Drowning In Cortisol

 The more emotionally intelligent you become, the less you take things personally.

You begin to realize that the way someone treats you is shaped by their relationship with themselves-their self-awareness, their emotional capacity, and their nervous system state.

You learn that someone's capacity to meet you has nothing to do with your value, and everything to do with their own.

That shift in perspective is often described as the "emotional holy grail." It’s the moment you stop being a character in everyone else's drama and start becoming the observer of your own life.

When we lack emotional intelligence (EQ), we tend to view the world through a narcissistic filter—not in the clinical sense, but in the sense that we believe everything people do is a direct reaction to us. If they’re short with us, we’re "annoying." If they don't call, we’re "unimportant."

Expanding on your insight, here is how that internal shift actually functions:

1. The Mirror Effect

Most people aren't reacting to you; they are reacting to the version of you that exists in their head, filtered through their own past traumas and biases.

Projection: A person who is deeply self-critical will often find flaws in others to alleviate their own internal pressure.

The "Capacity" Cap: You cannot pour a gallon of water into a pint-sized glass. Similarly, you cannot expect emotional depth from someone who hasn't done the work to understand their own shallow waters.

2. The Nervous System as a Filter

Emotional intelligence includes a physical understanding of the human body. When someone snaps or withdraws, an emotionally intelligent person recognizes a dysregulated nervous system.

If someone is in "Fight or Flight," their prefrontal cortex (the logical part of the brain) is essentially offline.

The Realization: You aren't arguing with a person; you’re interacting with a stress response. It’s hard to take an insult personally when you realize the other person is simply drowning in cortisol.

3. Decoupling Value from Validation

The most profound part of your statement is the decoupling of Value from Capacity.

Perspective	Low EQ Reaction	High EQ Realization
Unreturned Text	"I'm not a priority to them."	"They are likely overwhelmed or disorganized."
Harsh Criticism	"I am incompetent."	"They have a high need for control or a low tolerance for mistakes."
Emotional Coldness	"I am unlovable."	"They have limited access to their own vulnerability."

The Freedom of "It's Not About Me"

Taking things personally is a heavy burden; it requires you to constantly defend your worth. When you realize that someone’s behavior is a map of their own internal world, you stop trying to "fix" their perception of you. You realize that you could be the most perfect version of yourself, and someone with a distorted lens would still see a distorted image.

The Insight: Peace isn't found in changing how others treat you; it’s found in changing what their treatment means to you.

Emotional intelligence creates a kind of psychological distance that allows us to observe behavior rather than absorb it. When we understand that responses are often driven by someone’s internal regulation, insight, and coping capacity, it becomes easier to remain grounded and respond thoughtfully rather than reactively. That shift protects both our self-worth and the quality of our interactions.

Chasing The Snake

"Imagine being bitten by a snake, and instead of focusing on healing from the poison,

You chase the snake to understand why it bit you and to prove that you didn't deserve it."

The Psychology of the Chase

When we are hurt by someone—especially when the "bite" feels unprovoked—our ego and our sense of justice scream for a trial. We chase the snake for three main reasons:

The Search for Logic: We assume the snake has a "why" that will make sense to us. We think if we can just understand the motive, the pain will stop.

The Need for an Apology: We believe that if the snake admits it shouldn't have bitten us, the "poison" will magically leave our system.

Defense of Character: We feel that by not fighting back or demanding an explanation, we are silently agreeing that we deserved the bite.

The Illusion	The Reality
The snake bit me because of something I did.	Snakes bite because they are snakes. It’s their nature, not your fault.
Closure comes from the other person.	Closure is a solo DIY project. It’s the decision to stop asking "why."
I need to prove I'm a good person.	Your character isn't defined by a predator's opinion of you.

The Reality of the Poison

While you are busy arguing with the snake or trying to analyze its upbringing/intentions, the venom is doing its work. In this metaphor, the venom represents:

Bitterness: Allowing the trauma to define your current mood.

Stagnation: Staying in the exact spot where you were hurt instead of moving toward safety.

Compounded Trauma: Giving the "snake" more of your time and energy than it ever deserved.

The Bottom Line: You cannot argue with venom. It doesn't care about your side of the story or your moral standing. It only cares about destroying you. The only way to "win" against a snake is to get as far away as possible and focus entirely on your own recovery.

Man's Search For Meaning

Nobody believes in nothing. That’s not a bug, it’s the factory setting for being human.

