Telegram RegisterThe public register of Telegram
Telegram profile photo for Страдай с толком

Channel

Страдай с толком

@usepain

On this record: Growth · Engagement · Reactions · Stars · Posts · Citations · Telegram's recommendations · Cite this entry

13,680subscribers

+63 since we began measuring on 5 August 2026

Risers and fallers across the register · movement among entries of 10,000–31,623.

Register entry

Telegram ID-1001364041653
TypeChannel
Username@usepain
Created6 November 2019measured — cross-checked against a third-party dataset (ext.tg_channel)
First recorded6 August 2026
Last confirmed live29 August 2026
Measurements held21
Confirmed unchanged1 time, most recently 29 August 2026
On Telegramt.me/usepain

Growth

13,56713,68013,623.55 August 2026 — 13,617 subscribers6 August 2026 — 13,617 subscribers6 August 2026 — 13,600 subscribers7 August 2026 — 13,595 subscribers8 August 2026 — 13,594 subscribers9 August 2026 — 13,593 subscribers10 August 2026 — 13,588 subscribers11 August 2026 — 13,581 subscribers12 August 2026 — 13,577 subscribers13 August 2026 — 13,578 subscribers14 August 2026 — 13,570 subscribers16 August 2026 — 13,571 subscribers17 August 2026 — 13,568 subscribers18 August 2026 — 13,567 subscribers19 August 2026 — 13,573 subscribers21 August 2026 — 13,579 subscribers23 August 2026 — 13,577 subscribers25 August 2026 — 13,570 subscribers27 August 2026 — 13,571 subscribers28 August 2026 — 13,635 subscribers29 August 2026 — 13,680 subscribers5 August 202629 August 2026
21 measurements spanning 24 days, net +63. 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 13,550–13,697 and does not start at zero.
Measurement log — every subscribers count we have recorded, most recent 20 of 21
Measured (UTC)SubscribersChange
29 Aug 2026, 20:2813,680+45
28 Aug 2026, 23:4213,635+64
27 Aug 2026, 00:1413,571+1
25 Aug 2026, 02:4413,570-7
23 Aug 2026, 14:2413,577-2
21 Aug 2026, 22:2613,579+6
19 Aug 2026, 14:0513,573+6
18 Aug 2026, 13:1413,567-1
17 Aug 2026, 14:3813,568-3
16 Aug 2026, 07:2613,571+1
14 Aug 2026, 15:5513,570-8
13 Aug 2026, 05:5613,578+1
12 Aug 2026, 04:0813,577-4
11 Aug 2026, 06:5613,581-7
10 Aug 2026, 07:2213,588-5
9 Aug 2026, 05:0413,593-1
8 Aug 2026, 04:2413,594-1
7 Aug 2026, 07:0813,595-5
6 Aug 2026, 03:4013,600-17
6 Aug 2026, 02:3113,617first reading

Engagement

29 posts held, back to 28 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 44 pagesof Telegram’s post history, 20 posts per page.

ERR · 30 days
18.2%
avg views ÷ 13,680 subscribers
Avg views / post
2,480
12 posts measured
Reaction rate
3.34%
reactions ÷ views · ER floor
Posts in window
12
of 29 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 27 August 2026
Posts held29 (28 March 202627 August 2026)
Views total29,810
Reactions total995
Forwards / commentsnot exposed by the public surface — not measured, not estimated
Readings taken29 Aug 2026, 19:30 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

2,780 reactions across 28 posts, in 4 distinct kinds. The most used accounts for 47.6% of them.

Every reaction kind recorded on the sample, most used first
ReactionCountShareShare, drawn
👍1,32247.6%
🔥1,26145.4%
🤔1455.22%
👎521.87%

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 29 of the 29 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 3,000reactions in total: the kind of figure the paragraph above means by “a reaction total printed elsewhere on the page”.

Measured over the 29 most recent posts we hold, published 28 March 2026 to 27 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.

Telegram Stars

Stars received
10
across the posts below
Posts paid on
8
of 29 we hold a reading for · 28%
Most on one post
2
single highest reading

A paid reaction is a reader spending Telegram Stars — bought with money — on a post by @usepain. Telegram publishes the count on the public post preview alongside ordinary reactions, and this register reads it there. It is the only figure on this site that measures money moving rather than attention.

