Channel
@psyacademy2022
On this record: Growth · Engagement · Reactions · Posts · Posts edited after publishing · Polls · Citations · Cite this entry
9,149subscribers
-63 since we began measuring on 7 August 2026
Risers and fallers across the register · movement among entries of 3,162–10,000.
| Telegram ID | -1001565496518 |
|---|---|
| Type | Channel |
| Username | @psyacademy2022 |
| Created | Between 1 August 2021 and 28 February 2023— estimated from Telegram’s id allocation, not measured. How this range is calculated. |
| First recorded | 7 August 2026 |
| Last confirmed live | 14 August 2026 |
| Measurements held | 4 |
| Confirmed unchanged | 1 time, most recently 14 August 2026 |
| On Telegram | t.me/psyacademy2022 |
| Measured (UTC) | Subscribers | Change |
|---|---|---|
| 14 Aug 2026, 06:37 | 9,149 | -35 |
| 10 Aug 2026, 17:36 | 9,184 | -23 |
| 7 Aug 2026, 18:57 | 9,207 | -5 |
| 7 Aug 2026, 05:16 | 9,212 | 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 14 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. It is computed over the 18 of 21 measured posts that carry a reaction reading, and over those same posts' views.
| Window | Rolling 30 days · latest post in window 11 August 2026 |
|---|---|
| Posts held | 21 (29 July 2026 – 11 August 2026) |
| Views total | 6,894 |
| Reactions total | 198 |
| Forwards / comments | not exposed by the public surface — not measured, not estimated |
| Readings taken | 12 Aug 2026, 15:29 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.
198 reactions across 18 posts, in 15 distinct kinds. The most used accounts for 33.3% of them.
| Reaction | Count | Share | Share, drawn |
|---|---|---|---|
| 🔥 | 66 | 33.3% | |
| ❤ | 34 | 17.2% | |
| 👍 | 28 | 14.1% | |
| 👏 | 14 | 7.07% | |
| 😁 | 13 | 6.57% | |
| 🤣 | 13 | 6.57% | |
| 💯 | 12 | 6.06% | |
| ❤🔥 | 4 | 2.02% | |
| 🤝 | 4 | 2.02% | |
| 💔 | 3 | 1.52% | |
| 😇 | 3 | 1.52% | |
| 🏆 | 1 | 0.505% | |
| 🕊 | 1 | 0.505% | |
| 🙏 | 1 | 0.505% | |
| 🥰 | 1 | 0.505% |
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 18 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 198reactions 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 11 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.
🏆«Рейтинг харизматичности» психических расстройств Небольшая преамбула. Места в рейтинге зависят от критериев харизматичности. И это отражает давний спор в психологии: что мы вообще называем харизмой? Условно харизму можно разделить на два типа: 🔹«Теплая» харизма — вдохновляющая, заражающая, витальная. Здесь первое место у гипомании при БАР. 🔹«Холодная» харизма — властная, бесстрашная, манипулятивная. Здесь пальма …
❤4🏆1👍1
Харизма или расстройство психики? 10 августа неофициально отмечается День харизматичных личностей. Кто и когда его придумал, доподлинно неизвестно. Вероятно, он возник как повод для рефлексии о роли личностного обаяния в различных сферах жизни, а также как ироничный комментарий к современному культу лидерства и успеха. Для нас же это прекрасный повод разобраться, что на самом деле может скрываться за фасадом «магнет…
🔥7❤6👏1
— Хочется... хочется, чтобы примчался, запыхался, ворвался и спас! — мечтала Принцесса. А у него ... то поздно, то дождливо, то поясницу ломит, то у коня — выходной...
🔥4💯1
— Я египтолог, задавайте свои вопросы про Древний Египет. — Как деликатно объяснить своему коту, что времена изменились и он больше не божество?
😁4💯1🔥1
Как подсказывает нам календарь праздников, сегодня отмечают неофициальный, но весьма теплый праздник — день кошек. Многие из нас любят этих пушистиков, а потому немного юмора в честь мурлык.😸 Всем прекрасных выходных!
🔥3
Три формы зависти — три направления работы Каждый вид зависти вырастает из своей внутренней «почвы», поэтому и работать с ними приходится по-разному. 🔹Зависть-восхищение Почва, из которой прорастает эта зависть, — внутренний запрет на собственные желания. Часто возникает у тех, кто привык быть «хорошим» и ставить помощь другим выше собственных амбиций. Внутренний конфликт здесь между «хочу для себя» и «неприлично …
🔥3💯2❤1
Используем зависть себе во благо Мы начнем с общей стратегии, универсальной для всех видов зависти, а в следующем посте еще отдельно пройдемся по каждой форме ибо там есть свои нюансики. Главная наша задача — это перестать демонизировать зависть и смотреть на нее как на врага. Потому как она возникает в нашей жизни не для того, что досаждать, а как важный сигнал, к которому стоит прислушаться. Итак, что делать, ко…
❤7💯1🔥1
Какая форма зависти мне родней всего?
The shares total 120%, 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.
Три оттенка зависти Несмотря на то, что источник зависти один — у другого есть то, чего нет у меня — не вся зависть к успехам коллег одинакова. 🔷Зависть-восхищение — «ух ты, как круто у него получилось, я тоже так хочу». Самый социально приемлемый вариант. Здесь нет желания отнять или принизить. Чужой успех работает иначе — как доказательство: «Это возможно. Значит, и у меня может получиться». Но чтобы такая зави…
🔥4💯2❤1🕊1🙏1
Какой слой зависти откликается сильнее всего?
The shares total 121%, 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.
Какие маски зависти вам знакомы?
The shares total 148%, 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.
Зависть к успехам коллег Решили вытащить на поверхность и обсудить крайне важную, но при этом табуированную тему. Говорить о ней действительно не принято, потому как в нашем профессиональном поле есть негласное ожидание: мы же психотерапевты, мы должны уметь рефлексировать, прорабатывать, не застревать в таких «низменных» чувствах. И признаться в зависти — даже самому себе — это как будто расписаться в собственной …
👍3❤2🔥2
Showing the 12 most recent of 21 posts we hold for @psyacademy2022. 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.
@psyacademy2022 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.
The 3 polls we hold for this entry, as Telegram rendered them when we read the post. A poll’s figures keep moving after that, so each one is dated.
Какая форма зависти мне родней всего?
The shares total 120%, 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.
Какой слой зависти откликается сильнее всего?
The shares total 121%, 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.
Какие маски зависти вам знакомы?
The shares total 148%, 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 21 most recent posts we hold, published 29 July 2026 to 11 August 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 — 833,978 of 1,350,102entries 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.
Named by 1 registered channel — 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.
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.
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 14 August 2026 — this entry's latest reading, not the date you are reading this.
“Академия психиатрии и психотерапии|МАПП” (@psyacademy2022), 9,149 subscribers as measured 14 August 2026. Telegram Register, tgregister.com/channel/psyacademy2022.
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.