The Aristocratic Personality
Session 20200711 and Session 20200804
"The Aristocratic Personality"
“APs: Different From but Not Above Others”
“Aristocracy Affected by Climate and Cultural Changes”
“The Quandary in Identifying Aristocrats: Equating Them with Royalty and Power”
“Hindrances to APs: Being Disbanded and Misunderstanding Themselves”
“Aristocrats Were Created to Give, to Be an Example, to Share, and to Help”
Note: This is a combined, group-funded session held on two dates, July 11, 2020 and August 4, 2020, by Melissa (Leah) and Jean (Lyla), respectively. Both parts of the session can be found here (as Session 20200711) and elsewhere as Session 20200804.
Saturday, July 11, 2020 (Private)
Participants: Mary (Michael) and Melissa (Leah)
MELISSA: So, this is the aristocratic personality session.
MELISSA: And I’ll start off with aristocrats. I can say that, right? Aristocrats. Okay. One would be Dawn/Awan?
MELISSA: Yes. I think Ethan is also?
MELISSA: And what about Fatma?
MELISSA: Yes. Okay. And Bonnie from the Forum?
MELISSA: No. Okay. Linda C. from the Forum also? Is she one?
MELISSA: Yes. Okay. Okay. The ones that I think they are, but I don’t… John/Lonn, Ann’s husband, is not, right?
MELISSA: Okay, but he’s so close. He seems so close. (Both laugh) I think the clues that he isn’t is one, he feels too comfortable with himself. (Laughs)
ELIAS: That wouldn’t necessarily be a clue. (Both laugh)
MELISSA: Okay. Another one is, I guess he doesn’t really… I don’t think he sees life as art.
ELIAS: I would agree.
MELISSA: Yeah, okay. And my chiropractor, I thought he was one. He does not think he’s one.
MELISSA: Yeah, okay. All right, but he has qualities, I would guess.
MELISSA: Some qualities. Some qualities. Yeah. Okay.
Lyla asks, “Can you talk more about this: ‘Aristocrats do not perceive themselves to be above other people but perceive themselves to be different from other people.’”
ELIAS: Yes. It isn’t necessarily about being above. They do see themselves as different, and therefore somewhat at times removed or separate from, that they don’t necessarily fit in other circles other than their own; that they fit with other aristocrats, but they don’t necessarily fit – in their own perception – with other circles than that, because they DO perceive themselves as different.
Now, I would say that that being expressed, that doesn’t necessarily have to be. That the perception of difference is natural and valid, but it doesn’t necessarily have to mean that they can’t fit in any other circle other than their own.
In that, let me express it in this manner: Visualize yourself or simply anyone that would be in the position of being an aristocrat. Visualize that, and then visualize them with their maid.
Now, even though they view themselves to be different than their maid, they could also – and many times did, in the past – have very intimate relationships with them: shared secrets, held tremendous trust, generated very close relationships in that. Their stations were different, but the relationships crossed those barriers. Therefore, although they viewed themselves as being different from other people such as the working class, let us say, in the past, that didn’t stop them from having very intimate, close relationships with other people.
MELISSA: I believe it.
ELIAS: Therefore, in that, this is an example of them viewing themselves as different but not necessarily above, because if they were perceiving themselves to be above or better than that servant, they wouldn’t confide in them, and they wouldn’t trust them in the capacity of sharing intimacies with them, and they wouldn’t create intimate friendships with them.
ELIAS: Now, this will also illustrate to you the difference between an aristocrat and royalty, for the most part. SOMETIMES, sometimes through history, those two have been put together, royalty and aristocrat; not most of the time. Now in that, you can see an obvious difference, in which it would be very unlikely for a king to become friends with a servant or a peasant. It would be very unlikely, because the king definitely incorporates a perception that they are above and better than.
ELIAS: The aristocrat doesn’t necessarily view themself to be above or better than, but simply in a different position in society. But in that, the aristocrat also, in their perception of being different, they also hold a perception that in their role in being different, they have a responsibility to care for and protect those that are different from them.
MELISSA: Oh, okay.
ELIAS: Therefore, that also creates that difference of connection that they have, whereas royalty doesn’t necessarily perceive that they have connection. They view themselves to be removed. They are not part of, and they generally don’t incorporate a perception that they hold a role of responsibility to, or protection of, the people.
