--Media Links--

website: delvepsych.com

instagram: @delvepsychchicago

youtube: ⁠https://www.youtube.com/@DelvePsych20⁠

substack: ⁠https://delvepsych.substack.com/⁠

--Participants--

Ali McGarel

Adam W. Fominaya

--Overview of Big Ideas--

A well-meant “How are you feeling today?” can inadvertently become a demand for improvement, loading guilt onto someone who already feels wretched.

The urge to rescue often curdles into frustration: we hate witnessing suffering, so we try to solve it—and then resent the person when they don’t “get better.”

Advice (“go for a walk,” “try a run”) is usually not novel; it can amplify shame by implying the depressed person is simply failing to do the obvious.

A more humane stance is presence without coercion: stop trying to fix, keep trying to care.

Support can be instrumental (doing practical tasks) or emotional (staying close, receptive, and steady).

Sometimes the most restorative help is non-topical connection—rejoining a friend in ordinary togetherness that reawakens identity and belonging.

The episode problematizes tidy, authoritative definitions of “depression,” arguing for humility: clinical models, lay language, and alternative framings can coexist without credential-policing.

--Breakdown of Segments--

Cold open and Delve updates: invite word-of-mouth sharing, reflect on writing barriers, and describe a “small-chunks” approach to blog content (and a future book-shaped compilation).

The viral prompt: react to Matias James Barker’s “don’t text your depressed friends” critique; unpack how check-ins can become reassurance-seeking for the helper.

The advice trap and shame spiral: why suggestions rarely help; reframing “ideas” as curiosity about reasoning; how pushing solutions can externalize and intensify shame.

Low-lift invitations: concrete companionship (movie, s’mores, showing up) that reduces decision-fatigue while preserving the right to decline.

Togetherness as medicine: instrumental vs emotional support; why being-with can heal more than problem-solving; bookshelf anecdote as memorable care.

Limits and self-care for supporters: intentionality, choosing one’s effort, and not extending beyond capacity.

What is “depression,” anyway?: critique of false consensus; respect for plural definitions; perils of ad hominem credential attacks.

Closing reflections: admiration, fallibility, and the gap between intellectualizing solutions and actually living them.

--AI Recommended References (APA)--

American Psychiatric Association. (2022). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (5th ed., text rev.; DSM-5-TR). American Psychiatric Publishing.

Beck, A. T., Rush, A. J., Shaw, B. F., & Emery, G. (1979). Cognitive therapy of depression. Guilford Press.

Hari, J. (2018). Lost connections: Uncovering the real causes of depression—and the unexpected solutions. Bloomsbury Publishing.

MEDIA LINKS

Website: delvepsych.com
Instagram: @delvepsychchicago
YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@DelvePsych20
Substack: https://delvepsych.substack.com/

Hosts
Ali McGarel
Adam W. Fominaya

OVERVIEW OF BIG IDEAS
Ali and Adam unpack the “internal working model” as a mental blueprint: the mostly-implicit rulebook we carry about who we are, what other people are like, and what the world tends to do to us.

They emphasize generalization. A painful early event rarely stays “one-to-one” (not just “chihuahuas are dangerous”), but expands into broader assumptions (“dogs are dangerous,” “animals can’t be trusted,” “the world is unsafe”).

They highlight a clinical nuance: the same childhood context can yield divergent lessons. Two siblings can walk out of the same house with different narratives because the organism is always constructing meaning, not merely recording events.

A practical triad becomes the organizing frame: how I see myself, how I see others, how I see the world. The episode shows how one early motif (e.g., “I’m helpless” or “I’m a burden”) can shape adulthood across medical situations, home repairs, and intimate relationships—either through clinging dependence or rigid self-reliance.

They also point to “competing beliefs” and split paths: “I’m a burden” can coexist with “I must take care of everyone else,” producing the familiar pattern of over-giving and under-receiving.

Finally, they bring it into the therapy room: many “confusing” behaviors make sense once you locate the old organizing principle that once protected the person. The question becomes: did it work then, and is it helping now?

BREAKDOWN OF SEGMENTS
Opening and Delve reminders (services, consultation, and sharing the show).

Defining internal working models and why they’re bigger than single-event triggers.

Generalization in action: the chihuahua example expands into world-level beliefs.

Self-beliefs: childhood illness as a seed for “helpless/dependent” or “burden,” then traced through adult stressors (health, household tasks, attachment needs).

Other-beliefs: the scraped-knee vignette (“people aren’t responsive”) and how it becomes mistrust, refusal of help, or even feeling insulted by care.

World-beliefs: “the world is unfair/dangerous,” illustrated through guarded reactions to billing and assumptions about how businesses operate.

