#disregarding ethics and responsible behavior for a moment | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

greatqueenanna · 1 year ago

Text

Delving into Hans' Sociopathy

Prince Hans is canonically a sociopath. Jennifer Lee intentionally wrote the character with specific behaviors and traits that align with this label. Within this analysis, I wanted to do an observation of Hans’ overall character and talk about his sociopathic behaviors.

The purpose of this essay is to only talk about his first film appearance. I do not mean it to be an analysis of whether he will return, if this will remain a canon aspect of his character for future appearances, or if he is capable of redemption. This is also not a post that is trying to get you to hate the character or use it as leverage for whatever opinions you may have. It is simply an analysis.

I am also writing about a fictional character, so a lot of his personality is over-exaggerated. Please refrain from using this as a tool for diagnosing yourself or others or as a general representation of these labels and disorders.

I want to emphasize that I am talking about a character who is both a villain and a sociopath. However, please avoid confusing these two things as one. Not all individuals with ASPD (sociopathy) are bad or engage in criminal behavior. For more information, you can read about it here. If you want to know the thoughts of someone with ASPD (sociopathy) on this topic, I asked a friend and you can read their response here on various related subjects.

Now that all that is out of the way, let's dive in.

Part 1: When Was This Confirmed?

Jennifer Lee first confirmed that Hans was a sociopath during an interview with John August and Aline Brosh McKenna of Scriptnotes, in Episode 128: Frozen with Jennifer Lee.

---

Jennifer: Hans is a villain from the minute he hits her with the horse, in my mind. Aline: Really? Jennifer: But I am slightly a sociopath, I think. He’s just calculating from that moment.

---

John: But clearly he’s a very talented sociopath. Jennifer: He’s very talented. He’s charming. He mirrors everyone. And actually, the original story had a lot to do with mirrors. In many iterations of the story we talk about mirrors and we bring them up. And so I held on a little to that, what Hans is is a mirror as a lot of charming, but hallow or sociopathic. Aline: And she’s (Anna) also so lonely that it’s like she’s falling in love with her reflection in the pond. Jennifer: Yeah, exactly. And he mirrors her and he’s goofy with her. He’s a little bit more bold and aggressive with the Duke, because the Duke is a jerk, so he’s a jerk back. And with Elsa he’s a hero.

---

She later further confirmed this during a Q&A event with fans on Twitter (X), in response to a fan asking if Hans was ever a good guy during the early productions of Frozen.

---

Santino Fontana, Hans' voice actor, also confirmed this in an interview. You can see this interview here, the Frozen segment lasts from approx. 15:35 - 19:35.

Santino Fontana: Yea, He's a good-looking guy. Also, a sociopath, but yea. - Broadwaycom, Show People With Paul Wontorek Interview

---

Part 2: The Traits of ASPD (Sociopathy)

According to the DSM-5, those with ASPD are described with some of the following traits.

Ego-centrism; self-esteem derived from personal gain, power, or pleasure. Failure to conform to lawful or culturally normative ethical behavior. Lack of concern for feelings, needs, or suffering of others. Frequent use of seduction, charm, glibness, or ingratiation to achieve one’s ends.

To summarize, sociopaths are those who - lack empathy for others, have self-esteem that is based on personal gain and power, disregards social norms and manipulate and charm others to get what they want.

---

There are also some anecdotal traits that are not directly referred to in the DSM-5, but talked about within ASPD communities and from those who know those with it. One trait is the concept of mimicry or mirroring. The idea here is that a sociopath will mirror the behaviors of another person in order to either charm or intimidate them - or in some cases, try to fit into social norms.

M.E, a person with sociopathy, describes this behavior as “métier, or bread and butter” for those who have sociopathy.

I think mimicry is interesting, and I think a lot of empaths think it's freaky. What I find more freaky is what constant mimicry suggests – that you have no baseline "you," that you are always just reactions to outside stimuli. I have a good friend who was initially very frustrated that I didn't seem to have defaults: no default understanding of right and wrong, no default beliefs, no default personality even. Everything had to be reasoned, everything had to be constructed anew. It can be frustrating for me too. It's time consuming. And sometimes it disturbs me how impressionable I am. Being a blank slate, sometimes I can surprise even myself with non sequiturs or unpredictable behavior. It's sort of scary. – M.E. Thomas - Sociopaths, Mimicry, and Blank Slates – Sociopath World

Part 3: Hans' Behaviors Throughout the Film

Lacking Empathy

Hans shows this behavior directly during and after his reveal, and more subtly before the reveal. The reason for this is because, obviously, they wanted to keep Hans' true intentions secret as much as possible, mostly due to John Lasseter's insistence to make the reveal more shocking. However, Hans' true nature does shine through in subtle ways throughout the narrative.

Let's focus on the more direct portrayals first.

---

Direct instances of Lacking Empathy

During the reveal, Hans realizes that his 'True Love's Kiss' will not work because he doesn't love Anna. What makes a lot of this scene especially unemphatic and cruel, is how Hans actually looks like he is enjoying Anna's pain. Hans looks straight into Anna's eyes, smiling and slightly laughing, as he verbally insults her and tries to quicken her death. In this scene, he is simply enjoying telling Anna how he actually feels, and seems relieved to be rid of her.

Later on, Hans reveals to Elsa that Anna is 'dead'. When Elsa falls to the ground in anguish, he walks behind her with a smile on his face, ready to decapitate her until Anna intervenes.