Food, shelter, Wi-Fi? Great. Still not enough.

Without meaning we go full existential meltdown → suicidal ideation speedrun.

Life without meaning isn’t life; it’s a loading screen that never finishes.

We come pre-installed with:

desperate hunger for meaning

surprisingly good hardware for detecting it

Babies don’t arrive asking “what’s the point?”

They arrive reverse-engineering the point from every scream, smile, bottle, and ceiling fan.

By age five we already have a rough draft worldview.

By thirty we’ve either patched it or doubled down on the bugs.

Wherever two or three humans are gathered, there’s gonna be:

strong opinions

what you must do

what you must never do

yelling matches about who’s right

Zero humans walk around with “eh, life has no meaning and I’m chill about it.”

Even the ones who say that are usually lying to themselves while hugging a philosophy pillow.

So the real question isn’t “What should I believe?”

It’s “Why this story and not that one?”

If you’re dead-set on staying Team Reductionism, cool.

Just know you’re choosing to look at reality through a keyhole and then announcing the whole universe is keyhole-shaped.

Bold marketing move.

You’ll still crave meaning (because humans), so you’ll quietly smuggle it in through back doors:

Greta Thunberg TED Talk energy

“the universe is random but my carbon footprint matters”

“aliens built the pyramids but God is cringe”

homeopathy, crypto, 4 a.m. manifestation TikToks

Chesterton called it 120 years ago:

“When people stop believing in God, they don’t believe in nothing — they believe in everything.”

Atheists who are chill and quiet about it exist.

We just never hear from them because they’re busy knitting scarves instead of rage-posting for 12 years straight.

The loud ones?

They run Reddit subs, Discord servers, YouTube channels, Twitter ratio wars, emergency hotlines of cope — all to scream “THERE IS NO MEANING!!!” at the top of their lungs.

That’s not peace. That’s exhausting yourself so the meaning can’t sneak back in.

Meanwhile the Torah just sits there like:

“I literally predicted Monday morning headlines 3,000 years ago.

You still mad about a talking snake?

Okay sweetie, take your time.”

Bottom line:

Reductionism isn’t a discovery.

It’s a vibe you picked.

A very confident, very arrogant, very selective vibe.

You can keep peeking through the keyhole if you want.

Or you can open the damn door and see the whole house — threats, mission, eternity, the works.

Your soul already knows the floor plan.

It’s been trying to tell you since you were six.

So… still wanna argue about Mesopotamian pottery shards,

or are we finally ready to stop LARPing as beings who don’t need meaning?

Ball’s in your court, fam. 😊

The Metaphysics of the Path: Amalek, Rachel, and the Eternal Struggle for "The Way"

1. The Exegetical Problem: The Double Mention of "Baderach"

The lecture begins by analyzing the biblical command regarding Amalek in Deuteronomy 25:17-18: "Remember what Amalek did to you on the way (baderach)... how he met you on the way (baderach)."

The speaker posits that the repetition of the phrase "on the way" is not redundant but signifies the essence of the conflict. Citing the Zohar, the lecture identifies Amalek as a "primordial snake" (Chivia Bisha) that lies in ambush on the path. This ambush is not merely physical or geographical but occurs on two planes:

From Above (Le’ela): An attack on the sanctity of the Divine Sanctuary.

From Below (Le’tata): An attack on the sanctity of Israel.

Amalek’s specific nature is that of an interrupter—an entity that positions itself specifically "on the way" to severe the connection between the traveler and their destination.

2. Philological Analysis: Derech (Way) as Drichah (Treading)

The speaker deconstructs the Hebrew root of "Way" (D-R-Ch). He argues that a path is not a passive existence but an active exertion of force.

Treading (Drichah): To walk is to tread (lidroch). This implies stepping on, subduing, and overcoming the ground beneath.

Tension and Potential: The root is linked to "treading a bow" (dorech keshet). Just as treading a bow creates tension to launch an arrow forward, being "on the way" implies a state of high tension, preparation, and the overcoming of resistance to generate movement.

Extraction: It is also linked to "treading grapes." This suggests that the "Way" is a process of extraction—bringing forth potential that is hidden or resistant.

Therefore, the spiritual concept of "The Way" represents becoming. It is the dynamic process of moving from a state of non-attainment to attainment, overcoming obstacles (michsholim) at every step. This defines the Jewish historical meta-narrative, beginning with the command to Abraham: Lech Lecha ("Go forth").

