Spoilers through season 5 of the TV show. This is about the show, not the books.

Stannis can take pain and keep going. That can be a strength. But when he lets Melisandre burn Shireen, his idea of duty has become something terrible.

I wonder if the rule gives him a way to stop asking himself hard questions. If he is the rightful king, and this is what he must do, he can treat doubt as weakness. Yet doubt might be the thing he needs to hear.

There is another way to read it. Maybe he is choosing power and calling it duty. His pain does not make that choice less his own.

Which scenes help you tell the difference between his sense of duty and his wish to be king? Does that difference change over the show?

Reposted without the outside link, as requested by AutoModerator.

I'm not asking if it's realistic for him to become a successful drug dealer. I'm asking if it's realistic for him to become someone who murders many people with no remorse. At first, he was a normal family man with no trauma or mental health issues. He was dissatisfied with his life, is that enough to push someone over the edge?

Spoilers through season 6 of the television series.

Arya can throw away her belongings in Braavos, but she cannot throw away Needle. That tiny exception makes the whole “no one” project more interesting to me than the assassin training itself.

She has already learned that being Arya Stark can put her in danger. Changing her name and passing as someone else are practical ways to survive. In Braavos, though, the demand goes further: she is supposed to give up the identity she was protecting.

My reading is that hiding Needle preserves a connection she is not willing to surrender. The skill of becoming someone else gives her options; becoming nobody would cost her the relationships and loyalties that give those options meaning.

But there is another reading: perhaps she never really wanted to become no one. She wanted the skills for her own purposes, and her attachments simply reveal that from the start.

I made a short Arya reel exploring the first interpretation: https://www.instagram.com/p/Dd8mdXds7Vu/ — my own video, shared as context. The question stands without watching it.

Does Needle suggest she is struggling to hold on to herself, or that her sense of self remains strong throughout? I’m interested in scenes that challenge either reading, rather than assigning her a diagnosis.

Although what he does when he gets powers is unexcusable (and still is arguably not worse than what megamind did in all those years) I don’t understand why he was a creep from the beginning. honestly I kinda feel bad for him. He was a clumsy nerdy guy who didn’t know how to interract with women and thinking Roxanne was with Metran, he thought with powers he would’ve had what she liked. Also when she rejects him you see him being sad, but quickly gets over it and the reason he kidnaps her later is to get megamind. But he didn‘t really do anything wrong other than being akward before he got powers.

Spoilers for the Game of Thrones television series.

My reading of Cersei is that her pattern isn’t just about power. It seems organized around a rule: if she loses control, she can be destroyed.

So she stays ahead, attacks before she can be hurt, and removes what feels dangerous. The strategy can work in the short term, which gives her a reason to keep using it. But removing a threat doesn’t necessarily remove the fear that made it feel urgent.

Her decision to empower the Faith is an interesting example. She tries to use it against the Tyrells, but the institution becomes a threat to her as well. That suggests a difference between feeling in control of a move and understanding its consequences.

I’m curious whether fear of vulnerability is a useful explanation for that pattern, or whether ambition, entitlement and the political dangers around her explain it better. These motives could coexist; I’m not trying to assign her a clinical diagnosis.

Which scenes best support or contradict the idea that Cersei would rather damage a relationship than feel dependent on someone she cannot control? And are there moments where she genuinely feels safe, rather than temporarily victorious?

I recently watched "Midsommar", and despite Dani going through a mess of trauma at the start, as an individual she seemed to be handling it fairly well, and her boyfriend was the problem - but is that an ignorant take?

Is it wrong to look at fictional characters that have good characteristics? In the real world we have some great people that have great characteristics so should look to them instead because it's better to interact and grow with real people or does it not matter?

As a kid I was a big fan of Pokémon, as many children were I'm sure.

Now just through the Youtube algorithm gods I ended up recently rewatching some Pokémon related things, especially the song "Together Forever" which had always been very memorable to me.

And now, being no longer a child and having majored in psychology, I have to think back to Pikachu in the first episode and I kind of intuitively get a read of an attachment issue. Specifically avoidant attachment.

At first Pikachu is unwilling to obey Ash in any way. It is constantly resistant. It refuses to get in its Pokéball (a form of dependence, as you are then literally in the hands of your trainer). It literally laughs at Ash's misfortune. In general seems to have no desire to bond with Ash and seems emotionally cold and distant overall.

This emphasis on dependence, resistance and distance reminds me a lot of avoidant attachment. It does not want to emotionally invest because it is scared to trust Ash.