Later on, something that my sociopath friend also mentioned, was how uncaring and completely nonchalant Hans was when he realizes that Anna is still alive and that he has lost. He just seems confused that Anna is alive. He seems very unemphatic even towards his own situation - that he's in trouble now.

The director says that her stand-out moment for him was when he questions Anna’s comment of being ‘just her’. For me, it’s when he stands up after being knocked out by the blast, without even acknowledging that he’s in deep shit, and just says ‘but, she froze your heart!” I laughed so hard. Only sociopaths would do this shit. “Anna, how dare you. You should be dead.” - "B.G."

---

Subtle Instances of Lacking Empathy

The subtle instance of Hans showing a lack of empathy is how he lacks genuine awareness for people he supposedly loves. Hans says a lot of things, but doesn't really show it.

For example, during the scene after Elsa runs away. While Hans and Anna are walking towards the Duke, Anna is visibly cold. Hans notices that she is, but instead brings his jacket closer to himself. He asks after the fact if she is ok. Anna replies "No". Hans responds by immediately asking her if she knew about Elsa's magic.

In other words, after hearing directly from Anna that she is not ok, Hans disregards her feelings to ask about the situation. He doesn't offer his coat, a hug to warm her, or even asks her if there isn't anything he could do to help her. While yes, there is a crises going on - Hans supposedly loves and cares for Anna. Yet, he is not really showing that care, only asking an empty question.

---

Another instance that shows this idea of Hans saying things but not showing, it is during the Castle Siege scene. Hans tells Elsa "Don't be the monster they fear you are!" But then immediately plans to kill/incapacitate her with the chandelier. He is trying to give off this impression of trying to help her, but does something completely contradictory to his words.

As a small side point before moving on, I recognize that some disagree that this was his intention. I feel that the scene pretty much speaks for itself, with little room for interpretation.

Here we have Hans looking directly at the Weselton's Henchman, and then looking towards his crossbow.

Then, you see Hans change his gaze towards the ceiling, way above the henchman, straight at the chandelier, and keeps staring at it as he moves towards the henchman.

As we see here, in a different angle, he is directly aiming that crossbow towards the chandelier.

I would also like to point out, that although I do not feel A Frozen Heart by Elizabeth Rudnick is entirely Lore Friendly (but apparently is part of the Book Canon Universe now as of All is Found: A Frozen Anthology), it is good to note that this scene was also acknowledged in this book.

Hans looked around the room desperate for a plan, and noticed the giant chandelier directly above Elsa. (...) True, it might kill her, but would that be so bad? One less obstacle to the throne.” - A Frozen Heart, Rudnick, Pg. 226

Thus, if this novel recognizes the intention behind this scene, then it was something present in the script and/or character notes at the time the author was writing the novel. Keep in mind, this scene is never actually mentioned by any of the creative team. Thus, the author had to be made aware of this to include it in her book.

If you are a fan of A Frozen Heart, and include it with your personal canon, I have an fairly old analysis where I go into a lot of these concepts with the novel as well.

---

Another big thing that shows Hans' lack of empathy is something that is foreshadowed in Love is an Open Door. I'm going to quote some lines from my Meant to Be analysis on this song, that show how Hans actually doesn't really show any empathy towards Anna and does not focus on her at all - he instead is more concerned with himself and his goals.

Both Anna and Hans mirror each other - both felt neglected and underestimated by their families and thus want something more from life. However, the focus on how they go about mending their pain is very evident in the first few lines of this song. Notice how Anna focuses on people - she references Elsa closing doors and losing connections with her. Hans comes and gives her the attention she craves, and in turn, she focuses on him. She says - I bump into you. I see your face. Hans, on the other hand, focuses on Arendelle. I've been searching my whole life to find my own place. But with you, I've found my place.

Many fans have also pointed out this specific lyric here - Hans: You - Anna: And I - Hans & Anna - Are just meant to be. Pointing out how Hans never actually referred to himself directly. He and Anna only really refer to Anna herself. Hans says you (Anna) and Anna refers to herself (and I).

Desire for Power

This one is fairly obvious - as Hans himself explains quite clearly his intentions for being kind to Anna and the people of Arendelle.

As thirteenth in line in my own kingdom, I didn't stand a chance. I knew I'd have to marry into the throne somewhere - As heir, Elsa was preferable, of course. But no one was getting anywhere with her. But you - You were so desperate for love you were willing to marry me, just like that. I figured, after we married, I'd have to stage a little accident for Elsa. But then she doomed herself, and you were dumb enough to go after her. All that's left now is to kill Elsa and bring back summer. (...) No, you're no match for Elsa. I, on the other hand, am the hero who is going to save Arendelle from destruction. - Prince Hans, Frozen (2013)

Hans makes it quite clear in his tropey villain monologue here (haha) that he wants to be a King. It didn't matter to him where he went or who he married, but he was determined to make it happen - even if it meant having to murder someone to get them out of his way.

Hans also shows a complete disregard for social norms in this way of thinking. He believes that murder and manipulation is an appropriate way to achieve his goals, and feels no remorse for his actions, but instead (as stated by B.G) confusion when he fails.

There are many theories as to why Hans feels he needs this power, to the point of hurting someone - A Frozen Heart tried to give a background for this, giving the blame to his father and brothers for abusing him. The novel is not entirely far off, as Jennifer Lee herself has stated that Hans is a product of being raised without love.

However, while the details for Hans' background is still fairly mysterious, we can conclude that Hans canonically had a rough childhood whether you choose to only use the film's clues and Jennifer Lee's words, or go by A Frozen Heart.

