Channel
@attachment_theory
On this record: Growth · Engagement · What this channel posts · Reactions · Posts · Posts edited after publishing · Citations · Telegram's recommendations · Cite this entry
14,956subscribers
-4 since we began measuring on 6 August 2026
Risers and fallers across the register · movement among entries of 10,000–31,623.
| Telegram ID | -1001467243531 |
|---|---|
| Type | Channel |
| Username | @attachment_theory |
| Description | Жизнь — не проблема, с которой нужно «справиться». |
| Created | Between 1 April 2019 and 31 August 2021— estimated from Telegram’s id allocation, not measured. How this range is calculated. |
| First recorded | 6 August 2026 |
| Last confirmed live | 12 August 2026 |
| Measurements held | 7 |
| Confirmed unchanged | 1 time, most recently 12 August 2026 |
| On Telegram | t.me/attachment_theory |
| Measured (UTC) | Subscribers | Change |
|---|---|---|
| 12 Aug 2026, 13:37 | 14,956 | -5 |
| 11 Aug 2026, 15:42 | 14,961 | -4 |
| 10 Aug 2026, 19:17 | 14,965 | -1 |
| 9 Aug 2026, 19:02 | 14,966 | -2 |
| 8 Aug 2026, 17:44 | 14,968 | +4 |
| 7 Aug 2026, 14:32 | 14,964 | +4 |
| 6 Aug 2026, 20:33 | 14,960 | first reading |
21 posts held, back to 29 July 2026 — the reader has not yet reached the start of this channel’s public history, so older posts may sit further back, unread. Read across 17 pagesof Telegram’s post history, 20 posts per page.
ERR is average views per post over the last 30 days divided by subscribers, the definition TGStat uses, so this figure is comparable with the one you will see elsewhere. It falls structurally as a channel grows: a high ERR on a small channel and a low one on a large channel describe reach mathematics, not quality. We publish the figure and the sample it came from and pass no verdict on it.
ER is defined industry-wide as (forwards + reactions + comments) ÷ views— note the denominator is views, not subscribers. Telegram’s public web preview carries views and reactions but not forward or comment counts, so the reaction rate above is the reactions term only and is therefore a floor: the true ER for this channel is higher by an amount we have not measured and will not estimate.
| Window | Rolling 30 days · latest post in window 12 August 2026 |
|---|---|
| Posts held | 21 (29 July 2026 – 12 August 2026) |
| Views total | 28,957 |
| Reactions total | 872 |
| Forwards / comments | not exposed by the public surface — not measured, not estimated |
| Readings taken | 13 Aug 2026, 01:40 UTC |
Views are a single reading per post, taken at the time above. A post published in the last day or two is still accumulating views, which pulls the 30-day average down slightly. That is a property of the standard definition rather than a fault in it, so we keep the definition rather than “correcting” the number into something nobody can reproduce.
Precision. Telegram publishes view counts on its public widget in short form — 8.12K, 3.7M — so any reading at or above 1,000 reaches us rounded to three significant figures, and only counts below 1,000 are exact. Averages and rates derived from them are shown to the same precision rather than to the unit: a figure like 3,701,250 would assert digits nobody measured.
Reaction counts are published per emoji and rounded the same way, so a total below 1,000 is exact and a larger one is a sum that may carry a rounded component from each emoji above 1,000. Because it is a sum, it does not look rounded — read a large reaction total as three significant figures per contributing emoji rather than as the figure it prints.
Lifetime counters from Telegram’s own channel header, read 13 August 2026 — not the date at the top of this page, which is when the subscriber count was last read. Below Telegram’s rounding threshold, so these counts are exact.
Measured directly from 2 videos with a duration reading, out of the posts we hold for this channel — not this channel’s whole posting history, only the sample this register has actually read. An exact reading to the second, taken from the post itself rather than from Telegram’s own rounded chrome, so it carries no ≈ mark.
872 reactions across 21 posts, in 15 distinct kinds. The most used accounts for 54.2% of them.
| Reaction | Count | Share | Share, drawn |
|---|---|---|---|
| ❤ | 473 | 54.2% | |
| 😁 | 97 | 11.1% | |
| 🔥 | 91 | 10.4% | |
| 👍 | 55 | 6.31% | |
| 😱 | 49 | 5.62% | |
| 👎 | 37 | 4.24% | |
| 🙏 | 15 | 1.72% | |
| 🥰 | 15 | 1.72% | |
| 🕊 | 13 | 1.49% | |
| 👏 | 9 | 1.03% | |
| 😢 | 5 | 0.573% | |
| 🤓 | 4 | 0.459% | |
| 🥴 | 4 | 0.459% | |
| 🤝 | 3 | 0.344% | |
| 🦄 | 2 | 0.229% |
No sentiment is inferred, and none should be read in. This table is ordered by count and by nothing else. Emoji do not carry stable meaning across languages or communities — 🙏 is thanks in one channel and mourning in another — so we publish which ones were pressed and how often, and pass no judgement on what an audience meant by them.