MELISSA: And is that the difference with Queen Elizabeth, you said, because she—
MELISSA: She is an aristocrat also.
ELIAS: Yes. Yes. Yes.
MELISSA: Okay. So, most royalty are not aristocrats.
ELIAS: Most royalty are not.
MELISSA: In terms of personality type?
MELISSA: Yeah. Okay.
ELIAS: Most royalty would not necessarily be. There are some. There have been some, and you do have one now that definitely is, but—
MELISSA: Prince William isn’t?
MELISSA: He is one?
MELISSA: Okay, that’s why I feel the comfort with—
ELIAS: Yes. And his wife [Kate] also.
ELIAS: The two of them definitely are, yes.
ELIAS: The other brother [Harry], no.
MELISSA: Right. Right.
ELIAS: And his wife [Meghan], no.
ELIAS: But definitely the Queen is. And in that, I would also say, her husband [Prince Philip], no.
ELIAS: Which also has created some difficulty and conflict between them throughout their relationship, throughout their many years together. They definitely are worthy of acknowledgement in generating a considerable work with that relationship and making it successful. But – that also would be an example that deserves commendation in tremendous difference. It is difficult for an individual that has an aristocratic personality to couple themselves with an individual that doesn’t.
MELISSA: Oh, okay. I was wondering about that.
ELIAS: Unless they incorporate one of those types of relationships first, of that significant friendship, as would be the case with the aristocrat and the maid.
ELIAS: If two individuals incorporated that type of relationship first, then they could generate a successful relationship in partnership, but it would have challenges even still.
ELIAS: Because the personality types would be so different. There would be clashes. There would be challenges with those types of relationships. It would be much easier and smoother with two of the same.
MELISSA: In general?
MELISSA: Okay. Let’s see. This is more of a personal question, but how much does not expressing myself fully have to do with my personality type? Being an aristocrat? (Pause) Not much?
ELIAS: I would say the opposite. Aristocrats generally ARE expressive; therefore, if you AREN’T expressive, it would be due to other influences.
MELISSA: Okay. And John R. has a question: “I remember Elias talking about a loss of culture or high culture partially due to climate change.” I think he was talking about wine. “I would be interested in how loss of culture would impact the aristocratic personality.”
ELIAS: Also in relation to climate change, or apart from that?
MELISSA: Oh. I think it’s combined.
ELIAS: Very well. Cultures can be lost in relation to climate change. That would be somewhat obvious, because of alterations in climate and in the land and in the physical space arrangements. That can definitely affect groups of peoples, and if the people are disbanded or dispersed because of an alteration in relation to the land, that can easily create a loss of culture.
Other than that, cultures can be lost actually in relation to infiltration of other cultures. Actually, that is usually the most common manner in which a culture becomes lost, is that either a particular people and their culture are conquered, in a manner of speaking, and therefore then dominated by another culture, which then would in turn generally instruct and insist that the existing culture be bent to the new culture. And in doing so, that generally does create a loss of the original culture.
Or, the culture can be lost through immigration. If there is a considerable influx of new people into a particular culture it changes it, because the new people bring with them THEIR culture and that influences the existing culture. And therefore, that can in turn create a loss of the original culture.
I would say that there are certain places, such as India, that this is very obvious, that you can actually see how certain cultures have been lost. India, Burma, Siam: these countries in that area, the aristocratic cultures – which they all have had significant aristocratic cultures. And India does still, to a degree, now, [just] not to the degree that it did originally. That was first affected by the British and their influence, but then it also became affected subsequently in relation to influxes of other people migrating to that country and mixing the cultures and then in that losing that original culture. I would say also China has a very obvious loss of that aristocratic culture; Japan also. These are cultures that the aristocratic cultures were very strong for centuries and centuries and centuries, and therefore, THAT is what makes them obvious, because they were so strong for such long periods of time.
Britain is another country that has somewhat lost that aristocratic expression, and that also is partially a matter of migration. Partially, it is very similar to France. France also had a very strong aristocratic culture which was somewhat overthrown by its own people, and that occurred in England also. Partially with England it was an influx of migration, but a lot of it was takeover by the people themselves. That is another manner in which you can lose that aristocratic culture.