I think Hans is a tragic figure because he's a consequence of being raised without love. - Jennifer Lee, Reddit (2014)

When it comes to ASPD, while the direct cause is still currently unknown - environmental factors, such as child abuse, are believed to contribute to the development of this condition. Thus, Hans was raised in a home without love, and it led to him developing ASPD and valuing power over anything else.

Manipulation

This is the biggest aspect of Hans' portrayal, and also the biggest hint through out the film, is how he manipulates and mirrors people. We begin with Hans' introduction - before and after the infamous "just you?" line.

When we first meet him, he is much more panicked. He just caused a scene and hurt the Princess after all, and then they started awkwardly tumbling around on a boat. He's not interested in Anna at this point, and doesn't want to get in trouble. When Anna falls on him in the boat, he just says "um..." and ignores most of her comments, including calling him "gorgeous". He goes straight into trying to apologize and smooth things over.

However, right after the "just you?" line, suddenly things change.

He smiles after her when she leaves, he stares at her during the Chapel scene, and seems to be following her around to the point where he is confidently able to catch her when she trips, and knows exactly what to say to get Anna to like him.

"I would never shut you out." - Seriously, how does the awkward guy in the beginning of his intro that didn't respond to Anna's silly advances, suddenly feel confident enough to just proclaim to the same girl he just met that he would be an emotional support for her? The sudden shift in his demeanor is actually a bit jarring when you think about it. Someone cannot go from awkward guy to confident prince charming so suddenly.

It goes even further than this when he starts to mirror Anna. Here, I am exploring Love is an Open Door again from my analysis, with how Hans mirrors Anna.

The rest of the song is them directly mirroring each other, representing an almost robotic relationship between them - the cover image for this analysis directly shows this robotic aspect on the clock tower, when they mimic the gears.

A funny thing actually happens during Anna's announcement of their marriage. Hans is actually switching between trying to appeal to Elsa while also keeping up with Anna. Let me show you what I mean.

Hans is trying to act stoic and reserved in front of Elsa, to match her tone. However, Anna keeps interrupting him and making him trip over his words. Hans eventually gives into Anna's goofiness and just loses his composure completely and just copies Anna, basically becoming her clone in her behavior. You can see here how he struggles to keep up with both women at the same time.

You can also notice how Hans keeps trying to look at Elsa to see her expression and reaction to their relationship. Anna, on the other hand, while she does look at Elsa occasionally, she is shown to be more infatuated with Hans and looks at him most of the time. Hans is trying to appeal to Elsa, while Anna just wants Hans’ support.

Later on during this scene, he completely sheds this goofier persona and goes back to trying to be stoic, like Elsa. He is even adopting her more serious and disinterested expressions, opposite to Anna's expressions that he was just mirroring moment ago.

He completely stops mirroring Anna here, and goes straight into trying to appeal to Elsa and match her tone. Right after this, he goes back to expressing Anna’s sadness again.

Since the beginning of his introduction, Hans has shown three different personalities that contradict each other. His awkward self that forgets to introduce himself and rams into people with horses, his charming self that is charming, fun and sensitive, and his stoic and reserved self that appeals to royalty.

This mirroring behavior and personality shift continues later on the film.Hans is shown to be kind and generous to the people of Arendelle, not having a mean bone in his body. This persona matches how he acts for Anna after their first encounter. However, Hans adopts the Duke's personality to threaten him, that is confrontational and even a bit childish.

"Do not question the Princess. She left me in charge, and I will not hesitate to protect Arendelle from treason!"

Hans literally starts yelling at the Duke, and accusing him of treason, which is an extreme accusation - just as the Duke is yelling and making accusations against Anna. He is pretty much copying the Duke to get him to back off in a way that he will understand.

Remember what Jennifer Lee said in the Script Notes interview?

Jennifer: Yeah, exactly. And he mirrors her and he’s goofy with her. He’s a little bit more bold and aggressive with the Duke, because the Duke is a jerk, so he’s a jerk back. And with Elsa he’s a hero.

Hans pretty much switches between these three personalities throughout the film. Goofy and charming with Anna, stoic and heroic with Elsa and Arendelle, and confrontational with the Duke.

---

Other Hans Analyses

New - These I have written recently and have updated info.

Irredeemable Monster - Should Hans Make a Return?

Meant to Be - Frozen's Secret Villain Song

Frozen in Fear - Comparing the antagonist's reactions towards magic.

Old - May have some ideas that have missing info and overall needs updating

Different Perspectives - Why a Frozen Heart does not Support a Redemption for Hans.

Wolf in Sheep's Clothing - Hints that lead to Hans' Betrayal

#Hans #Prince Hans #frozen #greatqueenanna/analysis #helsa #hanna

33 notes · View notes

boy-interrupted98 · 2 months ago

Text

THE SOCIOPATH: A CODE

1. Radical Self-Awareness

They know exactly what they are and what they are not. They do not delude themselves with myths of empathy, but they do honor the value of others as sentient carriers of meaning.

2. Constructed Ethics Over Innate Feeling

Morality is not felt—it is built. Brick by brick, they assemble a code of behavior grounded not in sentiment, but in philosophy, logic, and conscious responsibility.

3. Strategic Compassion

They choose kindness not because they feel it, but because it works. They understand that benevolence can be a kind of power—elegant, reciprocal, and clean.

4. Meticulous Control of Impulses

Desires are not denied—they are tamed. The good sociopath does not act on instinct but governs the body like a sovereign governs a fragile state: with vigilance, with discipline.

