fully close the argument:

* AI can output language.

* AI cannot feel urgency, mortality, fear, love, or desire.

* AI is a Chinese Room, producing correct symbols without understanding.

Real thinking requires:

* brain

* heart

* body

* stakes

* narrative

* emotion

* vulnerability

Why We Care:

AI can produce symbols.It cannot experience urgency, danger, longing, confusion, or desire.It can output emotional language without ever having felt emotion.

Core Idea:

The Chinese Room argument applies:AI outputs correct symbols without understanding.Only embodied organisms feel the stakes behind meaning.

Takeaway:Do something daily that combines risk and embodiment: art, performance, conflict, physical learning, deep conversation.

These are the antidotes to the digital self.

Final Reflection: What Keeps Us Human

Across all ninety minutes, the thesis becomes unmistakable:

Human psychology rests on three pillars:

1. Embodiment

Why We Care:

Your body is your boundary against dissociation.It provides fatigue, limits, hunger, desire, chemistry: in other words, the rules and bounds of human finitude.

2. Emotion

Why We Care:

Emotion is electrified flesh, not programming syntax.It is the mammalian glue that makes relationships real.

3. Shared Story

Why We Care:

Your nervous system bonds through narrative, rupture, repair, and memory shaped across time with another human.

AI can simulate none.Dating platforms distort all three.Transhumanism threatens the continuity of all three.Social media numbs all three.

To remain human is to protect:

* your body

* your ruptures

* your limits

* your stories

* your emotional literacy

* your real relationships

Technology is not the problem.Disembodiment is.

References (APA Style)

Ainsworth, M. (1978). Patterns of attachment. Erlbaum.Bowlby, J. (1969). Attachment and loss: Vol. 1. Attachment. Basic Books.Bruner, J. (1990). Acts of meaning. Harvard University Press.Galloway, S. (2024). Notes on being a man. Portfolio.Goleman, D. (1995). Emotional intelligence. Bantam.Kohut, H. (1971). The analysis of the self. International Universities Press.Panksepp, J. (1998). Affective neuroscience. Oxford University Press.Searle, J. (1980). Minds, brains, and programs. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 3(3), 417–424.Winnicott, D. W. (1965). The maturational processes and the facilitating environment. International Universities Press.

Stay tuned for more uploads from this livestream about how to survive narcissistic institutions and spiritual starvation.

Katherine Dee’s journalistic work in internet history and cultural analysis have spanned a variety of outlets and subjects, and I’ve long enjoyed bringing a clinical psychological lens to her illuminating social observations. Check out our first interview here, where we explore the origins of her name and her passion for internet history.

Her recent focus has been directed to the phenomena of “AI Psychosis,” which is extremely relevant to my field, clinical psychology. Please Check out our video interview in which she and I analyze this subject from both clinical and cultural lenses. We also discuss her useful and descriptive proposed phenomenon of “Internet Overexposure Syndrome” and how it differs from and overlaps with actual clinical, psychiatric conditions. Let’s dive in.

Digital Sophists, Fragile Minds: What “LLM Psychosis” Actually Is

The internet didn’t suddenly give us a new disease. It gave us frictionless tools that magnify whatever we bring to them, and a literacy gap big enough to fall through.

“It feels the same as someone with low media literacy seeing a barrage of TikToks for the first time. They don’t understand the LLM can be wrong.” —Katherine Dee (01:42)

“LLMs are digital sophists; people expect digital philosophers.” —Jeremy Fox (09:34)

Below are key, core ideas plus a practical “mental hygiene” toolkit at the end. This is for anyone who cares about how the web reshapes attention, emotion, and identity.

Takeaways from the Interview

1) Not a new madness: mostly a literacy + vulnerability story

Katherine’s main point lands early: what’s called “LLM psychosis” often looks less like schizophrenia and more like confusion at scale. If you don’t know that a language model will actually invent sources, you can easily be led down a rabbit hole of inaccuracy, especially if you prompt it for verdicts on fraught, personal topics (“Did this writer plagiarize me?”).

“Ask ‘Are you sure?’ and the model changes its opinion… It isn’t a neutral tool.” —Dee (02:26)

Fox agrees, with a clinical frame: psychosis has heavy genetic loading and well-studied environmental triggers; platforms can accelerate or orbit existing symptoms, but they’re rarely the origin story (Kapur, 2003).

“Blaming AI for schizophrenia misses the genetic + environmental story; tech can be a kindling or orbit.” —Fox (03:32–05:40)

Translation: Treat models as probabilistic talkers, not oracles. Treat claims of “AI made X happen” the way we treat claims about TV, radio, or TikTok: as force multipliers acting on prior vulnerabilities.