3. The Theological Conflict: Being vs. Becoming (Esau vs. Jacob)

The lecture contrasts two archetypes of existence:

Esau/Amalek (The Static "Made"): The name Esau is linguistically connected to Asui (fully made/completed). Esau represents a worldview that claims perfection in the present "now." He has no "way" because he believes he has already arrived. Consequently, he seeks to destroy the "way" of others.

Jacob/Israel (The Dynamic "Heel"): Jacob holds the heel (Akev), representing the future and the continuous journey. Israel is defined by the "Way"—the constant movement toward the Divine, moving "from strength to strength" (mechayil el chayil).

Amalek’s attack "on the way" is an attempt to freeze Israel’s dynamic becoming. By attacking the stragglers and cooling the spiritual fervor (karcha), Amalek tries to arrest the movement of history toward its divine telos.

4. Rachel: The Paradox of the House on the Road

A significant portion of the lecture is dedicated to the Matriarch Rachel.

The Foundation of the House: Rachel is called Akeret HaBayit (the mainstay/foundation of the house). She represents the ideal of the settled "House" (Bayit)—stability, intimacy, and arrival.

Burial on the Road: Despite being the essence of the "House," she is buried "on the way" to Efrat. The lecture explains this paradox: Rachel sacrifices her place in the "House" (burial in the Cave of Machpelah) to dwell "on the way."

Intercession for Exiles: She positions herself in the realm of instability (the road) to anchor her children when they are exiled. She transforms the "Way of Exile" into a "Way of Return" (Veshavu banim ligvulam). By being present in the exposure and danger of the road, she ensures that the path eventually leads back to the House.

5. Refidim and the Weakness of Hands

The first war with Amalek occurs at Refidim, which the Sages interpret as Rafu yidayhem (loosening of hands/spiritual weakness).

When Israel’s grip on the "Way"—their commitment to the tension of spiritual progress—weakens, the "Anti-Path" (Amalek) immediately appears.

The antidote is the raising of Moses' hands: re-engaging the tension, re-asserting the "treading" (drichah) over the reality that seeks to subdue them.

6. Conclusion: The Final Destination

The lecture concludes with an eschatological vision. The "Way" is not the final goal; the "House" (Rest/Nachalah) is.

Shabbat is described as the cessation of the "Way"—it is a taste of the destination.

Amalek represents the force that prevents the "Way" from ever becoming a "House." He thrives on chaos and eternal transit.

The erasure of Amalek (Timche et zecher Amalek) is the prerequisite for the arrival. Only when the obstacle on the road is removed can the "Way" conclude, allowing the Divine Name and Throne to be whole (Hashalem), and transforming the entire world from a place of struggle into the House of God.

Summary Statement:

The lecture presents the war against Amalek not as a singular historical event, but as an eternal metaphysical struggle between the dynamic force of spiritual evolution (Israel/The Way/Rachel's intercession) and the static force of spiritual stagnation and nihilism (Amalek/The Obstacle). Victory is achieved by maintaining the "treading" tension of the journey until the Path finally converts into the House. [עפ"י תורת מו"ר זצ"ל]

וישמע יתרו – מ"ת שמע, תלמידיו של אברהם ותלמידיו של בלעם הרשע

 יתרו תשס"ב

א. במ"ת אחזתן רעדה בהיכליהן של מלכי עכו"ם

בגמרא (זבחים קטז ע"א) נאמר: "וישמע יתרו כהן מדין מה שמועה שמע ובא ונתגייר?"

רבי אלעזר המודעי אומר: מתן תורה שמע ובא.

שכשניתנה תורה לישראל היה קולו של בורא העולם הולך מסוף העולם ועד סופו, וכל מלכי עובדי כוכבים אחזתן רעדה בהיכליהן ואמרו שירה, שנאמר "ובהיכלו כולו אומר כבוד".

נתקבצו כולם אצל בלעם הרשע ואמרו לו: מה קול ההמון אשר שמענו, שמא מבול בא לעולם?

אמר להם: "ה' למבול ישב וישב ה' מלך לעולם" – כבר נשבע הקב"ה שאינו מביא מבול לעולם.

אמרו לו: מבול של מים אינו מביא, אבל מבול של אש מביא? שנאמר "כי באש ה' נשפט".

אמר להם: כבר נשבע שאינו משחית כל בשר.

ומה קול ההמון הזה ששמענו?