Closing reflections on stillness: why silence is hard, and how waiting in the uncomfortable middle can sometimes let the situation clarify rather than forcing a rushed, anxiety-driven decision.

AI RECOMMENDED REFERENCES (APA)
Ainsworth, M. D. S., Blehar, M. C., Waters, E., & Wall, S. (1978). Patterns of attachment: A psychological study of the strange situation. Lawrence Erlbaum.

Beck, A. T. (1976). Cognitive therapy and the emotional disorders. International Universities Press.

Bowlby, J. (1969/1982). Attachment and loss: Vol. 1. Attachment (2nd ed.). Basic Books.

Bretherton, I. (1992). The origins of attachment theory: John Bowlby and Mary Ainsworth. Developmental Psychology, 28(5), 759–775.

Young, J. E., Klosko, J. S., & Weishaar, M. E. (2003). Schema therapy: A practitioner’s guide. Guilford Press.

MEDIA LINKSWebsite: delvepsych.comInstagram: @delvepsychchicagoYouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@DelvePsych20Substack: https://delvepsych.substack.com/
HostsAli McGarelAdam W. Fominaya, PhD

OVERVIEW OF BIG IDEAS
Ali and Adam continue their goals-needs-values framework by zooming in on “needs” and why this category so often confuses people. They argue that a “need” isn’t a craving or an impulse; it’s something that, if missing, leaves you persistently off-balance.

They sketch three layers: universal needs (belonging, safety, stability), transient “Sims needs” that fluctuate and demand immediate attention (sleep, bathroom, basic functioning), and personal needs that are uniquely yours or uniquely intensified for you.

A practical distinction: values are outputs (how you mean to live, what you do), while needs are receipts from the world (what you require from your environment, time, and relationships to stay psychologically steady).

They warn against over-specific lists: the point isn’t perfect taxonomy, it’s building a usable compass. When a big feeling hits, revisit the list—something in your goals, needs, or values is likely being neglected or overfed.

The episode closes with a riff that lands as a principle: fatalism is a kind of faux prophecy. Our brains tilt toward loss, threat, and catastrophe, so “it’ll all go badly” often feels more plausible than “it could go well.”

BREAKDOWN OF SEGMENTS
Intro, recap of goals-needs-values as “north stars,” and a reminder that the aim is pursuit, not flawless achievement.

Why “needs” are tricky: universal needs are often invisible until they’re threatened; transient needs hijack the moment; neither necessarily belongs on a personal list unless they’ve become salient.

Wants versus needs, via the recurring pastry example: wanting something intensely doesn’t make it a need.

Personal needs defined: the idiosyncratic requirements that keep you regulated (solitude, creative time, projects, being in nature, etc.), plus “dialed up” universal needs shaped by history and context.

Needs versus values: exercise as an example—often a value (a chosen way of living), sometimes pointing to a deeper need (time, support, presence, affirmation).

How to use the list: decision-making, schedule planning, and troubleshooting the “why do I feel off?” moments.

Negativity bias and risk aversion: why people default to catastrophic forecasts, and why “predicting doom” can masquerade as realism.

AI RECOMMENDED REFERENCES (APA)
Baumeister, R. F., Bratslavsky, E., Finkenauer, C., & Vohs, K. D. (2001). Bad is stronger than good. Review of General Psychology, 5(4), 323–370. https://doi.org/10.1037/1089-2680.5.4.323

Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica, 47(2), 263–291. https://doi.org/10.2307/1914185

Maslow, A. H. (1943). A theory of human motivation. Psychological Review, 50(4), 370–396. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0054346

MEDIA LINKS
Website: delvepsych.com
Instagram: @delvepsychchicago
YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@DelvePsych20
Substack: https://delvepsych.substack.com/
Hosts
Ali McGarelAdam W. Fominaya

OVERVIEW OF BIG IDEAS
Ali and Adam dig into regret as something many people experience as “an emotion,” while Adam argues it’s better understood as a cognitive process: a backward-looking judgment that you “should have chosen differently” because you dislike the outcome.

They frame this as the historian’s fallacy in everyday life: importing today’s knowledge, perspective, and consequences into the past self, then condemning that past self for not having information it literally couldn’t have had.

A key move is separating the thought-structure (“I should’ve known”) from the actual emotions happening now (shame, embarrassment, disappointment, sorrow, worry). Regret-talk can become a dodge that blocks the real work: repairing, grieving, apologizing, tolerating uncertainty, or recommitting to values.

They also critique outcome-obsessed living (“ends justify the means”) and nudge toward a process-oriented stance: less fixated on getting the perfect outcome, more focused on living a coherent way, even when life hands you lemons.

The episode stays playful with time-travel riffs (and the chaos of trying to “fix” timelines), then pivots into a deeper point: the past and future only exist as representations in the brain right now. Memory is fallible and gets subtly rewritten with recall, so even “hindsight” isn’t a pristine window.