Precision. Telegram publishes reaction counts per emoji and short-forms each one — 4.34K, 1.2M — so any single kind at or above 1,000 reaches us at three significant figures, and only counts below 1,000 are exact. The shares above are ratios of those figures and carry the same error. This is also why the total here can differ slightly from a reaction total printed elsewhere on the page: both are sums of the same rounded parts, taken over samples with different edges.
Coverage. Reactions were read on 21 of the 21 sampled posts in this sample. Summed by Telegram’s own count on each post — not by adding up the per-emoji breakdown above — those same posts carry 872reactions in total: the kind of figure the paragraph above means by “a reaction total printed elsewhere on the page”.
Measured over the 21 most recent posts we hold, published 29 July 2026 to 12 August 2026, using the newest reading held for each. Telegram Stars are excluded: they are a payment, not a reaction, and they have their own section.
Товарищи, а скажите (только чур как есть), а есть ли у вас стыд за свои слабости, или свои болезни, или свою менталку (когда она плывет), или вообще за свою какую-то временную или постоянную “ненормальность”? И второй вопрос, тоже важный: мешает ли этот стыд вам говорить о своих проблемах, своих болях и прочем?
❤18🔥3
Signed Daniel Ost.
💠 Как люди создают метки готовности к сотрудничеству В предыдущем посте речь шла о метках сходства: сотрудничество легче поддерживается, если по некоторым признакам можно отличить вероятного кооператора от того, кто воспользуется чужой помощью. Но у людей такие признаки не обязательно даны от рождения. Мы можем сами приобретать качества, которые делают нас более подходящими партнёрами и одновременно показывают окру…
❤9
Signed Daniel Ost.
Что-то на избегающем Источник — Пабло Радини
😁42👍10🤓4❤3🔥2😢1
Signed Daniel Ost.
Простите за длительное молчание в эфире — было очень насыщенное и любопытное время, и хочется поделиться некоторыми инсайтами. Первое. Ходит такая фраза “Сначала маску на мать, потом на ребенка”… знаете, скорее всего, это терапевтическую аналогию с авариями в воздухе. Дескать, если мать позаботится о себе, то сможет помочь и ребенку. В этом есть правда — для аварий в воздухе. Но сам по себе выбор в этой ситуации, …
❤32🕊5
Signed Daniel Ost.
Все получилось. Больше никого не ищем :) Коллеги, вопрос очень важный. Для моего обучения оценке привязанности мне нужно найти еще 1-2 семьи из Минска и провести Интервью о привязанности, Незнакомую ситуацию и Оценку взаимодействия в быту. С обоими родителями, по возможности родителей. Собственно, поэтому и нужна семьи с ребенком до 5 лет. По итогам выдам вам огромную оценку-описание, отвечу на любые вопросы, про…
❤27👏4
Signed Daniel Ost.
Многие родители многих детей просто очень их любят. Просто безмерно, до слияния, до любования какашками и соплями. И это не просто норм, это ультра-норм, особенно на фоне довольно скудных семейных связей прошлых поколений. Поэтому, кстати, удивляют меня семьи, которые «едины» — они знаются с братьями и сестрами (в тч двоюродными и троюродными), ездят друг к другу, гостят друг у друга. Как-то выстояли в истории, удер…
❤31👍2
Signed Daniel Ost.
Почему теорию привязанности неправильно понимают? Давайте сегодня обсудим два мифа. Например, первый «миф», что можно воспитывать детей «по теории привязанности». Нет. Нельзя; попросту невозможно. Теория привязанности — это теория психологии РАЗВИТИЯ и, последние лет 35, психологии личности (социальной психологии). Это не педагогическая система, не набор методов воспитания, не отстроенная система «если ваш ребенок…
❤39👍11🔥11👏4
Signed Daniel Ost.
Видимо у меня какая-то summertime sadness наступила, что мысли в миноре и много печальной рефлексии. И вот какую грустную мысль хочу с вами разделить — мысль что мне, моему поколению, и паре поколений этажом ниже и выше крайне повезло: у нас есть терапия. Порой никудышная, бестолковая, технически ограниченная, абстрактная, неоднозначная, — и при всех многих недостатках, она все равно остается великим благом. Это сп…
❤55🥴2
Signed Daniel Ost.