When people feel oppressed and then choose to revolt and rise up against what they perceive as oppression, the aristocrats fall prey to that very frequently. They aren’t generally the people that are responsible for the oppression, but they are definitely mixed together with [them] in the perception of the common person. They are definitely perceived as being a part of, and therefore as they are put together with the people that ARE the oppressors, they generally fall prey to any type of overthrow, so to speak.
In that, this is the quandary, so to speak, in identifying the aristocrats, is that they aren’t the royalty, generally speaking. Therefore, they aren’t generally the people in power, and in that, they aren’t also the people that are generally oppressive. But because they are set apart – because they set themselves apart, because they see themselves as different – the commoners generally don’t generate a distinction. And this is also another manner in which a culture can be lost.
Now, culture can also be lost through its own means, through its own people, through its own young. In relation to aristocrats, they have also fallen prey to their own offspring. That their own children, not all of which may HAVE that aristocratic personality, have moved in directions of modernization and moving in new directions and not wanting to hold to tradition. And I would say that aristocrats do like to hold to tradition.
MELISSA: Do I?
ELIAS: To a degree.
MELISSA: Mm. Okay. Yeah. Yeah.
ELIAS: Tradition doesn’t necessarily mean rituals; it merely means holding to what is, and what you know and what is comfortable and what you do and what you have always done, or how you fashion yourself.
MELISSA: Mm. Okay.
ELIAS: A style. And in that, the culture can be lost to the younger generations. That has happened in the Americas, that the aristocratic expression and culture WAS brought to America, to the United States, and that was expressed, I would say, most strongly in the Carolinas, in Virginia, in Georgia, in New England. In those areas, the aristocratic culture was originally strong – not in New York, not in New Jersey, and not necessarily in Maine. In Maine, they moved more in huntsmen. But originally, there was a strong aristocratic culture in those areas, but it was lost to younger generations that moved in different directions.
And that, I would say, is a significant difficulty with Americans, is that you have no actual remnants, or you have no actual defined culture of aristocrats. There are pockets, but they are very obscure.
MELISSA: And is that a hindrance to the country, or is that just a hindrance to aristocrats?
ELIAS: I would say it isn’t necessarily a hindrance to the country, but it definitely is somewhat of a hindrance to the people that ARE aristocratic personalities, because they, in a manner of speaking, are dispersed and they don’t know of each other.
MELISSA: Yeah. (Laughs)
ELIAS: And therefore, they don’t know how to express themselves and to connect with each other. And that is an important piece for aristocrats, that they have community.
ELIAS: It is very difficult to be expressive as an aristocrat alone.
MELISSA: Yes. That’s true. (Laughs) But there are benefits… I mean, you said that aristocrats connect with the people and they serve as like a guide and inspirer. So, there are benefits to the people?
ELIAS: Oh, definitely. Yes.
ELIAS: Most definitely. Which is the reason that in some capacities, it is unfortunate that the culture of aristocrats has been lost in so many directions and so many areas.
MELISSA: But in America it’s more popular to kind of be dumbed down. Is that an influence of not having aristocrats?
ELIAS: No. I would say that that is… that is an influence of hiding – people that want to be hiding. The less intelligent you are, the less attention you draw.
MELISSA: Oh. Interesting. Okay. (Laughs) Is that particular to my country?
MELISAA: No. Okay. Okay.
I forgot to ask about… Brigitt and Christoph, they wanted to know if they were aristocrats?
MELISSA: Both of them? Okay. And… I just have a sense that some people… I mean, I could be wrong, but some people in this group that I’ve joined recently are not entirely happy with the existence of aristocrats, or that we want to kind of come into our own. Is that accurate?
ELIAS: I would say it is simply a lack of understanding.
MELISSA: Oh. Okay.
ELIAS: And I would agree with you that they may not be entirely comfortable because of that lack of understanding, and I would say that people that have an aristocratic personality have a misunderstanding of themselves, that they don’t quite understand that piece of difference and separateness but not being separate.
MELISSA: And not being superior.
ELIAS: Correct. They don’t quite understand how they can be separate, and they can be thinking and feeling what they do AND looking at past aristocrats and their society, and looking at that in history and envisioning that for themselves and not understanding how that doesn’t equal superiority, when it doesn’t.
MELISSA: I feel personally that I don’t express the superiority much.
ELIAS: I agree.
MELISSA: Okay. Okay. In my family, is my brother one?
MELISSA: He is, okay.
In order to play the positive role of an aristocrat, we have to accept ourselves first.
