Telegram RegisterThe public register of Telegram

Channel

КБТ за пределами протоколов

@cbtoutsidethebox

On this record: Growth · Engagement · Reactions · Posts · Polls · Citations · Cite this entry

4,278subscribers

+20 since we began measuring on 6 August 2026

Risers and fallers across the register · movement among entries of 3,162–10,000.

Register entry

Telegram ID-1001864452164
TypeChannel
Username@cbtoutsidethebox
Created4 February 2023measured — cross-checked against a third-party dataset (ext.tg_channel)
First recorded6 August 2026
Last confirmed live12 August 2026
Measurements held4
Confirmed unchanged1 time, most recently 12 August 2026
On Telegramt.me/cbtoutsidethebox

Growth

4,2584,2784,2686 August 2026 — 4,258 subscribers6 August 2026 — 4,258 subscribers10 August 2026 — 4,269 subscribers12 August 2026 — 4,278 subscribers6 August 202612 August 2026
4 measurements spanning 6 days, net +20. Dots are measurements; the straight line between them is drawn to join them, not to claim we know the path taken in between — snapshots are recorded only when a count changes, so gaps mean “no change observed”, never “interpolated”. The vertical axis spans 4,255–4,281 and does not start at zero.
Measurement log — every subscribers count we have recorded
Measured (UTC)SubscribersChange
12 Aug 2026, 20:444,278+9
10 Aug 2026, 04:134,269+11
6 Aug 2026, 19:004,258no change
6 Aug 2026, 18:494,258first reading

Engagement

17 posts held, back to 11 March 2026the reader has not yet reached the start of this channel’s public history, so older posts may sit further back, unread. Read across 5 pagesof Telegram’s post history, 20 posts per page.

ERR · 30 days
30.2%
avg views ÷ 4,278 subscribers
Avg views / post
1,290
1 post measured
Reaction rate
8.99%
reactions ÷ views · ER floor
Posts in window
1
of 17 held

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.

What these figures were computed from
WindowRolling 30 days · latest post in window 31 July 2026
Posts held17 (11 March 202631 July 2026)
Views total1,290
Reactions total116
Forwards / commentsnot exposed by the public surface — not measured, not estimated
Readings taken8 Aug 2026, 12:00 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.

Reaction mix

1,743 reactions across 17 posts, in 29 distinct kinds. The most used accounts for 34.8% of them.

Every reaction kind recorded on the sample, most used first
ReactionCountShareShare, drawn
60734.8%
😁28016.1%
👍22913.1%
🔥1749.98%
💯1387.92%
🤮1005.74%
❤‍🔥341.95%
🤣261.49%
🤔211.20%
😢181.03%
😐160.918%
👏130.746%
🍓120.688%
🍾100.574%
💊90.516%
80.459%
😭80.459%
👎70.402%
💔60.344%
🥰60.344%
9 further kinds211.20%

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 17 of the 17 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 1,743reactions in total: the kind of figure the paragraph above means by “a reaction total printed elsewhere on the page”.

Measured over the 17 most recent posts we hold, published 11 March 2026 to 31 July 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.

Recent posts

31 Jul 2026, 16:49 UTC≈1,290 views116 reactionsread 8 August 2026

Кажется у Лимонова где-то встречалась мысль, что каждый интеллигент втайне мечтает управлять миром при помощи насилия. Вот если бы я был черным властелином, то первым делом запретил бы психологам под страхом запрета записываться на новое обучение смерти давать комментарии по темам, которые их совершенно не касаются. Проблема в том, что таких тем уже как будто не осталось вовсе. Социолог Николас Роуз пишет об этом го

👍3834💯12😁10👎7🤔6🔥4❤‍🔥2

3 Jul 2026, 06:02 UTC≈2,820 views117 reactionsread 8 August 2026

Немного супервизорского, в продолжение вот этого. На мой взгляд, одно из существенных и часто встречающихся затруднений в нашей терапии сегодня - это то, что психотерапевт любую проблему, которую приносит пациент, контрактует, концептуализирует и пытается решить именно как проблему. В то время как некоторые из них корректнее называть не проблемами, а пожеланиями. Хочу стать продуктивнее, лучше понять себя, перестать

46👍24💯18🔥9😁7🤝5❤‍🔥3💔2

16 Jun 2026, 08:45 UTC≈2,980 views101 reactionsread 8 August 2026

Ник Хаслам, автор идеи “расползающихся понятий”, на которую я периодически ссылаюсь в этом канале, опубликовал большую статью "Concept Creep and the Mental Health Crisis” о современных исследованиях в этой области. Он поддерживает позиции и других авторов, связывающих увеличение числа расстройств прежде всего с изменением культурных форм самовосприятия и самоописания переживаний. Много интересного и изобретательнос

48👍24🔥16🍓5🤔2💔1💯1🥱1

26 May 2026, 05:56 UTC≈5,680 views116 reactionsread 8 August 2026

Давно было интересно: какой процесс из двух в нашем обществе победит: взрывной рост количества психотерапевтов или подстегиваемый терапевтической культурой рост обращений за помощью? Если первый - у каждого из армии психотерапевтов будет в среднем меньше клиентов. Получится такая каша, тонким слоем размазанная по тарелке. Если второй - действующие специалисты будут перегружены, следовательно еще резче взлетят ценники

43💯41👍13😁11😢5🔥2🤣1

20 May 2026, 05:01 UTC≈4,570 views223 reactionsread 8 August 2026

Уже завтра буду рассказывать на конференции о проблемах клинического мышления. А пока публикую очень показательную иллюстрацию. Нэнси МакВильямс, говоря о проблемах современного описательного подхода к диагностике (когда специалист проводит диагностику, просто соотнося информацию с “чек-листом” симптомов), приводит следующую историю. "В 1990-х годах меня пригласили выступить в уважаемую психиатрическую больницу. Мен