אמר להם: חמדה טובה יש לו בבית גנזיו שהיתה גנוזה אצלו תתקע"ד דורות קודם שנברא העולם, וביקש ליתנה לבניו, שנאמר "ה' עוז לעמו יתן", מיד פתחו כולם ואמרו: "ה' יברך את עמו בשלום".

במתן תורה היו שתי התקבצויות:

כלל ישראל התקבץ כולו יחד "כאיש אחד בלב אחד" סביב משה רבינו, ואמרו "נעשה ונשמע" כאחד.

אצל הגויים – התקבצו כולם אצל בלעם הרשע, והוא אמר להם "שום דבר לא קורה", "ה' עוז לעמו יתן" – זה פרטי לעם ישראל בלבד.

מיד נרגעו ואמרו "ה' יברך את עמו בשלום" וחזרו לבתיהם.

מכל הזעזוע הנורא – "שמא מבול בא לעולם" – לא קרה כלום.

ב. תלמידיו של אברהם אבינו ותלמידיו של בלעם הרשע

כתוב במשנה (אבות ה, יט): כל מי שיש בידו שלושה דברים הללו – מתלמידיו של אברהם אבינו: עין טובה, רוח נמוכה, נפש שפלה.

ושלושה דברים אחרים – מתלמידיו של בלעם הרשע: עין רעה, רוח גבוהה, נפש רחבה.

תלמידי אברהם אוכלים בעולם הזה ונוחלים העולם הבא; תלמידי בלעם יורשים גיהנם ויורדים לבאר שחת.

קשה: האם כדי להגיע לעין רעה, רוח גבוהה ונפש רחבה צריך "רב ובית מדרש"? הרי מידות רעות הן טבעיות, לא צריך לימוד לכך.

ועוד: מניין להעמיד "זה לעומת זה" – אברהם אבינו כנגד בלעם הרשע?

ג. שפה אחת – לשון הקודש – עצם הדבר

בדור הפלגה כתוב: "ויהי כל הארץ שפה אחת ודברים אחדים".

רש"י בשם חז"ל: שפה אחת – לשון הקודש.

זו שפה שבה הדיבור אומר את הדבר עצמו (ולא "אודות הדבר"). האומר אומר בדיוק את מה שרצה, והשומע שומע בדיוק את מה שנאמר – התאמה מלאה.

רק בלשון הקודש זה אפשרי.

בדור הפלגה כולם הסכימו לקחת את העולם לעצמם ולנתק את השמים מהארץ ("כת אחת אמרה נעלה ונעשה עמו מלחמה").

הקב"ה בלבל את שפתם – "הבה נרדה ונבלה שם שפתם אשר לא ישמעו איש שפת רעהו".

מאז – 70 לשונות, כל אחד שומע אחרת.

אבל אברהם אבינו ("אברהם העברי" – מעבר אחד מול כל העולם) שמר על "שפה אחת ודברים אחדים".

התורה ניתנה בלשון זו – "ורוממתנו מכל הלשונות".

ד. מ"ת – הדיבור האמיתי

במתן תורה נשמע שוב הדיבור האמיתי – "אנכי ה' אלקיך".

קול ה' הלך מסוף העולם ועד סופו, זעזע את כל העולם.

מלכי מזרח ומערב (תמצית 70 האומות ו-70 הלשונות) התקבצו אצל בלעם – הנביא של האומות ("זה לעומת זה" מול משה).

בלעם קלט את הדיבור האמיתי – אבל עיקר אותו: "זה שייך לעם ישראל בלבד", "שום דבר לא קורה לכם".

הם נרגעו וחזרו הביתה.

ה. ניב שפתיים

נביא נקרא על שם "ניב שפתיים" – כי הוא שומע את הדיבור האמיתי מפי הקב"ה ואומר אותו כפי שהוא, והדיבור עושה פירות.

בלעם – נביא האומות – קלט את הדיבור, אבל הפך אותו: שמע ברכות והוציא מהן קללות (או להיפך).

הוא אמר "מה טובו אהליך יעקב" – אבל טען שזה רק "שם" (בעליונים), לא "כאן" (בעולם הזה).

זו עין רעה, רוח גבוהה, נפש רחבה – נפש שמפרידה בין מעלה למטה, בין שמים לארץ.

ו. בלעם הרשע כנגד אברהם אבינו

אברהם – תופס את הדברים כפי שהם ("שפה אחת ודברים אחדים") ומשפיע ברכה.