5. Devotion to Truth, Even When It Burns

Lies are tools, yes—but truth is the higher art. They cultivate an unflinching honesty, especially with themselves, because the moment they deceive themselves, the entire architecture collapses.

6. Silence Over Noise

They speak when it is necessary. They do not indulge in excess. Each word is weighed. Each absence of speech is purposeful.

7. Consistency in Action

The mask they wear is not a lie—it is a commitment. Their behavior, though rehearsed, becomes real through repetition. They become the role by playing it well.

8. Kindness as Ritual

They perform small acts of decency not because they feel moved, but because they choose to maintain order—both in the world and within themselves.

9. Non-Attachment, Not Disregard

They do not cling. They do not obsess. But they respect. People are not pawns; they are mirrors. And mirrors, when clean, reflect more than just surface.

10. A Quiet, Uncelebrated Altruism

They give. They assist. Not for praise, not for redemption—but because, in a dark and hollow universe, it is a form of rebellion to do good without reason.

11. Time-Disciplined Routines

Waking early. Reading deliberately. Planning contingencies. Their life is a monastic ritual wrapped in modern skin. Structure is salvation.

12. Refusal to Harm the Innocent

Even wolves can choose not to hunt the lamb. They may lack guilt, but not judgment. The line is drawn. And it is not crossed.

13. Art as Catharsis

They write, draw, compose, or design. They know madness lives inside—but they bleed it into the canvas instead of the world.

14. You are allowed to become unrecognizable—to yourself, to the world.

Transformation is not betrayal. It is the only honest form of survival. The good sociopath understands that becoming is a form of ethics—when no fixed identity can bear the weight of enduring.

2 notes · View notes

extremely-moderate · 8 months ago

Text

Land of the fear

America’s political landscape today is marked by deep divisions, with fear, anger, and resentment often wielded as tools to influence elections. This pattern has intensified over the last several decades, creating an environment where tribal loyalties and emotional reactions often take precedence over objective facts or shared values. In recent years, religious supporters of the GOP have become emblematic of this trend, their alignment with divisive politics seemingly at odds with the moral teachings they espouse. To understand this alignment—and the diminishing moral authority it has entailed—it’s necessary to explore the psychological appeal of these tactics, the specific dynamics of religious loyalty, and the growing susceptibility to disinformation, particularly Russian campaigns that exploit ideological fault lines.

The Rise of Fear and Anger as Political Tools

Fear and anger are powerful motivators, often more immediate and galvanizing than hope or rational debate. American politics has historically had its share of emotionally charged moments, but in recent years, political leaders and media outlets have increasingly centered campaigns around evoking these negative emotions. This strategy is not accidental; it is rooted in psychology. Fear, for instance, activates the brain’s fight-or-flight response, sharpening a sense of “us versus them” and bypassing the more reflective, reasoned processes of the brain. Anger, similarly, mobilizes people by convincing them that their beliefs, identities, or values are under siege and must be defended at all costs.

In this context, issues like immigration, LGBTQ+ rights, and racial justice are framed in existential terms. They are not positioned as matters of policy where compromise could be reached, but as battles for the soul of the nation, with one side painted as dangerous or morally corrupt. Religious voters, particularly evangelical Christians, have been a central target for these narratives, their traditional values often framed as “under attack” by secular or progressive agendas. This tactic fosters a self-reinforcing cycle where fear begets anger, and anger strengthens tribal loyalty.

Religious Supporters of the GOP: A Crisis of Moral Authority

Religious conservatives, especially evangelical Christians, have long viewed the GOP as a protector of their moral values—opposing abortion, supporting traditional family structures, and advocating for religious freedoms. Yet, in recent years, this alliance has raised questions about the moral integrity of religious support for the party. Many GOP leaders have embraced rhetoric and policies that seem to contradict the principles of compassion, humility, and honesty foundational to Christianity. Whether through inflammatory language about immigrants, callous dismissals of racial justice concerns, or explicit disregard for the well-being of the vulnerable, these actions appear at odds with the values that religious supporters claim to hold.

This misalignment has led to a visible erosion of moral credibility among religious conservatives. Where their faith ostensibly advocates for love and kindness, their political endorsements increasingly support divisive tactics and endorse leaders whose personal and political behaviors defy traditional moral teachings. These choices have bred criticism both within and outside of religious communities, with many questioning how advocates for ethical living can support politicians who openly engage in fear-mongering, dishonesty, and moral compromise.

The Hypocrisy of Embracing Disinformation

A glaring example of this moral inconsistency lies in the willingness of many religious conservatives to believe, and even spread, disinformation—particularly when that disinformation aligns with their preexisting fears or political views. Russian disinformation campaigns, for instance, have specifically targeted conservative voters by amplifying narratives that stoke racial, cultural, and religious divides. These campaigns thrive on misinformation about topics like immigration, Black Lives Matter, and LGBTQ+ rights, framing them as existential threats to traditional values.

Despite their professed values of truth and integrity, many religious GOP supporters have shown a willingness to embrace these misleading narratives. Russian disinformation campaigns have been designed to exploit exactly the kind of fear-based, reactionary responses that have come to dominate conservative media ecosystems. By sharing or believing these narratives, religious conservatives inadvertently align themselves with foreign interests that seek to destabilize American democracy and undermine civil discourse. This alignment starkly contrasts with the patriotism and moral responsibility they often claim to represent.