BREAKDOWN OF SEGMENTS
Intro, how to support the podcast by sharing it, and a reminder of Delve services plus consultation info and Substack.

What regret is (and isn’t): cognitive process vs emotion; why people cling to regret; why it can keep you stuck.

Historian’s fallacy explained with a concrete example (the “gift that offended someone” scenario) and the idea that “I should have known” often smuggles in magical thinking.

Shifting from regret to present-tense emotions and present-tense actions: relational repair, naming worry, handling shame, dealing with consequences.

Process-oriented living vs outcome fixation; why “bad outcomes” and discomfort are part of growth rather than proof you failed.

Time travel as metaphor: trying to retroactively fix the past often makes things haywire; levity as an antidote to rumination.

The present-moment thesis: memory and future-plans live in current neural hardware; perception of the past changes as you change; “hindsight is 50/50.”

Closing recap and callouts to Delve’s website and Substack.

AI RECOMMENDED REFERENCES (APA)
Fischer, D. H. (1970). Historians’ fallacies: Toward a logic of historical thought. Harper & Row.

Harrington, A. (2019). Mind fixers: Psychiatry’s troubled search for the biology of mental illness. W. W. Norton & Company.

Nader, K., Schafe, G. E., & LeDoux, J. E. (2000). Fear memories require protein synthesis in the amygdala for reconsolidation after retrieval. Nature, 406, 722–726. https://doi.org/10.1038/35021052

Roese, N. J., & Vohs, K. D. (2012). Hindsight bias. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7(5), 411–426. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691612454303

Media Links
Website: delvepsych.com
Instagram: @delvepsychchicago
YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@DelvePsych20
Substack: https://delvepsych.substack.com/

Participants
Hosts
Ali McGarel
Adam W. Fominaya, PhD

Overview of big ideas
A listener question opens a familiar ache: how do you stop comparing yourself to others when it’s corroding your self-worth?

Ali and Adam treat comparison as more than a quirky personal flaw. It’s often a learned reflex shaped by social hierarchies, scarcity stories, and the quiet pressure to climb.

They tease apart “doing well at life” from the culturally manufactured scoreboard that tells you what should count. If you’re chasing someone else’s rubric, you’ll stay perpetually behind.

They also normalize the problem without romanticizing it: you may not be responsible for the first comparison-thought, but you do have leverage over what you feed, rehearse, and obey.

The antidote isn’t magical confidence. It’s values. It’s choosing what you actually want, tolerating the discomfort of not optimizing, and building a wider reality than the narrow highlight-reel you’ve been measuring yourself against.

Breakdown of segments
Opening, how to support the show, and a reminder that Delve offers consultation calls plus a small number of very low-fee and occasional pro-bono slots (Illinois-based).

The listener prompt and the comparison spiral: career progress, “emotional stability,” and the shame of feeling envy.

A systems lens: how class, status ladders, and “more is better” conditioning recruit people into relentless self-evaluation.

A pop-culture mirror: a Black Mirror-style world where ratings become destiny, used as a vivid metaphor for social approval addiction.

What change looks like in real life: growth tends to be awkward and uncomfy. The goal isn’t to delete thoughts, but to notice them, name them, and refuse to let them drive.

Concrete experiments: talk honestly with trusted people (even the person you’re comparing yourself to), learn how mutual and hidden comparison often is, and widen your social world by meeting strangers and encountering different contexts.

Closing reflections: gratitude as a daily reorientation, and forgiveness as an internal unburdening that doesn’t require the other person’s participation.

AI Recommended References (APA formatted)
Emmons, R. A., & McCullough, M. E. (2003). Counting blessings versus burdens: An experimental investigation of gratitude and subjective well-being in daily life. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84(2), 377–389. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.84.2.377

Festinger, L. (1954). A theory of social comparison processes. Human Relations, 7(2), 117–140. https://doi.org/10.1177/001872675400700202

Hayes, S. C., Strosahl, K. D., & Wilson, K. G. (1999). Acceptance and commitment therapy: An experiential approach to behavior change. Guilford Press.

Wright, J. (Director). (2016). Nosedive (Season 3, Episode 1) [TV series episode]. In C. Brooker (Creator), Black Mirror. Netflix.

Media Links

Website: delvepsych.com
Instagram: @delvepsychchicago
YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@DelvePsych20
Substack: https://delvepsych.substack.com/

Hosts

Ali McGarel — Staff Therapist, Delve Psychotherapy of Chicago

Adam Fominaya — Executive & Clinical Director, Delve Psychotherapy of Chicago

Overview of Big Ideas

• Wanting approval is ancient: social acceptance once meant survival—and it still shapes how we move through work, friendship, and belonging.