😁12847❤‍🔥12💊9🤣9🔥8😭6🍓2

5 May 2026, 07:28 UTC≈3,160 views29 reactionsread 8 August 2026
Forwarded from @ACBT_conferencePhoto

⚡️Дискуссии АКБТконф2026! «Кто здесь власть? Предъявите субъект! Философское вскрытие психотерапевтического процесса» Психотерапию часто описывают как развитие разных точек зрения на себя и свою жизнь. Но что, если посмотреть на неё иначе — как на пространство власти, субъектности и свободы? 🔘Модераторы: ⭐️Бурдин Михаил Валерьевич — врач-психотерапевт, к.м.н., аккредитованный КБТ-терапевт и супервизор (EABCT), ру

🔥1511💯3

5 May 2026, 07:28 UTC≈2,140 views19 reactionsread 8 August 2026

С таким сомодератором и с такими соучастниками не только вскрывать, но и расчленять деконструкцию проводить можно. Но доступ в анатомический театр только участникам конференции, конечно

13😁3🍓2🔥1

4 May 2026, 06:56 UTC≈3,080 views116 reactionsread 8 August 2026

Наблюдаю такую штуку, которую можно было бы назвать “парадоксом контекстуализма”. Вот многие коллеги пользуются этой замечательной парадигмой “функциональный контекстуализм” и заявляют об этом. Прекрасно. Однако нередко приходится видеть, как они же, например предполагая/диагностируя пресловутый кптсрасдвг, про этот контекстуализм почему-то напрочь забывают, а опираются в своем клиническом мышлении на самый что ни на

53💯19🔥16😁16😢5🍓3👍2🤔2

22 Apr 2026, 14:21 UTC≈3,010 views110 reactionsread 8 August 2026

Относительно идиотской (от греч. idiōtēs - уникальный, особый) инициативы провести проверку книг Остера “Вредные советы” хочется выйти на некоторые обобщения. Обоснование там такое, что книги могут быть сомнительными с педагогической точки зрения и навредить детям. Тут дело в том, что распространение концепции об уязвимости психики (в частности детской) - это то, в чем традиционно обвиняли леволиберально настроенных

👍4023🔥20😐16😢6🤔3🥴2

16 Apr 2026, 11:06 UTC≈3,140 views1 reactionsread 8 August 2026
Poll

Сколько освоенных специалистом подходов для вас будет основанием меньше доверять ему как профессионалу (при условии, что вы больше ничего о нем не знаете)?

  1. 320%
  2. 434%
  3. 535%
  4. 625%
  5. 7 и более31%
  6. нет такой цифры - чем больше тем лучше9%

The shares total 154%, above 100: this poll accepts more than one answer per voter. No per-option vote count is published, so the number of voters who chose each option is not derivable and is not shown.

🔥1

16 Apr 2026, 11:05 UTC≈3,070 views80 reactionsread 8 August 2026

В продолжение темы, которую я когда-то уже поднимал, захотелось провести безусловно некорректный, возможно обидный и вопиюще небережный опрос. Многие из нас много чему учились и используют в работе разные подходы. Об этом мы обычно даем информацию в формате: "ХХХ, УУУ, ZZZ-терапевт". Возникает ли у вас ощущение, что, начиная с какого-то количества этих перечисленных подходов, вы начинаете испытывать предубеждение к

😁47🤣12🔥105💔32🤔1

16 Apr 2026, 05:16 UTC≈2,640 views21 reactionsread 8 August 2026

Сделали программу пермской конференции. Много всего, посмотрите! https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1nBydTkNT_Eg3yMFvR2eNRBga1Zw1O9gI3X8Iv6ocEBE/edit?gid=0#gid=0 Канал конференции

👍14❤‍🔥6🎄1

Showing the 12 most recent of 17 posts we hold for @cbtoutsidethebox. 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.

Polls

The poll we hold for this entry, as Telegram rendered it when we read the post. A poll’s figures keep moving after that, so each one is dated.

16 Apr 2026, 11:06 UTCFinal Results400 voters

Сколько освоенных специалистом подходов для вас будет основанием меньше доверять ему как профессионалу (при условии, что вы больше ничего о нем не знаете)?

  1. 320%
  2. 434%
  3. 535%
  4. 625%
  5. 7 и более31%
  6. нет такой цифры - чем больше тем лучше9%

The shares total 154%, above 100: this poll accepts more than one answer per voter. No per-option vote count is published, so the number of voters who chose each option is not derivable and is not shown.

Percentages only — there are no per-option vote counts here, because Telegram publishes none.The public post preview gives each option’s share and a single voter total, and nothing else. Multiplying one by the other would produce a per-option tally that looks measured and is not: the shares are rounded to whole numbers before we ever see them. We print what was published and leave the column that does not exist empty.

The shares need not add up to 100.Rounding alone puts many polls at 99 or 101. A poll that allows more than one answer per voter runs well past 100 by design, and several here do. The bars are drawn against a fixed 100% track at each option’s own percentage rather than normalised to the total, so a poll that exceeds it shows that it does instead of being quietly rescaled.

Read from the 17 most recent posts we hold, published 11 March 2026 to 31 July 2026. Telegram labels each poll by kind — an anonymous poll, a quiz, a closed set of final results — and that label is reproduced rather than paraphrased.

Citation-graph rank

Citation-graph rank — 120,311 of 1,478,351entries 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.

Forward network

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.

Mentions

Named by 6 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.

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.

Cite this entry

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.

“КБТ за пределами протоколов” (@cbtoutsidethebox), 4,278 subscribers as measured 12 August 2026. Telegram Register, tgregister.com/channel/cbtoutsidethebox.

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.