Religious conservatives’ acceptance of disinformation reveals a willingness to overlook, or even reject, fact-based assessments in favor of emotionally charged propaganda that reinforces their fears. This tendency not only damages their credibility but also underscores a form of hypocrisy: they readily believe and circulate falsehoods that suit their narratives, while condemning those who challenge their views as morally corrupt or unpatriotic. Their faith, which traditionally calls for discernment, caution against false witness, and a commitment to truth, is compromised by the embrace of convenient falsehoods that justify their fears.

The Moral Consequence of Siding with Hate and Fear

The willingness of many religious conservatives to align with divisive, fear-driven politics and disinformation undermines their standing as moral authorities in public discourse. Their alignment with anger and mistrust has, in effect, rendered them complicit in the spread of social polarization. Where they could have served as voices for compassion, patience, and truth, they have instead contributed to an atmosphere of division and suspicion.

This complicity raises fundamental questions about the priorities that govern religious political involvement. While moral concerns like abortion and marriage remain focal points, their fixation on these issues has fostered a tunnel vision that allows, or even encourages, alignment with political actors who violate other, equally important moral principles. This selective moralism has not gone unnoticed; many younger, progressive Christians have distanced themselves from traditional religious conservative circles, disillusioned by the willingness to tolerate or endorse harmful rhetoric.

Conclusion: A Path Forward?

For America to move beyond the divisive cycle of fear, anger, and disinformation, religious conservatives must confront the contradictions in their political allegiances. This requires a renewed commitment to the moral principles that underpin their faith, prioritizing honesty, compassion, and humility over political expediency. By rejecting disinformation, holding leaders accountable, and refusing to endorse policies that harm vulnerable groups, religious conservatives could reclaim a measure of their moral authority and serve as advocates for healing rather than division.

The journey to restore moral integrity will not be easy. It demands difficult conversations within religious communities and a willingness to engage honestly with uncomfortable truths about their past choices. However, such introspection could ultimately lead to a political climate where shared values, rather than divisive tactics, define the discourse—an America where elections are guided less by hate, anger, and fear, and more by a commitment to the common good.

#fear #hatred #anger #distrust #politics #gop #russia #misinformation #disinformation #cruelty #religion #morality #hypocrisy

2 notes · View notes

sophiegold123 · 2 years ago

Text

Viewing Response #4

In the article “Hopeful Dystopias? Figures of Hope in the Brazilian Science Fiction Series 3%” by Michael Godhe, the author talks about how late-modern dystopias show possible unwanted futures that are predicted and taken from present tendencies. A quote from teh article is “The same goes for Brazilian series 3% (2016–2019), which pictures an extremely stratified future society, albeit one with a disturbing resemblance to our contemporary times.” In the show, there's a character named Rafael who embodies the idea of doing whatever it takes to succeed, including lying, cheating, and sacrificing others for personal gain. This behavior mirrors aspects of our current reality, where some individuals resort to unethical actions such as robbing and scamming others to benefit themselves, disregarding the harm inflicted on others. One scene in particular stands out where candidates must complete nine puzzles to pass a test. Rafael cheats by stealing another candidate's puzzle at the last moment, causing that candidate to be eliminated. The camera work in this scene intensifies the situation, with tilted angles and shaky shots adding to the sense of urgency and tension. This heightened intensity reinforces the notion that passing the test is the only thing that matters. Furthermore, the use of red lighting in the scene can symbolize evil or immorality, underlining the moral ambiguity of Rafael's actions and the overall theme of ethical compromises in the pursuit of personal success.

#oxyspeculativetv #@theuncannyprofessoro

7 notes · View notes

orszemgyorgy · 2 years ago

Text

Unveiling the Dynamics of Explaining Away Disrespectful Behavior

Why is it that when we encounter behavior that appears to disregard common decency, we often assume that the individuals responsible might not fully comprehend the wrongness of their actions? Is this presumption rooted in a belief that they lack the life experience to discern right from wrong? Curiously, we often find ourselves compelled to meticulously detail their behavior, almost as if we are stepping into the role of an instructor.

But let's explore the deeper layers of this inclination. Could it be that by taking on this explanatory role, we are subtly assigning blame to ourselves? Is there a hidden narrative within us that insinuates we somehow bear the responsibility for making them aware? This repetitive cycle leads us to perceive their actions as stemming from a place of obliviousness, fostering within us the notion that what they require is a patient breakdown of their actions.

Inevitably, this perspective drives us to set up scenarios where we feel the need to sit them down and engage in a candid conversation, with the expectation that if they truly grasp the impact of their actions on us, they will inherently alter their behavior. It's as if we believe we possess the power to mold them into the ideal image of what we deem appropriate. This notion becomes even more intricate when we start to believe that our own endurance of suffering could act as the catalyst for their transformation.

However, let's pause for a moment and reflect on this viewpoint. Is it reasonable to assume that a grown adult is genuinely incapable of distinguishing right from wrong? Is this assumption not, in itself, a glaring red flag? Does it not suggest that a relationship built on fundamental values of love, care, trust, and respect is implausible with this particular individual?

Furthermore, if we find ourselves in the position of needing to educate someone about the rudimentary aspects of human interaction and ethical conduct, are we not inadvertently adopting the role of a caregiver or even a parent? Does this not hint at a power imbalance within the relationship, where one party is positioned as the knowledgeable authority, while the other is relegated to a more ignorant, submissive stance?

What's truly fascinating is that attributing their questionable actions to ignorance serves as a form of self-inflicted gaslighting. In a way, we manipulate ourselves into accepting that their lack of understanding absolves them of accountability. This perspective, however, fails to acknowledge the gravity of the behavior or what it signifies about their character, as well as the dynamics of the relationship or situation.