2) The real villain is frictionlessness

“The lack of friction makes mental illness accelerate at an exponential level.” —Fox (05:40)

Platform design strips out pauses, counter-speech, and human checks. What was once a slow burn (rumination, compulsions) becomes a feedback loop with instant reinforcement. This is the same logic that made micro-rejections on dating apps corrosive: you can be okay with five; you won’t be okay with five hundred (Finkel et al., 2012; Baumeister & Leary, 1995).

Dee, on the same terrain, reframes the panic: instead of “you’ll catch a disorder from ChatGPT,” ask how media literacyand guardrails can slow the loop.

3) AI companions are not uniformly dystopian (sometimes they’re harm-reduction)

Dee shares a story about a disabled man with an AI girlfriend: for him, the relationship isn’t just romantic; it’s creative and stabilizing, and likely healthier than volatile parasocial attachments to creators (Horton & Wohl, 1956).

“Is it more tragic than him being alone… or saving up to see a sex worker once a year?” —Dee (19:55–21:03)

Fox pushes the edge case (people high in narcissism/psychopathy might seek human targets rather than being verbally abusive to AI) but both land on a humane middle: safety rails + informed use instead of blanket prohibition.

4) Dating apps → IRL return, and the cost of micro-rejection

Dee senses a cultural turn: people mock dating apps now; “return to IRL” feels cool again. Fox adds a clinical layer: “We aren’t built for rejection at scale.”

“If it happens to you a bunch, eventually it wears on you and you start to ask questions.” —Dee (26:33)

Think of this as developmental trauma by drip: no single event is catastrophic, but the system-level cadence of dismissal can reshape self-beliefs over time (Kross et al., 2013).

5) Internet Overexposure Syndrome: three archetypes, not diagnoses

Dee’s signature frame argues that heavy, unbroken internet use produces behavioral archetypes that mimic clinical labels without meeting diagnostic thresholds:

* Autist: hyper-fixation, pattern hunger

* Schizotypal: connecting distant dots, conspiratorial patterning

* Borderline: hyper-vigilance to social signals, abandonment alarms

“They aren’t clinically significant, but they have the texture of these disorders.” —Dee (33:08–34:45)

Fox plugs this into trauma science: adaptations are functional in context; the problem is gear-shift failure, when online adaptations “bleed” into offline life and won’t turn off.

“When you can’t downshift, that’s the problem.” —Fox (34:45–35:35)

6) The Moloch trap and the new literacy divide

Fox borrows Scott Alexander’s “Moloch” to name the arms race: opt out of AI and you fall behind; opt in and you accept risk, so you must build resilience and check systems (Alexander, 2014).

Dee brings the class angle: thinking as a luxury good. Wealthier households can limit exposure (less iPad-as-babysitter) and teach tools fluently, widening the literacy gap later in school and work (see also Haidt, 2024, on generational screen effects).

“Knowing how these tools work is how you protect your mind.” —Dee (14:08)

7) Post-COVID etiquette and the weirdness we feel now

Time flattened in 2020, and days lost the markers that make memories stick. Fox notes the research version (sameness harms mood and recall); Dee narrates the lived version (socializing in a dreamlike, empty city). No wonder norms feel bent.

The lesson isn’t “phones did it.” The lesson is: social life can’t be optional without deep personal, social cost.

8) After social media: ambient AI

“We might end up getting off social media long term and AI will be integrated into our appliances.” —Dee (37:53–38:18)

That forecast (less feed, more embedded assistance) fits the vibe shift already underway: IRL as status, feeds as utility, assistants as infrastructure. The mental health challenge will be the same one this conversation keeps naming: literacy, friction, and guardrails.

A Mental Hygiene Toolkit for the Extremely Online

1) Treat LLMs as digital sophistsThey’re virtuosos of plausible language, and gifted speakers/writers, not ground truth (Bender et al., 2021). They are committed to providing pleasing, useful answers, rather than truth. Use them to draft, summarize, and brainstorm; verify anything that appears like a spurious fact.

2) Build friction back in

* Write prompts offline first.

* Add a “cooling timer” before posting.

* Turn off infinite scroll in your browser, or route feeds through a daily digest.

3) Guard against micro-rejection overloadBatch your dating/app interactions into limited windows; measure how you feel after that dive into online dating. If your weekly average mood drops, change cadence or channel (Finkel et al., 2012).

4) Distinguish pathology from patternAsk: Is this a stable, offline impairment, or an online, contextual adaptation I can downshift from? If you can’t downshift, get help. Earlier is easier.