Stars are not reactions, and the two are never added. They are rendered in the same strip on Telegram and counted in the same shape, but one is a tap and the other is a purchase. The reaction totals and the engagement rate elsewhere on this page exclude every figure in this section, and no rate here is computed against a reaction count.

This is not revenue, and we publish no currency figure. What a Star costs a reader and what it pays a channel are different numbers, Telegram takes a share we cannot observe, and the terms have changed. Converting a Star count into money would be an estimate dressed as a measurement, so the count is where we stop.

Counted over the 29 most recent posts we hold for this entry, published 28 March 2026 to 27 August 2026. Star counts above 1,000 reach us in Telegram’s short form and carry the same three-significant-figure rounding as everything else on this page.

Recent posts

27 Aug 2026, 19:15 UTC≈1,190 views57 reactionsread 29 August 2026

Когнитивные искажения и динамические механизмы Продолжая тему различий когнитивного и динамического подхода, хочется поговорить о том, чем когнитивные искажения отличаются от динамических симптомов. На первый взгляд, много общего: ну чем иллюзия контроля не довлеющее супер-эго? Часто кпт-психологи, глядя на работу динамических, если им доводится, выдают рецензию вида “да это просто кпт с завитушками”! Что не удивите

👍32🔥23🤔2

24 Aug 2026, 19:15 UTC≈2,170 views136 reactionsread 29 August 2026

Право на страдание Позвольте начать с анекдота, который я иногда рассказываю клиентам. (Я вообще люблю использовать анекдоты в консультировании, и многие из них считаю весьма полезными.) Дорога, по которой идёт богатырь, раздваивается, а между дорогами стоит камень. На камне высечена инструкция: налево пойдёшь – в морду получишь; направо пойдёшь – в морду получишь; назад повернёшь – в морду получишь. Стоит богатырь

🔥89👍39🤔8

17 Aug 2026, 19:15 UTC≈3,000 views146 reactionsread 29 August 2026

Много говорят о том, что деньги не приносят счастья. Мало того, что это фактически неверно – у нас есть исследования, доказывающие обратное, – так ещё и разница в качестве жизни между тем, кто финансово борется за выживание, и тем, кто нет, даже близко не описывается тем, что воображает себе финансово задавленный человек. Большинство тех, кто ещё не стабилизировал свои финансы, смотрят на все вещи, которые они купят,

👍96🔥49🤔1

17 Aug 2026, 19:15 UTC≈2,550 views64 reactionsread 29 August 2026

Богатство, зефир и несправедливость О социально-экономических факторах в психологии и поведении человека можно думать двумя способами. Первый – разделить внутреннее и внешнее, то есть ваш кошелёк, ваш статус, здоровье, возраст и прочее – и то, что происходит у вас в мозгу. Так мы можем получить очень ясное понимание того, что такое личность, измерять её разными тестами, такими как самая известная «Большая пятёрка».

👍51🔥13

13 Aug 2026, 19:15 UTC≈3,050 views119 reactionsread 29 August 2026

Внешность в психологии Предполагается, что психолог – существо безоценочное, и уж точно не должен давать оценок внешности клиента. Если клиент приходит и выглядит как-то необычно, это абсолютно его право. Более того, психологи и статистически, и методически имеют склонность к либеральным взглядам, так что удивить психолога внешностью должно быть сложно. Тем более вызвать осуждение со стороны психолога. Любого цвета

🔥62👍48🤔9

13 Aug 2026, 12:09 UTC≈2,450 views19 reactionsread 29 August 2026
Forwarded from @pure_cognitionsPhoto

Прямой эфир-дебаты «Высокая самооценка: мишень для терапии или миф?» ➡️ 18 августа, 18:00 (МСК) ➡️ Ссылка на эфир Новый формат в «Чистых Когнициях» — психологические дебаты! ⭐️ Нужно ли повышать самооценку? Кажется, что ответ очевиден: высокая самооценка — хорошо, низкая — плохо, а задача психолога — помочь человеку начать оценивать себя выше. Но действительно ли это работает? Есть ли у повышения самооценки док