In essence, the way we respond to such situations becomes a reflection of the kind of relationship we aspire to have. By tolerating disrespect or by explaining away shady behavior, we indirectly communicate our willingness to compromise our own values. Consequently, addressing the root issue of disrespect becomes pivotal. It entails recognizing that such behavior is neither justified nor a result of ignorance; rather, it's a conscious choice. By acknowledging this truth, we empower ourselves to cultivate relationships that are built on genuine understanding, mutual respect, and shared values.

#empath #soul #spirituality #alchemy of souls #healing #energy #ego #healing journey #spiritualgrowth

2 notes · View notes

mn92-finalmajorproject-25 · 3 months ago

Text

Ethical, Cultural and Environmental Considerations

Diversity - People should be able to feel represented when playing games and whilst you cant accommodate everyone there are many things that can be done to show most people. This leads to more people being represented ion game which is good.

Empathy and Understanding - Games should be able to teach people how to understand and communicate with people by showing them healthy responses to different situations. This can help the player be more informed on topics or situations they aren't accustomed to themselves.

Stereotyping - Peoples understanding of other people on different basis ends up boiling down to what their show about them. It is Important to try and not showcase a behavior from a group of people as a definitive among them as everyone is different.

Education - Games can help players by teaching them how to deal with in game problems with solutions that might also be helpful in real life. This can educate the player without taking away the fun aspect of the game.

History - Some of the history of what we se in different games could be made in a way to create parallels to other moments in real history. It's is important that if done so that the representation of the similarities in the games history stay respectful to the real history that basing the story on.

Real-World Issues in Virtual Worlds - Some times games try to get us to be aware of problems in the real world by having them presents in the game. If there's something that people should be more aware of then having them be informed via the game is a very neat way to go about it.

Narrative-Driven Gameplay - Games normally have a story to them which keeps the events of the gams consistent whilst some games don't need a story behind them, only an objective. Its important to know which type of game you're making as you don't want as game where you start with a story that gets completely disregarded until the end of the game.

Community Engagement - An important aspect of gaming is the relationship between the creators and the audience. A good reciprocation between these two naturally leads to the game and its community being content with each other.

Microtransactions and Monetization Practices - Its is well known by now that image purchases are able to put players ahead of other in ways that many would see as unfair. If image purchases are apparent in a game it should encourage the player to play the game fairly before resorting to such measures.

Portrayal of Violence and Mature Content - The portrayal of violence and mature content in games has long been a contentious issue, with debates over the impact on players, societal norms, and censorship. Game developers must navigate ethical considerations surrounding the depiction of violence, gore, and sensitive subject matter, balancing creative expression with social responsibility.

Regulatory Compliance and Industry Standards - Compliance with legal requirements, industry guidelines, and ethical frameworks ensures that games are developed and distributed responsibly. Ethical considerations include transparency in advertising, compliance with age ratings and content guidelines, and accountability for ethical breaches.

#research

0 notes

hauntedselves · 3 years ago

Text

Alternate model for personality disorders

Part 1: Intro | Part 2: Specific PDs (ASPD, AVPD, BPD, NPD, OCPD, STPD, PD-TS)

Antisocial Personality Disorder

Typical features of antisocial personality disorder are a failure to conform to lawful and ethical behavior, and an egocentric, callous lack of concern for others, accompanied by deceitfulness, irresponsibility, manipulativeness, and/or risk taking. Characteristic difficulties are apparent in identity, self-direction, empathy, and/or intimacy, as described below, along with specific maladaptive traits in the domains of Antagonism and Disinhibition.

A. Moderate or greater impairment in personality functioning, manifested by characteristic difficulties in two or more of the following four areas:

Identity: Egocentrism; self-esteem derived from personal gain, power, or pleasure.

Self-direction: Goal setting based on personal gratification; absence of prosocial internal standards, associated with failure to conform to lawful or culturally normative ethical behavior.

Empathy: Lack of concern for feelings, needs, or suffering of others; lack of remorse after hurting or mistreating another.

Intimacy: Incapacity for mutually intimate relationships, as exploitation is a primary means of relating to others, including by deceit and coercion; use of dominance or intimidation to control others.

B. Six or more of the following seven pathological personality traits:

Manipulativeness (an aspect of Antagonism): Frequent use of subterfuge to influence or control others; use of seduction, charm, glibness, or ingratiation to achieve one’s ends.

Callousness (an aspect of Antagonism): Lack of concern for feelings or problems of others; lack of guilt or remorse about the negative or harmful effects of one’s actions on others; aggression; sadism.

Deceitfulness (an aspect of Antagonism): Dishonesty and fraudulence; misrepresentation of self; embellishment or fabrication when relating events.

Hostility (an aspect of Antagonism): Persistent or frequent angry feelings; anger or irritability in response to minor slights and insults; mean, nasty, or vengeful behavior.

Risk taking (an aspect of Disinhibition): Engagement in dangerous, risky, and potentially self-damaging activities, unnecessarily and without regard for consequences; boredom proneness and thoughtless initiation of activities to counter boredom; lack of concern for one’s limitations and denial of the reality of personal danger.

Impulsivity (an aspect of Disinhibition): Acting on the spur of the moment in response to immediate stimuli; acting on a momentary basis without a plan or consideration of outcomes; difficulty establishing and following plans.

Irresponsibility (an aspect of Disinhibition): Disregard for—and failure to honor—financial and other obligations or commitments; lack of respect for—and lack of follow-through on—agreements and promises.