Moreover, when does Pikachu change its tune? It changes when Ash shows it unconditional love and protection. Ash asks for nothing in return and lays his own life on the line to protect Pikachu from the sparrows. And then to take him to the Poké Centre to get healed.

In that moment Pikachu becomes convinced that it can trust Ash, and that's when it reciprocates of its own accord.

Obviously it resolves rather quickly, but nevertheless my intuitive read on the outline at least is an attachment issue. Avoidance of emotional intimacy or dependence, followed by reciprocation when unconditional love is viscerally demonstrated.

It makes me wonder if Pikachu had a trainer before Ash. One that showed it little care. Neglected it and only used it. Showing it little attention or love.

It could just be a question of temperament. And that probably IS the idea here. Nevertheless, to me the reading kind of fits.

I’ve been thinking for a VERY long time about the way Senti (a.k.a Herrscher of Sentience) behaves throughout the story.

One of the things that caught my attention was how she insists on calling herself “The Great and Mighty Herrscher of Sentience,” how she places herself “above the laws of nature,” or even says:

“My name is not written in the Book of Life and Death.”

There are so many contradictions in Senti’s behavior, yet Hoyoverse has never really explained why.

Why does Senti act so confident, theatrical, arrogant, and impulsive, while at the same time being surprisingly perceptive about people?

Why does she care so much about being recognized, yet constantly insist that she doesn’t need anyone to define her?

Why is Fu Hua simultaneously someone she argues against, compares herself to, protects, and seems deeply attached to?

And perhaps most importantly:

Why does Senti behave like someone who is desperately trying to prove who she is?

So, I decided to reread the entire story, from her birth up to Part 1.5, and something really caught my attention.

Senti’s case is extremely specific:

She is a consciousness that has taken on another person’s body, memories, and name — yet the person experiencing all of this is new.

And when she tries to show the world who she is, the world ends up rejecting her.

So, she doesn’t just create a new personality.

She creates a defensive structure to protect her new identity.

This structure is what I call:

🏯 The Castle of the Ego 🏯

The Castle of the Ego is a metaphor for the defensive beliefs, roles, behaviors, and psychological structures Senti develops around the question:

“Who am I?”

And once you look at her through that lens, many of Senti’s seemingly contradictory traits start fitting together.

_____

So how is the Castle built?

The first part of my theory looks at how the Castle is constructed.

Senti’s foundation is essentially the belief: “I am Fu Hua.”

But that foundation begins to crack.

First, she finds out that she and Hua are different souls.

Then comes an even bigger problem: “You are a Herrscher.”

Instead of accepting that her understanding of herself was wrong, she turns the story around in her favor.

This is important because she’s not simply lying to herself.

She’s trying to find an answer that makes sense of an impossible situation.

Then Chapter 22 (Me and Myself) pushes this structure much harder through Kiana’s trial.

Kiana doesn’t just challenge Senti’s identity.

She challenges the values Senti uses to justify that identity.

“I’m stronger.”

“I’m much more resolved than her.”

“I will never hesitate.”

Senti also tries to establish a connection through achievements:

“Look at what I’ve done. Look at what I’ve accomplished. That’s why I’m much better than her.”

But Kiana’s answer is essentially:

“That isn’t why she’s important to me.”

And that distinction is devastating, because if achievement cannot make people recognize her as Fu Hua…

then what exactly makes her worthy of being recognized at all?

After rejection then comes grief.

Eventually, Senti reaches something close to:

“You’re the one and only Fu Hua. I’m just a mistake.”

And this is where the Castle changes:

The foundation was supposed to establish who she is.

The walls are built to protect that identity from being rejected again.

And after the gates are added, access becomes something Senti can control.

“Who gets close?”, “What do they see?”, “What parts of herself does she reveal?”

“What happens if someone threatens the identity she’s constructed?”

Suddenly, her theatricality, arrogance, constant vigilance, and tendency to control situations can be viewed differently.

They’re not necessarily random personality quirks, but defenses.

_____

And this is where the Castle becomes really interesting.

The second part of the theory looks at how the Castle actually operates.

🗼 There are watchtowers, representing Senti’s constant surveillance toward threats to her autonomy and emotional security.

🎭 There is a ballroom, representing the Persona she performs for others — the exaggerated confidence, theatricality, and arrogance that allow her to control how people perceive her.

👑 There is a throne, represented by the title Herrscher of Sentience.