5) Parasocial vs. companionIf an AI companion improves mood, routine, or creativity, and you maintain safety rails (no self-harm prompts; no financial exploitation), that can be harm reduction. If it deepens isolation or magical thinking, pull back (Horton & Wohl, 1956).

6) Practice “source flipping”When an LLM makes a claim about a person/event, flip to primary sources or reputable databases. The move isn’t “Are you sure?”; it’s “Show me where that exists.”

7) Restore the offlineSchedule at least one non-instrumental IRL thing per week (no content, no networking, just presence). Rites of passage and shared meals are memory glue.

Choice Quotes

* “LLMs are digital sophists; people expect digital philosophers.” —Fox (09:34)

* “Knowing how these tools work is how you protect your mind.” —Dee (14:08)

* “We aren’t built for rejection at scale.” —Fox (26:46)

* “They aren’t clinically significant, but they have the texture of these disorders.” —Dee (33:08–34:45)

References

Alexander, S. (2014). Meditations on Moloch.Bender, E. M., Gebru, T., McMillan-Major, A., & Shmitchell, S. (2021). On the dangers of stochastic parrots: Can language models be too big? Proceedings of FAccT ’21, 610–623.Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1995). The need to belong. Psychological Bulletin, 117(3), 497–529.

Dee, K. (2025, March 6). Internet Overexposure Syndrome: A taxonomy of adaptations to online life. Comment Magazine. https://comment.org/internet-overexposure-syndrome/

Dee, K. (2025, June 14). Let’s Talk About ChatGPT‑Induced Spiritual Psychosis. Default Friend (Default.blog).

Dee, K. (2025, August 11). The tulpa in your pocket. Default Friend (default.blog).

🏁Finkel, E. J., Eastwick, P. W., Karney, B. R., Reis, H. T., & Sprecher, S. (2012). Online dating: A critical analysis… Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 13(1), 3–66.Haidt, J. (2024). The anxious generation.Horton, D., & Wohl, R. R. (1956). Mass communication and para-social interaction. Psychiatry, 19(3), 215–229.Kapur, S. (2003). Psychosis as a state of aberrant salience. American Journal of Psychiatry, 160(1), 13–23.

In the latest Substack Live, I had the privilege of speaking with Barri Grant, a grief educator, writer, and group facilitator, about a theme that is as widespread as it is under-discussed: ambiguous loss. From friendship breakdowns to divorce and estrangement, Barri and I explored how grief manifests outside the realm of death, yet remains largely unrecognized, misdiagnosed, or pathologized in our cultural narrative. Check below for an essay based on the conversation, show notes, and timestamps.

Thanks for reading Next Level Psychology. Subscribe for free to receive new posts about grief, trauma, anxiety, and many more timely subjects.

Naming the Unnamable: Why Non-Death Losses Matter

Barri brought into focus something that clinicians and clients alike often sense but don’t always articulate: grief that lacks ritual, recognition, or even a clear name still inhabits the body and mind. Divorce, the slow fading of a friendship, or navigating the distance created by illness or caregiving often evoke profound emotional responses, but they don’t come with casseroles, eulogies, or leave from work. As Barri put it, “We don't name these non-death losses. So we don't make space.”

In psychological terms, ambiguous loss (a concept developed by Dr. Pauline Boss) refers to losses that remain unresolved, where a person is either physically absent but psychologically present (e.g., a missing loved one), or physically present but emotionally unavailable (e.g., dementia, estrangement, chronic illness, or relationship fracture). These losses are confounding because there is no closure, no clear ending, no container.

The Biology of Grief and Ghosting

Our discussion moved toward how ambiguous relational ruptures, such as ghosting, silent estrangements, drawn-out divorces, activate the nervous system. People often experience sympathetic arousal: elevated cortisol, rumination, disrupted sleep, inflammation. Even the dissolution of a once-trusted friendship can trigger physiological dysregulation akin to PTSD.

And yet, many clients walk into therapy with vague physical symptoms: panic attacks, migraines, insomnia, and are asked to tick boxes on anxiety and depression inventories, rather than being invited to contextualize their experience within recent or unspoken losses.

Barri shared a compelling anecdote: showing up at the ER with shingles during a post-separation period, her stress “wildly” manifesting in her body. The medical intake didn’t ask about emotional upheaval. “So I tell clients now: write it in. Fill it in yourself: ‘I’m going through a divorce.’ ‘My dad is dying.’ We need to say it.”

Friendships: When Attachment Isn’t Final

Friendship grief holds a particular kind of sting. The person is often still out there, on Instagram, at the same events, maybe even circling mutual friends, and the imagined future now unravels without them. That ambiguity can provoke the protest-despair cycle: yearning for reconnection, anger at the loss, bargaining with the “what ifs.”