ELIAS: That would be the first piece.
MELISSA: Yeah. (Laughs) Because we’re not of benefit if we’re trying to blend in, and not accepting ourselves.
MELISSA: (Laughs) Yes.
ELIAS: And think of it also in this manner, in relation to not necessarily blending in: If you think about those past aristocrats, and you visualize them or you look at pictures of them in a book, how could they be of a significant help to other individuals if they were the same?
MELISSA: Right. Right. Okay. That makes sense. Yeah. Okay. (Elias chuckles)
Do you think that being an aristocrat prevents you from connecting to others?
ELIAS: Definitely not.
MELISSA: That’s what I thought.
ELIAS: Definitely not; no.
MELISSA: Okay. Thank you. (Laughs and Elias chuckles)
Is there anything else you’d like to talk about regarding this subject? (Both laugh)
ELIAS: (Chuckles) No more questions?
MELISSA: Let’s see. There’s another one here. What role does the aristocrat play in a shifting and shifted world?
ELIAS: In a shiftING world, to help. In a shiftED world, to be.
MELISSA: It’s just a preference, right? It’s just a…
ELIAS: It is a personality type. And in that, I would say that in a shifted world, I would say also to help, and to BE. Why do you have to have a specific role?
MELISSA: No, that was my impression. I felt like in a shifted world there is maybe no real function; it’s just a personality or a preference.
ELIAS: Correct. And in that, a lifestyle.
ELIAS: And it doesn’t necessarily have to have a particular role.
ELIAS: It simply is what it is, and in that, I would say once you are shifted, it wouldn’t be an issue.
ELIAS: Because you would be accepting of yourself and your expression, and not expecting anything of yourself other than simply being who you are, and acknowledging your preferences.
MELISSA: Why were aristocrats created in this blueprint?
ELIAS: (Pause) To give, to be an example, to share, and to help.
MELISSA: Oh, I like that! That’s really nice. (Elias chuckles) That’s not bad. (Laughs)
ELIAS: No, it’s not bad. No, it’s not bad. And this is what I was saying to you previously, that unfortunately most aristocrats were swept away with revolutions that were aimed at oppressors, and that the aristocrats were not necessarily the oppressors, but they were caught in the tidal wave of the people against the oppressors and swept into the same lot, so to speak. Which was unfortunate, because they weren’t necessarily the target, but they definitely were a part of the fallout.
MELISSA: Because I know that for myself, I definitely express a compassion, and I don’t think there’s a perception… Well, you did say that there is… No, you didn’t say “self-absorbed,” did you?
MELISSA: No. They’re not self-absorbed. They… Yeah, I guess that they appear to be, maybe? From afar?
ELIAS: Not necessarily. I would not necessarily agree with that. I would say that no, perhaps the reason that they are swept up with the politicians or the royalty or the powers that be, so to speak, is because they are viewed to be elitist. But they are only viewed to be elitist because they are misunderstood, or because they DO perceive themselves to be different, and therefore there is an element of separation. But I would say that that is a misconception that they are elitist, because that also conveys that they perceive themselves to be better than or above, and they don’t.
MELISSA: Right. Yeah. I don’t. (Laughs) Would you agree with that?
ELIAS: I WOULD agree with that.
MELISSA: All right. Thank you, Elias. (Laughs)
ELIAS: You are very welcome. And I am tremendously encouraging of you. (Chuckles)
MELISSA: Thank you.
ELIAS: I shall greatly be anticipating our next meeting.
MELISSA: Me too.
SESSION 20200804 with Jean (Lyla)
“More on What Differentiates Aristocrats”
“Fighting with One’s Aristocratic Perception”
Tuesday, August 4, 2020 (Private/Phone)
Participants: Mary (Michael) and Jean (Lyla)
JEAN: We wanted to carry on with the aristocracy. So: A couple of people would like to know if they’re aristocratic or not, or some of their family members. And Val wants to know if her landlord, Sarah, is an aristocrat. She felt that—
JEAN: Yes. Yes. What about my husband? Sometimes I see it, sometimes I don’t.
JEAN: No. Mm. And then Fleur, or Hazra, she doesn’t think she is.
JEAN: But she thinks her husband is.
JEAN: Joyce Foxcroft does not think she is.
JEAN: She thinks her husband is.
JEAN: But she thinks her son is.