По горячим следам прошлой беседы.
😱26❤7
Signed Daniel Ost.
Новости русскоязычной теории привязанности: обнаружен «расслаблено-избегающий тип привязанности» Поделитесь визуальными образами, которые такая конструкция навеивает? 😀
😁45❤4🔥1
Signed Daniel Ost.
Немного дополню этот пост. Коллеги, признаю: я погорячился и сделал импульсивный, непродуманный вывод. Быстрый — но точно не самый лучший. Спасибо за то, что в комментариях так вдумчиво и адекватно разложили эту идею со всех сторон. Но позвольте добавить ещё один важный момент, почему меня так «включила» эта тема, что отключились лобные доли. Со стороны действительно тяжело наблюдать за историями, где людей, прише…
❤28🙏15🕊5👏1
Signed Daniel Ost.
Posted without readable text
❤4
Signed Daniel Ost.
Showing the 12 most recent of 21 posts we hold for @attachment_theory. View and reaction counts are the latest single reading for each post, not a live figure, and a recent post is still accumulating both. A view count marked ≈ was rounded by Telegram before we ever saw it — t.me prints views in full below 1,000 and to three significant figures above, so ≈1,200,000 means somewhere between 1,150,000 and 1,249,999. Unmarked counts are exact. Text is reproduced from the public post preview and truncated for length.
@attachment_theory edited 1 post after it first published — the same permalink now carries different wording than the one this register originally read, caught because our own crawl held a copy of the earlier text.
An edit is not deception. Typo fixes, price updates and corrections look exactly like this too — this register can tell you the wording changed and when, not why. How this is measured.
Citation-graph rank — 23,422 of 1,151,006entries in the measured graph. A weighted position computed from the forward and mention edges below — republished posts weigh more than named mentions — and recomputed periodically, over the whole graph. Published only as this ordinal position, never as a score: a position is a fact, and a score printed beside one channel’s name would read as a verdict this register does not make. The two counts beneath stay separate for the same reason mentions are never summed with forwards anywhere else on this page — a named-by count costs nothing to manufacture. The top 100 by this measure, or how it is computed.
Republished by
Channels on the register that have forwarded this channel's posts into their own feed.
Republishes
Channels on the register whose posts this channel has forwarded.
Built only from forwarded posts we have actually read, on both sides. Coverage is early and deliberately incomplete: a missing link means we have not read the post that would prove it, never that the relationship does not exist. Counts are distinct forwarded posts observed, so they only ever go up as we read more.
Named by 2 registered channels — every channel on the register whose own posts have named this one, by its current username or any other username it currently holds, merged from two separately captured readings of the same fact so a namer caught by only one of them is not missed and a namer both caught is not counted twice. A username this channel has since dropped is not matched — that handle may belong to someone else now, and crediting today’s namer to yesterday’s owner would misattribute it.
Named by
Channels on the register whose posts name this channel's handle.
Names
Channels on the register whose handles appear in this channel's posts.
A mention is a weaker signal than a forward and is counted separately for that reason — naming a channel is not republishing it, and a handle in a post body is easy to place deliberately. The post counts beside each row below are distinct posts in which the handle appeared, from posts we have read on both sides — the “Named by N registered channels” figure above is a different count, of distinct NAMING CHANNELS rather than posts, and is not the sum of the rows under it.
The reverse of the list above, and a different kind of signal. This does not require this channel to have ever been asked about directly — each row below is a channel we DID ask Telegram about, whose Telegram-generated list happened to include this one. A channel can appear here with an empty list above it, because being named by someone else’s query is independent of having been queried itself.
This channel appears in 1 seed channel's Telegram-generated recommendation list in total. Each is Telegram’s list for THAT channel, not this one — see how this is measured.
A live page changes as we take new readings, so a citation should name the measurement it is based on, not just the URL. The line below cites the subscriber count as measured 12 August 2026 — this entry's latest reading, not the date you are reading this.
“Психотерапия и привязанность” (@attachment_theory), 14,956 subscribers as measured 12 August 2026. Telegram Register, tgregister.com/channel/attachment_theory.
Full measurement history, CC BY 4.0. Every reading this register holds for this entry, not just the latest one, as a dated, downloadable record: CSV · JSON. Free to use with attribution to tgregister.com. Each file carries its own generation timestamp, which is the figure to cite for exactly when the data was retrieved.