We discussed how today's friendship culture suffers from an allergy to discomfort. The cultural norm has become avoidance through cutoff rather than renegotiation through communication. We pathologize confrontation. Ghosting becomes self-care. But in many cases, the message being sent is: “I don’t have the emotional bandwidth to deal with this,” not necessarily “You’re toxic.” And for those left behind, that lands as abandonment.

Diagnosing the Situation, Not the Self

One point I raised was the fluidity of diagnosis. What many therapists see in practice is not chronic mental illness but acute adjustment disorder: grief in response to relational shock. A blindsiding divorce, a friendship’s sudden collapse, or the role reversal of caregiving can destabilize even the most resilient. Diagnostically, this fits, but few intake forms or medical spaces ask about life context. “People don’t even know that situational diagnoses exist,” I noted. “We get stuck in binary thinking: either I’m mentally ill, or I’m fine. But mental health exists on a spectrum.”

A Return to Ritual: The Power of Groups

Barri’s experience leading grief groups underscores how rituals of community can hold the weight of unspoken grief. Her widows’ group, for example, found unexpected laughter discussing Father’s Day: a blend of release and recognition, of finally being seen. These circles create a fourth space between therapy and everyday life, one where caretakers, divorced parents, and estranged children can speak honestly without the burden of protecting others.

I added that for men especially, the mentorship model of groups like AA tends to resonate more than traditional talk therapy, which can seem emotionally performative or shame-based. In group, there’s room to dip in and out, to listen before speaking, to share wisdom rather than extract pity. Humor isn’t a distraction from healing; it’s a conduit.

Cultivating Connection in a Culture of Cutoff

The most poignant takeaway from our conversation was this: We’re lonelier than ever in an age of unprecedented connectivity. Cutoff culture, endless options, and the commodification of relationships leave us overwhelmed and disoriented. We’re primed to look for red flags, not yellow ones. We don’t know how to disagree without disappearing. As Barri put it, “We haven’t taught people how to be friends.”

But the antidote is simple, if not easy: connection and belonging. Whether in a book club, support group, or a 12-minute chat that starts as small talk and turns into something more, we need to create micro-rituals and shared spaces that hold us. “Nobody needs to do this alone,” Barri said, and she’s right.

Let’s end with that reminder: If you’re grieving something that doesn’t look like grief, whether friendship loss, divorce, caretaking, estrangement, you still deserve to be held. You still deserve a place to put it down.

If you're looking for non-death grief resources, support circles, or therapeutic tools for ambiguous loss, reach out. You're not alone.

Keywords

sambiguous loss, non-death grief, therapy, relationships, communication, community, emotional expression, support groups, loneliness, healing

Takeaways

* Ambiguous losses are often overlooked in discussions about grief.

* Non-death losses can lead to significant emotional distress.

* The complexity of relationships can complicate the grieving process.

* Divorce can result in multiple layers of grief, including loss of identity.

* Therapy can help individuals process their grief and find coping strategies.

* Communication is key in navigating friendships and confrontations.

* Generational differences affect how emotions are expressed and managed.

* Community and connection are essential for healing from grief.

* Support groups provide a safe space for sharing experiences and emotions.

* Humor can be a powerful tool in processing grief.

SummaryIn this conversation, the speakers delve into the concept of ambiguous losses, particularly focusing on non-death losses such as divorce and friendship breakups. They discuss the emotional complexities associated with these types of grief, emphasizing the importance of naming and acknowledging these feelings. The conversation highlights the role of therapy in processing grief, the challenges of communication in relationships, and the generational differences in emotional expression. The speakers also stress the significance of community and support groups in healing, the need for rituals in grief, and the power of humor as a coping mechanism. Ultimately, they advocate for embracing connection and belonging as essential components of navigating grief.

Titles

* Navigating the Waters of Ambiguous Loss

* The Hidden Grief of Non-Death Losses

Sound Bites

* "We often overlook ambiguous losses."

* "Divorce can result in multiple layers of grief."

* "The loneliness epidemic is a growing concern."

Chapters

00:00 Understanding Ambiguous Losses

01:48 The Complexity of Non-Death Grief

04:08 Navigating Grief in Relationships

06:10 The Impact of Divorce on Identity

08:28 The Role of Therapy in Grief

10:29 Communication and Confrontation in Friendships

12:17 Generational Differences in Emotional Expression

14:21 The Importance of Community and Connection

16:05 Finding Support in Group Settings

18:07 The Need for Rituals in Grief

20:08 The Power of Humor in Healing

22:24 Building Resilience Through Connection

24:20 Conclusion: Embracing Vulnerability and Belonging