Summary
In the lives of the vast majority of people, there are bound to be some unwanted conditions, unpleasant memories, strange beliefs, and even whole failed areas of life that we would like to resolve, correct, and live to our satisfaction
Most of our limitations, disabilities and undesirable states are the consequences of some event in the past, usually unpleasant, which are called ātraumatic experiencesā
few people consciously follow a particular path in life. Usually, there is a certain channel along which life flows. This course has boundaries - a corridor of comfort - a set of all possible variants of events that fit within the framework of expectations, when it is known what to do and how to react.
as long as everything happens within this corridor of comfort and does not go beyond the known deviations, a person feels more or less well. There is some template reaction to any situation that occurs, he copes, feels successful and moves along some vector in this comfort zone
sometimes, of course, something happens that is not exactly as we would like it to be, but if the differences are not painful, but just unpleasant, it is not a traumatic experience.
If I wake up in the morning hoping for good weather, but it is raining outside the window, it can hardly be called a psychological trauma. 
when a person follows this path of life, it is unlikely that he or she is acutely aware of his or her needs. If these needs are not violated, he feels more or less normal, but he cannot learn any lessons from life.
the diagram below shows this corridor of comfort and a man walking briskly along it. If everything is normal, he will come to the point marked with the number 1. That is where his comfort corridor leads him
if an event occurs in which a person does not understand what to do, if he does not have a prepared pattern of behavior, if he has not yet encountered such a phenomenon in his life - confusion and stupor arise
there lives a man X. He has some deep needs, but there are no special conflicts in his life, he is more or less satisfied, and therefore he has never thought about what these needs are
one of the deep needs of person X is the need for a real friend; and he has a friend Y, their relations are good, they are satisfied with each other. One morning, person X goes to visit person Y, goes to the door, presses the bell buttonā¦ Person X expects his friend to open the door, say, āOh, itās good to see you! Come on in!ā, or something similar within the comfort zone
Suddenly the door opens, and person Y shows up and says, "Oh my God, thereās that asshole again! āGet the fuck out of here, why are you bothering me?ā. And the door slams shut 
Suddenly in the life of person X there is a situation that is very much out of his comfort zone (in the figure it is marked with number 2). Something happens that sharply and painfully differs from his expectations - a āruptureā occurs. This gap in the diagram can be seen as the distance between point 1 (where person X intended to come to) and point 2, where he actually got there
This difference is painful because a deep need is affected, the situation is not clear to person X at all, he does not have a ready-made pattern of reaction - person X is confused: he does not know what to do
In the picture, confusion is indicated by a gray angular spot. At this moment there is an imprinted vulnerability: there is no ready pattern of response, but something must be done, something must be done somehow!
The state of confusion is extremely unpleasant, and it is necessary to get out of it as quickly as possible. To do this, you need to make a decision yourself or copy it from someone else. Such a decision that will relieve you of the suffering caused by the rupture. At the same time the recording mode is switched on: the subconsciousness needs to memorize how to get out of this situation in order to use this decision in similar cases in the future
and so the person stands, looks at the slammed door and says to himself: āWhat a fool, eh!ā, and leaves. It would seem that nothing much has happened. But person X has just made a judgment that his friend Y is a fool. In the figure, this judgment is indicated by a yellow lightning bolt
At that moment, this judgment helped to get out of the confusion.
Maybe the next day it will turn out that person Y had some problems, was not himself and did not recognize his friend at all, the situation will somehow be resolvedā¦
But person X has already had a traumatic experience, which contains confusion and a related judgment that resolved this confusion: if person Y is a fool - then everything is clear, fools behave like that.
most likely, their friendship will fall apart sooner or later, and the deep need of a person X to have a true friend will remain in a state of chronic dissatisfaction
at the moment when a person is confused, his ancient protective system records all the circumstances of this incident and labels them as āunpleasantā. So, from natureās point of view, one should try to avoid those circumstances
Suppose person Y had a green door. And one day person X finds that in places where there is a green door, for some reason he becomes uncomfortable. The safety reflex works in advance: green door - uncomfortable - letās get out of here
Or person X meets a person who looks and manners are similar to person Y, and person X immediately has a feeling that this person is some kind of aā¦ fool, for some reason. 