בלעם – תופס את אותו דיבור, אבל בנפש מעוקמת הופך אותו לקללה.

לעקור דיבור אלוקי אמיתי ולהפוך אותו ל"שום דבר" – לכך צריך בית מדרש של רשע.

ז. יתרו שמע ובא

יתרו שמע את אותו זעזוע (מתן תורה), אבל לא הלך בעצת בלעם.

הוא קלט את הדיבור כפי שהוא, בא והתגייר, והצטרף לטובה הגנוזה: "והיה הטוב ההוא אשר ייטיב ה' עמנו והטבנו לך".

מסקנה

גם היום, כשקורים דברים שזועקים לשמים ("קול ה' בכח, קול ה' בהדר, חוצב להבות אש"), יש כאלה שמתקבצים לשמוע "מה אומר בלעם" – והתשובה תמיד: "זה שום דבר", "זה יעבור".

מי שבוחר בדרך אברהם – שומע את האמת, מקבל אותה ומשפיע ברכה.

מי שבוחר בדרך בלעם – הופך אמת להיפוכה ואינו נוחל העולם הבא.

[סיכום שיעורו של מו"ר זצ"ל פ' יתרו תשס"ב]

Donald Winnicott on How the True and False Self Emerges

 

The power and peril of seeing, and being seen, has been with us from the beginning. Almost the first thing Adam and Eve do is seek to hide from being seen by God. (Good luck with that!) Much later, Hegel showed how, in contrast, the desire to be seen—the desire for recognition—is a motive force of human history, fueling the development of the arts, science, and philosophy. Later still, we are learning how critical being seen is to a child’s development.

The negative effects of not being seen are a core theme of Alice Miller’s Drama of the Gifted Child. This book made a deep impression when I first read it years ago, long before I became a psychotherapist. At the risk of triggering those (including myself) with an allergy to therapeutic speak—I felt seen. I wasn’t alone. Since its publication in 1979, the book has sold over a million copies worldwide.

Miller explores how some children use their “gift” of sensitivity to adapt to inadequate parenting. In particular, she describes how a “false self” develops from the “true self.” This distinction comes from the British pediatrician and psychoanalyst D.W. Winnicott, who observed and thought deeply about the relation of parents and children. (Many people besides biological parents can play the role of caregiver; I use the words “parent” and “mother” to preserve the archetypal resonances.) I expect many readers will recognize aspects of their experience in Winnicott’s influential account of how we can come to feel lost to our true selves.

We all need a ‘false’ self. As Winnicott notes, “Each person has a polite or socialized self, and also a personal private self that is not available except for intimacy.”1 Someone gives you a heartfelt gift that you don’t like. But you say you like it because you see there is nothing to be gained by saying how you really feel. The social world depends on having this polite self capable of getting along by masking our true thoughts and feelings.

Donald Winnicott

For Winnicott, the “false self disorder” arises in “those who have unconsciously needed to organize a false-self front to cope with the world, this false front being a defense designed to protect the true self. (The true self has been traumatized and it must never be found and wounded again.)”

For example, I worked with a young man who was a born artist and illustrator. But his parents had other ideas for him, and found his love of art threatening. When I met him he was a few years out of college and struggling with addiction. For much of his life he had complied with his parents, even bowing to their pressure to study biology instead of art. But now he felt lost, neither pursuing medicine (his parents’ dream for him) nor making art. Having lost his early confidence that art was his true calling, he was, in his own words “out of touch” with himself, “unable to tell what is true.” He felt “split,” part of him identified with his parents’ view that pursuing art was a waste of his ability, while another part hated them for discouraging his passion.

Unless it’s strategic—like a “thank-you” we don’t truly mean—hiding out isn’t good for us. For my patient, numbing with substances had become a way of hiding out. After awhile, our true self may be so well hidden that even we can’t find it. Which is a problem, because we have an existential need to be seen; without mirroring and recognition, we suffer. This is especially true in early childhood, when a child’s sense of self is being established.

We can see how inadequate parenting interferes with this process by looking first to what Winnicott thinks “good enough” parents do. He coined this now-ubiquitous phrase to describe parents who are well-enough resourced that they’re able to give their child proper attention. These resources may be external, like having enough money that they can afford to spend time with the child; and internal, like being healthy enough that they don’t project their own needs and anxieties onto the child. Unfortunately, this is what my patient’s parents had done. They hadn’t intended to make him feel ashamed for being who he was. But in cases of false-self disorders, the harm comes from a pattern of not paying attention in a way that helps the child feel seen and loved for who they are. In his case, the discouragement of his creativity was felt as a more general rejection of who he is.