🔥11👍8

13 Aug 2026, 12:09 UTC≈2,130 views10 reactionsread 29 August 2026

Сцена первая, дубль второй: дебаты всё-таки должны состояться

🔥10

10 Aug 2026, 19:15 UTC≈2,230 views69 reactionsread 29 August 2026

Ответственность Ключ к пониманию ответственности – что это такое, как она работает и как решаются связанные с ней проблемы – лежит в различении двух очень разных, но сросшихся значений выражения «быть ответственным». С одной стороны, «быть ответственным» значит «действовать определённым образом». С другой – «столкнуться с последствиями». В некоторых случаях оба понимания означают одно и то же: если Пете доверили за

🔥39👍24🤔4👎2

10 Aug 2026, 19:15 UTC≈2,670 views127 reactionsread 29 August 2026

Представление о том, что получить ярлык «плохой дочери/сына/жены/мужа/сотрудника/начальника» – жизнеспособный вариант, что можно принять его, неся пассивную ответственность, но избавившись от проактивной, – большой шаг к внутренней свободе и, по иронии, к проактивно ответственной заботе о себе. Но в глубинах понимания ответственности водится рыба покрупнее. Она ускользающая, маскирующаяся и не хочет, чтобы её вытаск

🔥89👍36🤔2

6 Aug 2026, 19:15 UTC≈2,600 views88 reactions1 Starread 29 August 2026

Интегрированное отношение Вася подходит к Фёкле и просит прощения с виноватым видом. Фёкла поднимает бровь и спрашивает в ответ “за что именно ты извиняешься?”. Вася невнятно бубнит что-то про то, что он был неправ, наверное, кажется, в чем-нибудь. Фёкла фыркает и отправляет его назад, “вот когда поймёшь на что я обижена - тогда и приходи”. Не выглядит странной ситуацией, правда? Можно покритиковать Фёклу за манеру

👍58🔥20🤔10

3 Aug 2026, 19:15 UTC≈2,990 views112 reactionsread 29 August 2026

То же самое может случиться во множестве ситуаций. Кроме Васи, саботировавшего целый новый этап своей жизни, есть Петя. Который не ходит на свидания, потому что уже вообразил, как возвращается с гаремом влюблённых в него моделей, – и не идёт на свидание, которое, кажется, не обещает такого результата, то есть на любое. Есть Фёкла, которая не съезжает от родителей, потому что хочет, чтобы её собственное жильё было уют

🔥72👍38🤔2

3 Aug 2026, 19:15 UTC≈2,780 views48 reactionsread 29 August 2026

Сопротивление через ожидания Психодинамический подход, и психоанализ в частности, много говорит о сопротивлении. Обычно мы упоминаем сопротивление в контексте терапии или анализа, подразумевая психологические защиты: отрицание, вытеснение, рационализацию и другие. Но сопротивление не ограничивается набором поименованных психологических защит. Сам Фрейд говорил, что сопротивление – это всё, что мешает психоаналитичес

👍45🤔3

Showing the 12 most recent of 29 posts we hold for @usepain. 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.

Stars beside a post are paid reactions — Telegram Stars, bought with money and spent on that post. They are a different unit from reactions and are never added to them, here or anywhere else on this page.

Citation-graph rank

Citation-graph rank — 36,472 of 1,626,884entries 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 7 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.

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.

Appears in Telegram’s recommendations for other channels

The reverse of the list above, and a different kind of signal. This does not require this channel to have ever been asked about directly — each row below is a channel we DID ask Telegram about, whose Telegram-generated list happened to include this one. A channel can appear here with an empty list above it, because being named by someone else’s query is independent of having been queried itself.

Психология
@PsyEducation · 59,519
Telegram ranks this channel #16 of 95 here — alongside 94 others — read 22 August 2026
Критическое мышление
@ThinkCritical · 47,328
Telegram ranks this channel #20 of 97 here — alongside 96 others — read 26 August 2026

This channel appears in 2 seed channels' Telegram-generated recommendation lists in total. Each is Telegram’s list for THAT channel, not this one — see how this is measured.

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 29 August 2026 — this entry's latest reading, not the date you are reading this.

“Страдай с толком” (@usepain), 13,680 subscribers as measured 29 August 2026. Telegram Register, tgregister.com/channel/usepain.

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.