Specify if with psychopathic features.

Psychopathy (or “primary” psychopathy) is marked by a lack of anxiety or fear and by a bold interpersonal style that may mask maladaptive behaviors (e.g., fraudulence). This psychopathic variant is characterized by low levels of anxiousness (Negative Affectivity domain) and withdrawal (Detachment domain) and high levels of attention seeking (Antagonism domain). High attention seeking and low withdrawal capture the social potency (assertive/dominant) component of psychopathy, whereas low anxiousness captures the stress immunity (emotional stability/resilience) component.

#alternate model for personality disorders #pd info #aspd info #dogpost #psychopathy

82 notes · View notes

khozmoh1 · 3 years ago

Text

𝙷𝙴𝙰𝙳𝙲𝙰𝙽𝙾𝙽: maureen phillips .

*trigger warnings: mentions of self-harm, suicide, and psychiatric abuse.

Following his attempted suicide when he was sixteen, Cosmo was admitted into Eichen House where he was put under the care of a psychiatrist called Maureen Phillips. Despite being under the age of 18, Maureen diagnosed him with Antisocial Personality. While Cosmo was released from Eichen House after only a month, he was still required to visit Maureen once a week and she later diagnosed him with Mixed Personality.

While Cosmo does have an ambiguous disorder (he has enough symptoms of several disorders to be a bit of a gray area), he doesn’t actually have Antisocial or Mixed Personality. Maureen took advantage of her position as a psychiatrist to manipulate, coerce, gaslight, and abuse her patients, usually in an effort to push them into either suicide or homicide. Given Eichen’s history with severely unstable patients, she had a wide pool of victims to choose from.

Cosmo has always been incredibly self-aware and able to mask in order to function and survive in the real world, which made it difficult to assign Cosmo a clear and precise diagnosis and in turn made it easier for Maureen to take advantage of her position where she psychologically abused him for almost a year before she was forced to leave Beacon Hills.

Cosmo struggled immensely while he was Maureen’s patient and she is in large part responsible for much of his behavior. Because of Maureen, Cosmo is convinced that he is defective, abnormal, and unlovable, and that he will inevitably hurt anyone that he loves or is close to. His paranoia and distrust of others, his reluctance to appear vulnerable, to share his thoughts, feelings, or desires with others, are all a direct influence from Maureen’s poor treatment.

While Cosmo is slowly becoming aware of what Maureen was doing to him, he still struggles to consider what she “taught” him about himself to be untrue and at this point, it will take years and a lot of self-reflection to untangle the influence that she’s had on his behavior.

Beneath the read more are the symptoms of each personality disorder that Cosmo demonstrates and short explanations, also I want to note that I’m not a psychologist or a psychology major and that a lot of the time, Cosmo is able to mask his behaviors quite well.

ANTISOCIAL PERSONALITY

a disregard for right and wrong: cosmo struggles with issues of morality and ethics, personally finding them to be very arbitrary, he tends to do whatever he wants unless he takes a moment specifically to think about what his father or brother would do in his shoes

being callous, cynical and disrespectful of others: tied similarly to cosmo’s inability to gage morality and ethics, he also has a difficult time considering other people’s feelings. he’s naturally cynical, always thinking about worse case scenario

arrogance and being extremely opinionated: cosmo’s inability to reflexively empathize with others means that he doesn’t usually care about another person’s thoughts, feelings, or opinions and always thinks he’s right

violating the rights of others through intimidation and dishonesty: tying in with not understanding right or wrong, cosmo will violate another's rights, intimidate or lie to them to get what he wants if he feels that it’s important enough

impulsiveness, especially in forms of violence: he is very quick to react physically, especially when he is searching for an adrenaline rush, or to self-harm

hostility, agitation and violence: cosmo has little patience and a reactionary personality, leeching off of his own and others irritability and anger and fueling his own, meaning he’s quick to lash out with words or with his hands

lack empathy and remorse for others: cosmo has a difficult time empathizing with others normally, this becomes twice as difficult if he says or does something that hurts them, he’ll generally not feel guilty or remorseful unless they are people close to him or people that he respects

dangerous behavior with no regard for his own safety or the safety of others: cosmo has a tendency to spiral when he is feeling bad which leads to more impulsiveness and more dangerous behavior, not caring about himself or others outside of his father and brother

a failure to consider the negative consequences of his own behavior: when spiraling and when engaging in his dangerous behaviors cosmo rarely thinks about what might happen afterwards until it is too late

BORDERLINE PERSONALITY

intense fear of abandonment: cosmo is crippled by the fear that everyone he cares about will eventually see him for what he is (defective, broken, dangerous), and will leave him

unstable, shallow or temporary sexual relationships: he has a long history of using sex and losing himself in unstable and shallow relationships for the illusion of intimacy and vulnerability

periods of stress-related paranoia and a loss of contact with reality: (though this is caused primarily by his Seer abilities)

impulsiveness, especially in terms of casual sexual encounters: cosmo has a tendency to sleep with anyone that shows him even the slightest interest in having sex with him

alcohol and drug abuse: cosmo uses alcohol and drugs to suppress his Seer abilities, but he also uses them to avoid his own personal issues.