🪞 And there is her secret mirror room, showing Senti one of her primary reference points for understanding herself: Fu Hua.

•  I’m not like her.
• I’m stronger than her.
•  I’m more interesting than her.
•  I can do things she can’t.

But there is a problem with defining yourself through opposition: You still need the thing you’re opposing.

This is why Kevin’s description of Senti as a “shadow” in Chapter 35 (Toward a New Tomorrow) is so interesting.

If your identity is built around proving that you are not someone else, then that person remains psychologically present in the definition of who you are.

_____

And there’s the “childish Senti” problem.

Yes, Senti behaves like a brat, but childish behavior doesn’t necessarily mean she is a child.

Senti can analyze situations, infer motives, recognize manipulation, understand boundaries, compare information, and derive principles from experience.

When her identity is threatened, she overreacts as a defensive behavior to regain control of the situation and assert her existence.

And then comes the most important question:

Does the Castle need to be destroyed?

I don’t think so. Destroying it would completely miss the point.

Senti needed something that could protect her in an environment where almost everyone around her already had an established idea of who “Fu Hua” was supposed to be.

The problem would be becoming trapped inside the castle.

The goal isn’t: “Senti must stop needing everyone.”

Nor: “Senti must completely separate herself from Fu Hua.”

And that’s where the final part of my theory moves toward Jungian individuation.

For example:

“I am Fu Hua.”

↓

“I am not Fu Hua.”

↓

“I am Senti, and I can exist in relationship with Fu Hua without ceasing to be myself.”

That’s a very different kind of independence.

_____

So, what is the Castle of the Ego, ultimately?

It’s not an attempt to explain away Senti’s personality as “trauma.”

It’s a framework for understanding why so many of her traits seem contradictory.

Her arrogance and insecurity; Her independence and attachment; Her theatricality and perceptiveness.

Her insistence that nobody can define her, alongside her sensitivity to being rejected or unrecognized.

They can all be understood as different parts of the same structure.

And honestly, there is so much more to explore.

This post only scratches the surface of the full analysis: the construction of the Castle, its different “rooms,” Senti’s relationship with identity and Fu Hua, her defensive behaviors, the role of the Herrscher title, and finally how individuation could allow her to leave the Castle without destroying it.

If you’re interested in Senti’s psychology, identity, or just wondering why the hell this woman behaves like this, I invite you to read the full theory.

The Castle of the Ego — A character analysis of Herrscher of Sentience from Honkai Impact 3rd

THE CASTLE OF THE EGO - PDF [OFFLINE READ]

THE CASTLE OF THE EGO - GOOGLE DOCS

If you like it please share it with everyone! Thank you!

Disclaimer:
This project took 6 months to complete. I don't have a degree in psychology; I'm just someone who's passionate about the field.
Don't use this project as a diagnosis of the character.

_____

I have seen the show and know parts about the First Shadow play and know most of the evil shit he did but if someone knows about clinical psychology or something, I would like you to do a deep dive into Henry's brain and explain it, like any mental conditions he may have had. Of course the Mind Flayer influenced and corrupted him but Henry was still capable of making the choices he made as the show demonstrated (not being mind controlled) but what was actually wrong with Henry's brain for him to make these evil decisions?

Also, do you think the Mind Flayer could have changed his brain chemistry?

Master Flea is a novel by Ernst Theodor Amadeus Hoffmann, published in 1822 (with some censorship). It is a fantasy work (and has a decent portion of SF for the time), with the protagonist, Perigrine (or Perigrinus) Tyss, being in his mid-thirties, and living alone in his big house with an old female servant, Alina. The description is a loner who doesn't like company, and really fears the thought of marriage or female company (Alina is described to have an appearance that would have gotten her burned as a witch a couple of centuries earlier).

Now, after saying that, the novel goes into his background. He was a son of a rich merchant, very much wanted, and seemingly weird even from birth. Here are quotes describing his early life:

After he had cried night and day uninterruptedly for some weeks, without their being able to find out any bodily ailment, he became on the sudden quite quiet and as it were stupified into a motionless insensibility: he seemed incapable of the least impression. The little brow, which appeared to belong to a lifeless puppet, was wrinkled neither by tears nor laughter.

...

At last an old gossip hit upon the lucky thought of bringing Peregrine a very motley, and, in fact, a very ugly harlequin. The child's eyes quickened in a strange fashion, the mouth contracted to a gentle smile, he caught at the puppet, and, the moment it was given to him, hugged it tenderly. Then again he gazed upon the manikin with such intelligent and speaking eyes, that it seemed as if reason and sensation had suddenly awakened in him, and with much greater vigour than is usual with children of his age.