• The control fantasy: “If I do everything right, nobody will dislike me” sounds logical, but collapses under real human subjectivity and projection.

• Over-pleasing erodes identity: if you try to satisfy everyone, you become an amorphous “average of expectations,” not a person.

• “Pick your mirrors”: choose whose feedback gets to shape your self-concept—don’t hand the mirror to strangers and hecklers.

• Practical repair after a “bad impression”: allow the sting, then reconnect with your core people—often without needing to litigate the whole story.

• A spicy clinical aside: reframing can help, but existential wounds (belonging, worth, grace) can’t be solved with “half measures.”

Breakdown of Segments

• Listener prompt + why this is universal: approval-seeking as social wiring; control as the hidden agenda.

• Why “doing everything right” fails: norms are contested; people interpret you through their own history.

• Impression management: presenting “better than I am” vs. “worse than I am,” and the unspoken motives underneath.

• The looking-glass problem: you can’t read minds, yet you internalize what you think others think.

• Stop caring what everyone thinks: rumination over strangers steals presence from the people who actually matter.

• Halloween example: friends-of-friends anxiety, plus a two-part response—feel the hurt, then return to your relational “home base.”

• CBT vs. the abyss: role-play shows reframing can soothe, but deeper questions still demand deeper work.

• Closing: reach out for topic requests; consults + blog plug.

AI Recommended References

• Bollas, C. (1987). The shadow of the object: Psychoanalysis of the unthought known. Columbia University Press. Google Books

• Cooley, C. H. (1902). Human nature and the social order. Scribner’s. Brock University

• Hayes, S. C., Strosahl, K. D., & Wilson, K. G. (1999). Acceptance and commitment therapy: An experiential approach to behavior change. Guilford Press. ACBS

• Paulhus, D. L. (1984). Two-component models of socially desirable responding. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46(3), 598–609. www2.psych.ubc.ca

Media Links

• Website: delvepsych.com

• Instagram: @delvepsychchicago

• YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@DelvePsych20

• Substack: https://delvepsych.substack.com/

Hosts

• Ali McGarel – Staff Therapist, Delve Psychotherapy of Chicago

• Adam W. Fominaya, PhD – Executive & Clinical Director, Delve Psychotherapy of Chicago

Overview of Big Ideas

• Why holiday visits can feel like emotional obligation more than genuine choice.

• Clarifying your reason for going (or not going): love, guilt, fear, money, hope for repair, or simple habit.

• The grief of realizing your family may never want the same level of emotional closeness that you do.

• Acceptance as a skill: seeing people as they are, not as you wish they were, and choosing your limits accordingly.

• Boundaries as actions you take—leaving, limiting time, declining invites—rather than rules you impose on others.

• How “family is forever” beliefs collide with chosen family, especially in LGBTQ+ and marginalized communities.

• When misgendering, bigotry, or chronic invalidation make staying engaged more harmful than stepping back.

Breakdown of Segments

• The Dreaded Question: “Are You Coming Home?”
  Ali and Adam name the pressure of feeling like a bad child if you don’t show up, even when visits leave you drained or unsafe.

• What Are You Hoping Will Happen?
  They invite listeners to ask, “In order to accomplish what am I going?” and notice when the real fantasy is finally being seen or finally changing someone’s mind.

• Fantasy Family vs. Real Family
  The hosts explore how TV, culture, and nostalgia create an idealized picture of family that clashes with messy, imperfect reality—and how that gap fuels shame and confusion.

• Power, Roles, and the Hidden Judge
  They unpack how one family member often functions as the unspoken “arbiter,” setting expectations about who must visit, who must forgive, and who is allowed to be upset.

• Boundaries, Not Ultimatums
  Ali and Adam distinguish between trying to control relatives’ beliefs and simply choosing what you’ll participate in: staying shorter, not discussing politics, or opting out entirely.

• When Identity Is on the Line
  The episode addresses situations where pronouns, queerness, race, or partners are dismissed or mocked—naming that you may need to leave, at least for a season, to stay emotionally and physically safe.

• You’re Allowed to Choose Yourself
  They close by giving explicit permission not to go home if the cost is too high, and by reminding listeners that chosen family, friendships, and community can also be home.

AI Recommended References (APA)

• Bowlby, J. (1988). A secure base: Parent-child attachment and healthy human development. Basic Books.

• Bowen, M. (1978). Family therapy in clinical practice. Jason Aronson.

• Kerr, M. E., & Bowen, M. (1988). Family evaluation: An approach based on Bowen theory. W. W. Norton.

• Meyer, I. H. (2003). Prejudice, social stress, and mental health in lesbian, gay, and bisexual populations: Conceptual issues and research evidence. Psychological Bulletin, 129(5), 674–697.