JEAN: Yes. Melissa wants to know if Steve Lord was.
JEAN: No. Would my counterpart, Stephanie Jarvis, be?
JEAN: No? See, now she, to my mind, personifies a modern day aristocrat. What part of her is not?
ELIAS: All of her.
JEAN: Because she’s all about enhancing herself, people around her, where she lives. So why is she not?
ELIAS: What is it about all of that that you are equating with an aristocrat?
JEAN: You talk about they’re proud of themselves and they enhance people just by being who they are, and she’s… People just gravitate to her, because of her personality and she truly values all people. It seems to be very genuine, and she’s—
ELIAS: But there are many people that do that that aren’t aristocrats.
ELIAS: Express to me YOUR perception of an aristocrat.
JEAN: My perception of an aristocrat, in trying to work with what you represented—
ELIAS: Or what you feel and what you think.
JEAN: I think people that love beauty and have beautiful things around them and express themselves personally in beauty and enhance other people around them are an aristocrat.
ELIAS: What would differentiate them from anyone else that loves beauty or wants to enhance beauty around other people? What would differentiate them?
JEAN: I don’t know. I guess this is where we’re all confused.
ELIAS: (Chuckles) This is what I have been expressing to all of you that, in a manner of speaking, it is similar to a personality type. It isn’t actually a personality type, but similar. And in that, it is more of what you would term to be a mindset, and a lifestyle. But the mindset is the most important.
Let me express to you, if you were given a scenario of a homeless individual – let us say two homeless individuals, a man and a woman. These are both homeless individuals, but both of them are aristocrats. Now, how would you envision that they would express themselves?
JEAN: No matter what they had or didn’t have, according to your perception, they would still live a particular lifestyle. They would still be proud of themselves.
ELIAS: And how would they express themselves?
JEAN: Elias, you’re getting me, because this is the confusion.
ELIAS: Let me say to you, perhaps you can visualize this: Visualize a homeless woman and a homeless man, and each of them actually are aristocrat individuals. How they would likely display themselves, I would say that they would likely appear to other people observing them as being lunatics. Other people observing them would probably view them as quite loony and crazy because they would likely present themselves… Let us say the man would likely present himself in homeless attire, an obvious homeless individual, but would likely present himself as though he were wearing the most dapper suit that could possibly be designed for him personally. He might even walk with a stick and express that it is a very expensive cane. He might speak to the people that he encounters as if he were a scholar, and all of it would be genuine. And in that, it isn’t that he would be imagining his stick to be a fancy cane; it isn’t that he would be imagining his clothing to be a silk suit. He would be aware that his stick is a stick and his clothing is his clothing, but it wouldn’t matter because his perception of himself would be so beyond what his appearance is. And his appearance to him wouldn’t matter, because he is who he is.
Now; the woman: once again, a homeless individual in clothing that would be expected of a homeless individual, perhaps even layers of clothing. And in that, this individual also would likely be viewed as a lunatic, that this woman is crazy. She speaks to individuals as if she is a noblewoman that was educated at Oxford, and she lives on the street. The area that she lives in is a shanty, but everything is in its place. It may be a shanty and it may be full of junk, but each piece of junk is in its specific place, precisely how she has it arranged to her precise aesthetic liking. It doesn’t matter that she doesn’t have fancy ball gowns. It doesn’t matter that she doesn’t have millions of dollars. It doesn’t matter that she doesn’t own a Ferrari vehicle. It doesn’t matter that she pushes a shopping cart in the street.
It doesn’t matter that the man is not wearing a suit. It doesn’t matter that his shoe may have a hole in it, because their perception of themself transcends that. And they may actually choose to BE that homeless person because they perceive in some manner that that affords them the freedom that is important to them – that they don’t have the responsibility of a house, that they don’t have to conform to what other people expect of them. They may choose that intentionally.
Their perception of themself is not what you think of as unrealistic. They may be very aware that they are homeless, that they are living on the streets. They may be very aware that the objects that they own are not valuable in the perception or the eyes of society. It doesn’t matter.
This is what I was expressing to all of you initially when we were discussing this subject, is that it isn’t about money. It isn’t about status. You THINK it is, because you don’t have an aristocratic society any longer.
JEAN: And that’s where I wanted go into. What did aristocratic societies look like? Cultures and society. And the confusing of them with the elite and the nobility, which often led them to the guillotine.