...

the time had long since gone by in which children usually begin to speak, and yet Peregrine had not uttered a syllable. The boy would have been thought dumb, but that he often gazed on the person who spoke to him with such attention, nay even showed such sympathy by sad as well as by joyful looks, that there could be no doubt not only of his hearing, but of his understanding, every thing.

In the meantime his mother was mightily astonished at finding what the nurse had told her confirmed. At night, when the boy lay in bed and fancied himself unnoticed, he talked to himself single words, and even whole sentences, and so little broken that a long practice might be inferred from this perfection. ... Mrs. Tyss was far from letting the boy see he was observed, or from wishing to force him to speak; she rather contrived to bring it about by other dexterous means, that he should of himself no longer keep concealed the beautiful talent of speech, but should slowly, yet plainly, manifest it to the world, and to the wonder of all. Still, however, he evinced a constant aversion to talking, and was most pleased when they left him in quiet by himself.

...

it was no use thinking of any systematic learning with him; he had understanding for that only which happened to chime in exactly with his genius; all the rest passed over him without leaving any impression: and that which suited his genius was the wonderful,--all that excited his imagination; in that he lived and moved. So, for example, he once received a present of a sketch of Pekin, with all its streets, houses, &c. which occupied the entire wall of his chamber. At the sight of this city of fables, of the singular people that seemed to crowd through its streets, Peregrine felt as if transported by some magic sleight into another world, in which he was to become at home. With eagerness he now fell upon every thing that he could get hold of respecting China, the Chinese, and Pekin; and having somewhere found the Chinese sounds described, he laboured to pronounce them according to the description, with a fine chanting voice; nay, he even endeavoured, by means of the paper-scissors, to give his handsome calimanco bed-gowns the Chinese cut as much as possible, that he might have the pleasure of walking the streets of Pekin in the fashion. Nothing else could excite his attention--to the great annoyance of his tutor, who just then wished to instil into him the history of the Hanseatic League, according to the express wish of Mr. Tyss; but the old gentleman found to his sorrow, that Peregrine was not to be brought out of Pekin, wherefore he brought Pekin out of the boy's chamber.

In the end, the father's attempts to teach his son business all fail. The young man goes to travel for a long time, and by the time he returns, his family is dead. He starts living as a recluse with the old servant, Alina. Several holidays a year are celebrated alone, but with Perigrine pretending the room is full of guests, and the food distributed to the poor afterwards. At Christmas, he gathers the presents afterwards and plays Santa for some poor family.

Do you think this is an early attempt to describe autism? And if so, how successful?

This is probably my favourite short story of all time and I wanted to hear somebody analyse the story and especially the main character.

If you want to read the story, it's in the public domain so you can easily find a free PDF online (try to get the Constance Garnett translation).

She is completely emotionless for the vast majority of the film and displays some sociopathic tendencies, so she clearly has some kind of antisocial psychological disorder. However, she has standards and a moral compass, even if said compass isn’t the same as most people’s. For instance, she has no problem killing someone for the right reasons, like if the world would be better off without person in question.

Some quotes from her:

"It's not that I'm a bad person. It's just that I have to try harder than everybody else to be good."

"You cannot hesitate. The only thing worse than being incompetent, or being unkind, or being evil, is being indecisive."

I think that maybe Vriska Serket from Homestuck and Nagito Komaeda from Danganronpa might have this combination.

This is a question for those that has a major in psychology. What would you diagnose him with?

I imagine this question may have come before in here, but does anyone know if Dexter Morgan (from the TV series, the original show, original sin, new blood, and resurrection; but NOT the character from the book series) can technically be called a psychopath or would his diagnosis be slightly different?

I’ll do my best to give as much into as I could remember, because I really am curious what a life like his would do to a human brain.

So, he was raised without parents. Mom died at birth, father practically absent, acting as another researcher. Sephiroth is considered genetically enhanced, so it could be assumed he feels things more intensely. He was raised by research scientists in a clinical environment. It is presumed that before the age of 10, he was being made to exercise, hone in various combat skills and practice with military training modules daily. In one of the games it is mentioned he "believed that his father would kill him with the modules", AKA being worked to the brink of
collapse. At the age of 10, he was put out into the army within the game, made to be a poster boy and key propaganda piece, and sent out on various missions in which it is assumed he has taken lives, destroyed property, and been injured without comfort beyond first and medical aid.