Another example.
Girl Z is friends with boy X, they are in love, and girl Z has quite definite ideas about how it should be. One day she happily runs to her boy X, rings the doorbell, and he opens the door and says: āWhat are you doing here? Get out of here! I donāt want to see you anymore!ā.
Girl Z is shocked - you canāt do that! She goes home, sits in the kitchen and cries. At this moment, girl Z has an imprinted vulnerability: it is not clear what happened, there is no appropriate response pattern, she needs a solution.
And then a kind mother comes in, asks what happened, and says: āWhy are you crying, all men are assholes, they all want the same thingā.
Š! That solves the problem! If all men are assholes, then they can act like it. The confusion is resolved, the situation is no longer so traumatic -
because now it makes sense
In a state of confusion, imprinted vulnerability, the main thing is to save oneself, to do something urgently - that is why one often takes the first solution that comes along, any solution that can be relied on and somehow get out of the situation. And then this decision is used as a template in all similar situations
man is a social creature, and in confusion he tends to accept attitudes from an external source. A person gets confused, someone says something nearby and it sticks. And it turns out that a momentary benefit seems to be received, but long-term damage is done
What will cause confusion and what will not is a subjective matter. The same event will cause confusion for one person and not for another - it all depends on the āwidthā of the individual corridor of comfort.
How would events develop if person X was a very flexible person and his comfort zone was large?
the person came to friend Y, and the friend said to him: āWhat are you doing here? Go to hell!ā and slams the door shut.
Person X thinks: āHe must have something wrong, he doesnāt usually behave like thisā.
person X goes to his neighbor and asks: āWhatās wrong with person Y?ā The neighbor says: āYes, he was dumped yesterday by his friend girl Z, heās been angry for 24 hours.ā
Man X, like a true friend, buys beer and everything that goes with beer, rings the doorbell again, and when man Y comes out, stands up so that he has no time to slam the door and says: āLetās not do that! Letās sit down, have a beer, talk it overā¦ā
whatās the difference? This person X has a template for how to solve such a problem, while the previous version of person X had no such template 
A traumatic experience consists of three elements:
1. A sharp painful mismatch between what happened and what the person was expecting, consciously or not.
2. Confusion or pattern breaking occurs, and the person enters a state of imprinted vulnerability.
3. A certain attitude is adopted that resolves the situation at that time.
Most traumatic experiences occur in childhood, and this is when patterns of behavior in different situations are formed.
Some of these patterns we subconsciously borrow from our parents, when in moments of confusion they said: "this is so, because...".
We unconsciously repeat these patterns, and then we cannot change them - because in order to change a pattern, we need to remember the original episode, to describe: where, what, when, with whom it happened, what were the feelings, needs and what decision was made that "resolved" the situation.
It is often very difficult to find out what kind of belief was adopted. The case when girl Z comes home, cries, her mom tells her: āall men are assholes, you canāt trust themā, and girl Z accepts it - very simple, this belief is easy to get. There are much more situations when the decision is taken something like this:
And every time, when you find yourself in a similar situation, this specific feeling arises - it is uncomfortable, and a person tries to avoid both the feeling itself and the situation in which it arises.
This decision is made at the level of bodily sensations, without participation of the conscious part of the brain, and it has no name, it is not formulated in words. In order to analyze this decision, it is necessary to replay the episodes connected with it, to remember what happened, what were the feelings, sensations, needs - in order to realize the decision and formulate it
Summary
a person gets into a traumatic experience and in a state of confusion makes a decision. Most often it is made unconsciously, this decision is blocked by charges, the person does not want to look there, it is unpleasant. And then this decision starts to work as a defense mechanism, which is triggered every time there are some signs of the initial traumatic situation.
and since the mechanism is a defense mechanism, its purpose is not to reproduce what happened the first time, but to prevent it from happening again. To trigger the mechanism, it is enough to see just one sign of the original situation, and if there is no repetition of the original episode - for whatever reason - it is concluded that the defense mechanism rescued.