ELIAS: Correct. (Pause) Elite and nobility generally expressed power and money and position, and have generally expressed a perception of themselves as being separate, different and above everyone else – not simply other people, but everyone; that they are in a classification by themselves, and that they are above everyone, and therefore everyone else is subject to them, meaning that they can use anyone else beneath them in whatever manner suits them; that, unlike the present last Queen and her perception that she is a servant of the people, traditionally in the elite and nobility the people are the servants of them and they can do with as they choose. Hence the game of chess.
JEAN: Ah! Ah!
ELIAS: And the invention of the game of chess. And the pawns are the dispensable ones, and that is all of the people, are the pawns.
The aristocrats are in an entirely different aspect of society. I would say that traditionally, aristocrats have – to a degree; not all, but to a degree – aristocrats have traditionally incorporated money that has been passed from generation to generation to generation. And therefore, they haven’t necessarily earned their money, so to speak, or their position with themselves in the manner that other people do.
But they don’t necessarily perceive themselves as different from other people, but they ACT different from other people. Very similar to the example of the homeless man and the homeless woman, that these are two individuals in a situation in which they are homeless and they are in a position in society of no status and no money, but they have a perception of themselves of being not better than any of the other homeless people, and likely interact with them and likely in some capacities take care of them, or are helpful to them or watch out for them.
JEAN: But at one time were there societies of these people, or cultures?
ELIAS: And this is what I’m saying, is that in the same capacity, the aristocrats, as I said, traditionally many of them were expressed with money and were in a position in which that money was likely passed down from generation to generation to generation, that the ORIGINAL individuals may not have been aristocrats. The original generating of the money may have come from family members that were not aristocrats, and they built a fortune and then passed that down from generation to generation, and the generations that FOLLOWED were the aristocrats.
In that, it wasn’t the money necessarily; it was their culture of perceiving themselves as educated, as stylish, —
JEAN: And flamboyant.
ELIAS: Yes. And eccentric.
JEAN: Okay. So, the stylish and the eccentric, but then —
ELIAS: Think about the homeless man and the homeless woman. That would be definitely one word that you would use to express each of them, that they are eccentric. If they aren’t crazy, they are eccentric. And in that, that would be something that would definitely describe aristocratic individuals. They ARE eccentric, and flamboyant in a manner, and their perception of themself… Regardless of what they appear to be outwardly, their perception of themself is erect and beautiful and intelligent.
JEAN: And then say, if you look at someone like me that is the aristocrat, or others out there that DON’T perceive that about themselves, why is that—
ELIAS: But you do. But you do have a piece of that. You fight with it, and you discount it, and you tell yourself you shouldn’t think or feel that way about yourself, or you should not do that and that that is putting yourself above other people —
JEAN: Simply because I want to be flamboyant and to… And then society has told us that, quote-unquote, we should be “equal.”
ELIAS: Yes. And also I would say to you: Do you believe that you are a beautiful individual?
JEAN: Secretly, yes.
ELIAS: Yes, you do. And you are! And in that, that is a piece. That is also a piece that you’ve learned how to fight with, and tell yourself you shouldn’t be. Or, you fight with by making it more important and then fighting with it that that makes you shallow. And what happens with many individuals – not all, but it depends on your lifestyle; it depends on the choices you have made in your life – with many, many, many individuals, especially now, that have that aristocratic aspect of themself, what they do is they do what you have done, what Ruther has done, what many other individuals have done, in you fight so much with yourself about all of this that what happens is you express the very thing you are fighting with. You don’t want to be better than someone else, but then you express in that manner by expressing or thinking and feeling that other people are below you. But you don’t want to do that, because that is terrible, in your perception. But because you are fighting with yourself so much, you actually express the very things you don’t want to do and that are actually genuinely contrary to your nature. But you are fighting and denying your own nature so much that that is what happens.
JEAN: I got it.
ELIAS: If you WEREN’T fighting with your own nature so much, you wouldn’t BE in that position in which you are even thinking that someone else is beneath you or lower than you or less than you, or that their taste is terrible. You wouldn’t even think about that, because you would be more preoccupied with what YOU are choosing.
JEAN: Thank you! That ties a lot of things together. So by us NOT expecting it, it’s almost like this dissociative type —
JEAN: It’s a dissociative behavior.
Copyright 2020 Mary Ennis, All Rights Reserved.