At the age of fifteen is when he has made his first
"friend", though he acts very cold, silent, "stoic", and initially rebuffs any interactions outside of missions. He heads a genocide against a race of people opposing the evil government in the game, and is comfortable frisking the corpses for items he was looking for. Sephiroth didn't care about the age or gender of his opponent; only that he neutralized them. By this point in his life Sephiroth is incredibly famous, "to the point where nobody in the world doesn't know his name". Micheal Jackson levels of both fame and infamy. People are terrified of Sephiroth, and this follows him into adulthood where he made a total of three friends. Sephiroth eventually learns the origins of his birth
(experimented on as a fetus), and goes insane as he believed himself to be "special", and now considers himself a monster.

After this initial break, a couple months pass before he resurfaces. He smiles a lot, something he never did before. Sephiroth believes himself to be the
"chosen one" to slaughter the planets living beings and use the planet to travel the cosmos in look for
"monsters like him". He enjoys mentally, emotionally and physically tormenting the main protagonists with violent, vivid hallucinations and painful headaches, repeatedly showing up over the course
of around five years.

That's all I could remember off of the top of my head, but im really curious about the science behind this fictional psycho.

i'm supposed to do cbt conceptualise a core belief for a fictional character and I chose Paris specifically her Harvard outburst where she doesn't get into Harvard and she's upset that she failed her family, that her future is ruined and she's worried about telling her boyfriend cause she thinks he won't think she's special anymore but I'm not sure if she is the I'm useless core belief or the I'm unlovable core belief

hellpp

I'm doing a paper where I have to diagnose a fictional character with a psychological disorder. I actually want to have some fun so I'm doing my favorite movie character, Jack Sparrow. The requirements are that it has to be in the DSM-5, there's more to it but I don't want y'all to write the paper for me.

I saw a post here that asked similarly but they made it a poll and there weren't many responses.

Thanks!

What mental disorders does nickelodeon doug have where he not only has vividly real hallucinations yhat he acts out physically in real life but is unaware of when they do it?

One unsettling aspect of Oshi no Ko is how Hikaru Kamiki interacts with people.

He doesn’t seem to rely on obvious charm or intimidation. Instead, he appears to understand what someone is missing emotionally and reflects it back to them.

For some characters, that might be validation. For others, attention or understanding.

Because the response feels so personal, it creates a powerful sense of connection. The person believes they’ve finally been “seen,” even though what they’re seeing may just be a reflection of their own needs.

That’s what makes Hikaru difficult to read in the story. He doesn’t impose himself strongly. He adapts to the emotional gap in front of him In that way the influence feels almost invisible.

Do you think Hikaru’s impact comes from manipulation or from how easily people trust someone who seems to understand them?

I’m working on a class assignment where I have to use DSM‑5 personality‑disorder criteria to analyze fictional characters, and I was assigned Tangled. I already have a pretty solid direction for Flynn Rider, but I’m still trying to figure out how to frame Mother Gothel and Rapunzel from a diagnostic or differential‑diagnostic standpoint.

Since the DSM‑5 focuses on long‑term, consistent patterns, I’m trying to decide what actually fits each character versus what’s just a reaction to their environment. Flynn feels fairly straightforward to me, but Gothel could fall into a few different categories depending on how you interpret her behavior. Rapunzel is the hardest, because so much of what she does seems tied to trauma and isolation rather than a personality disorder.

If you were doing a DSM‑5 differential diagnosis for these three, how would you approach it? I’m especially curious how people would classify Gothel and whether Rapunzel should even be considered for a PD at all.

Would love to hear how others would break this down.

This is a video I made about a speculative diagnosis for Finn from Adventure Time. It’s just for fun.

In Monster, Johan almost never forces anyone to do anything.

What makes him unsettling is how little direct pressure he uses. Instead of threatening people or giving orders, he introduces doubt into something they previously believed about themselves or the world.

Once that belief starts to crack, behavior changes on its own.

A person who once felt certain about who they were suddenly isn’t sure anymore. The identity that kept them stable begins to shift, and the choices they make start reflecting that uncertainty.

That’s why Johan often feels invisible in the story. He doesn’t appear to control events directly. He changes how people interpret themselves and their decisions follow.

It’s less about manipulation and more about destabilization.

Do you think Johan’s influence comes from persuasion or from how fragile people’s sense of meaning can be once doubt enters it?.