This results in secondary experiences that only confirm the decision made.
the deep need of person X to have a real friend has not gone anywhere, but now the intention to have a real friend has a small amendment in the form of a defense mechanism: āhe is a fool, you canāt trust himā. And every time person X tries to make a real friend, sooner or later something happens that turns on this defense mechanism.
For example, person X came to a new friend Y2, and he did not open the door simply because he was not at home. But the defense mechanism tells person X: āFool!ā.
We see that, over time, an accidentally made decision turns into a belief, which is extremely difficult to work through: after all, it is not just a belief, it is backed up by concrete personal experience and many episodes that confirm this belief.
It is not necessarily the case that the very first episode in which a decision was made was the most traumatic or the most horrible. The psyche has made some decision āto try it outā, and then a chain of events can be formed that āconfirmā the correctness of this decision
the intention to find a real friend goes nowhere, and confusion begins to accumulate in person X until the intention collapses into a point and person X decides: "Real friends just don't exist, that's the law of the universe, to each his own. And I have 742 episodes that clearly confirm that."
Then person X comes to the therapist and says, āEvery time - every time! - when I find a person and I start to think heās a real friend - the same thing happens every time, every time he turns out to be a freak!ā
And the therapist replies: āIt happens because you have karma like that!ā which supposedly explains something.
It turns out that karma is a piling up of traumatic experiences that were once caused by a strong breakup and the acceptance of some unconscious attitude. And further this unconscious attitude begins to program a person for certain behavior, to filter and accumulate similar experiences.
sometimes the amount of emotional charge associated with the affected need becomes unbearable, and it is easier for a person to give up this need or a whole area of life altogether.
In the end, person X decides that there are no friends in this world, at all. You can do anything with people, but it is impossible to be friends with them.
And now person X does not have the category āfriendshipā, it is blocked by traumatic experiences.
but the intention to have a real friend has not gone anywhere, it can be completed only when person X really has a real friend. And since the intention is not completed, person X wants to have a real friend again and again
and life offers new opportunities: āhere, try again, and this time do it rightā. If person X had high awareness, he would have done everything right the second time. But, as a rule, person X does not have high awareness, moreover, he has less resources, because part of his attention is stuck in past experiences. And the next time, the same thing happens, maybe even worse and faster.
and life doesnāt stop: ātry againā¦ try againā¦ā
Eventually person X says, āenough, life, leave me alone, Iām not going to be friends with anyone.ā Maybe life will leave him alone, and maybe not - still somewhere in the depths of the need remains
it turns out that a personās life should have moved to point 1 (see fig.), but went to point 2. If this area of life was connected with some deep need, there is a global gap in life, the person is not what he would like to be, his life path leads in the wrong direction.
from the described model it is clear why events are āgarlandedā: all these events are attempts to replay the same situation, attempts to satisfy the same deep need. And as long as this deep need is not satisfied, the attempts will continue.
When many years and many repeated events have passed after the first episode, it is very difficult for a person to understand what need was violated there: the attention will be on recent episodes, and it takes a long time to ādigā to remember what the deep need was in the beginning.
It is necessary to remove many layers of charge in order to understand what kind of need it was, whether it is relevant now, or whether it is just an automatic behavior, a viral program
It is usually not necessary to work through all the episodes of the āgarlandā: there is one and the same pattern in this entire chain of events, and the setting is most likely the same. It is known from practice: when a person finds this attitude, clearly formulates and realizes it - at that moment the whole chain loses its significance, no matter how many episodes there are.