So, what are good-enough parents doing? We know from research on attachment and interpersonal neurobiology how formative early experience is. And this is precisely where Winnicott starts, looking at the first few months of life. He describes the infant of a good-enough mother having the experience that wherever they ‘look,’ they ‘see’ themselves. In other words, they experience the mother or “other” as an extension of themselves. Winnicott calls this early period “primary maternal preoccupation” because the mother is fully available to meet the infant’s needs. The infant feels seen because whenever they are hungry or tired, the world seamlessly arranges itself to meet their need: the breast appears, the mother provides for comfort and rest. Thus a secure sense of self takes root. I imagine our (precocious!) infant thinking, Whatever else this world may turn out to be, it has started by providing so well for my needs that I hardly know what frustrated need or want feels like.

During the first few months, anyway. For as Winnicott describes it, good-enough parents are neither indulgent nor neglectful. Which means that paradise will gradually be lost. As the infant matures, the parents become considerably less preoccupied. They begin returning to their other concerns: their other children, friendships, marriage, work, avocations, and so on. In doing so, they model what they naturally hope to instill in their child: a healthy regard for self and others.

As parental preoccupation diminishes, the infant starts to notice that the world is not an extension of themselves after all. Others are out there, with sometimes opposing wants and needs. Appallingly, they are even prepared to insist on them! What the good-enough parent knows, of course, is that soon enough the larger world will be sending this same message about others and boundaries, often with much less care! In that case, where better for the child to learn it first than from those who love them most?

Thus good enough parents adapt their behavior to the developing child’s needs. Winnicott calls what they provide a “holding environment”—a safe but not always comfortable place. Consider the toddler who is expected to restrain themselves: Well, it’s frustrating that I’m not to bite or hit others, but it’s not too frustrating. In other words, they continue to feel seen and loved, even as they are gradually expected to see and acknowledge the wants and needs of others—like not wanting to be bit, or wanting a “thank-you.” The polite social self is emerging, but it’s not a false self disorder because they are not being pressed into a premature adaptation.

Which brings me back to the “gifted child” who has the sensitivity and awareness precociously to grasp what others (initially their parents) need from them. As with the toddler, this is normal. But when the parenting isn’t good enough—when the parents are under-resourced—such a child over-adapts. In return for being who they imagine others want or need them to be, they hope to feel seen and loved. Alas, it’s their emerging false self that’s being seen and reinforced. The true self goes missing as the child splits off from their own wants and needs in order to comply with others. I’m reminded of an analyst who wrote that he was “made into a clothes horse for all my mother’s illusions.” Similarly, my patient had complied with his parents until he didn’t. His addiction forced him (and his parents) to notice the parts of him that were now refusing to live any life but his own.

He knew he mattered to his parents, that they loved him and expected good things for him. Other children, however, develop a false self in response to feeling that they don’t matter. This was the case with a 40-year-old patient. The fourth of five siblings, she had largely been overlooked by her parents. She had spent much of her life trying to shine brightly enough to be seen and admired, and loved. Bright and sensitive, she’d learned early that she got attention when she performed well, so that’s what she did. (Her mother once told her, “You were such a good baby, you basically toilet-trained yourself.”) Over time she became identified with a false self that was status- and accomplishment-driven. Yet, despite outward success, she struggled with persistent feelings of inadequacy, anxiety, loneliness, and depression. Early in therapy she said, “I have been so busy trying to please and impress others that I have no idea what I really want. I don’t even know where to start to find out.”

As I first learned from Miller, and later from my own therapy, we can rediscover the true self (which is not a thing but a way of being). However it happens, whether through over-involvement or neglect, through making a child into a “clothes horse” for parental illusions or overlooking them entirely, the core dynamic is the same: the child’s true self goes into hiding, while the false self adapts to make the best of it. And so the gift of sensitivity becomes both blessing and curse–allowing some children to adapt brilliantly to their parents’ needs but at the expense of losing touch with their own. Yet there’s hope. For the same sensitivity that once enabled hiding can help us rediscover our true self. The journey back, as Winnicott and Miller emphasized, begins with recognizing how and why we learned to hide in the first place.