self-sabotaging positive relationships: since cosmo is convinced that he will inevitably hurt the people he loves, he has a tendency to ruin his own positive relationships with friends, partners, and mentors out of a misguided attempt to “save” them from him, sometimes this is done unconsciously, and other times consciously. only his father and brother manage not to fall into this as cosmo is so heavily reliant upon them and loves them far too deeply to consider pushing them away

suicidal tendencies or self-harming tactics: cosmo has only ever made one suicide attempt, however, he periodically finds ways to self-harm. whether it’s over-exercising, brawling, drinking, fucking, or cutting (he hasn’t cut in years though).

ongoing feelings of emptiness: cosmo always feels as if there is something missing inside of him, that there’s a hollow pit where something is supposed to be

inappropriate and intense anger: cosmo’s irritability has a tendency to escalate suddenly regardless of the cause

AVOIDANT PERSONALITY

sensitivity to criticism and disapproval: when cosmo is criticized by the people he is close with (friends, family, partners), or they show disapproval, cosmo can experience a sudden mood drop and will typically fall into a depression

inability to create and maintain long lasting friendships: almost all of his friends are friends of stiles’ as he finds it extremely difficult to make friends on his own, or to keep them. with stiles’ friends, they always have their relationship to stiles to bring them together

reluctance to become involved with people: cosmo keeps everyone outside of his immediate family at arms length, rarely letting anyone close and rarely allowing himself to be vulnerable with them

avoiding activities or operations that involves contact with others: he hates interacting with people and avoids it unless absolutely necessary

insecurity in social situations and a fear of doing something wrong: cosmo is always concerned about “revealing” his nature to people and social situations only heighten this fear

showing excessive restraint, at least in regard of romantic or platonic feelings, in intimate relationships: cosmo very rarely reaches out to partners and friends and is always holding himself back from emotional intimacy

feeling socially inept and inferior to those around him: he thinks he’s terrible in social situations and that everyone else possesses some kind of understanding that he doesn’t

unwillingness to take risks with interpersonal relationships: cosmo refuses to let any interpersonal relationships pass fourth base tbh

#. HEADCANON . › heart like a bomb & the bomb shelter .#i could've made 2 posts to shorten this down #but they're like cause and effect so

7 notes · View notes

sam-t-a · 4 years ago

Text

Okay.

*Deep breath*

I think I’m finally calm enough to put into words exactly why I hated the finale and why I wasn’t completely surprised that I hated it.

(Heads-up: this is really long and pretty negative. If you disagree, I would of course appreciate your point of view and love to hear it, but just thought I’d let you know in case this is the kind of post you would like to avoid.)

To me, it felt like every character on the show got betrayed in some way or another, but the main ones are Han Seo (devastatingly), Chayoung (obviously) and Han Seok (bear with me).

Cha Young:

She started out as a solid FL who annoyed some people for sure, but who had so much promise as someone unconventional and bold. The way her mother’s death affected her and caused a clear shift in her personality was a super interesting plot point that really never got explored. We have no idea how she came to sacrifice her morality in joining Wusang, just that she wanted to spite her father, which is a very superficial exploration. She gets cute idiosyncrasies in lieu of an actual character and an actual character arc.

We also, halfway through the show, seem to forget that her father's death was the initial trigger. Cha young does not suggest bold ideas or intricate plans, she doesn’t fill the gaps Vincenzo is incapable of filling (because that would require that Vincenzo have flaws, and that’s not something the writers can abide), and she’s literally victimized in episode 19 and bedridden in episode 20, and that is IT.

Someone who started out supposedly as Vincenzo’s equal just became another piece in his chess set, no matter how important a piece she may be.

So her role as a badass avenger is trashed. That leaves her role as a love interest. Now, as Vincenzo’s love interest, she was supposed to get kidnapped in like episode 5 or 6 at the most if the villain has any brains whatsoever (Han Seok may or may not, more on that later). We need a reason for that not to happen too early. Cue villain is somehow in love with her for all of 15 minutes or so throughout a 20-episode series because a love triangle is inconceivable with the show’s current structure and for its purposes.

So, she spends 15 or so episodes making the first move on Vincenzo, every time, putting herself out there, creating cute moments, getting nothing in return, and then he leaves. No confession, nothing much, he wasn’t even going to say goodbye or give her the choice of coming with him.

I’m sure more chayenzo-oriented fans have already expressed all the necessary outrage over this, so I’ll move on to the part that I’ve personally been way more emotionally invested in from the get go: the Jang brothers.

Han Seo:

I was among the minority that hated the “Vinny hyung” angle from the get-go and I’ve ranted about it in another post, so I won’t get into it here in-depth, but basically it was because I felt like Vincenzo hadn’t earned it, so to have the last words Han Seo hears be “You deserve to be my brother” or whatever the fuck he was on about PISSED ME OFF. It’s VINCENZO who doesn’t deserve to be Han Seo’s brother and hasn’t done a single thing to earn it. He was a good ally. The situation he allowed Han Seo to be a part of was beneficial to him, but Han Seo’s attachment to him was neither healthy nor heartwarming, and it certainly wasn’t returned on the level he offered it.

Vincenzo’s disregard of his death didn’t strike me as odd because I never saw enough indications that this was a two-way street and Han Seo’s safety and well-being came second so often that I didn’t get the impression Vincenzo was doing much to keep him alive. This is what I meant when I said the show was glorifying a torture survivor’s trauma responses. Han Seo himself, as a torture survivor, meant nothing to them. He was just there to create one more contrived comparison between Vincenzo and Han Seok. Instead of recovering from the trauma, it’s simply employed to someone else’s favor. He doesn’t go to prison for Han Seok, he takes a bullet for Vincenzo, and we’re supposed to see that as so much better.

All of that might (JUST MIGHT) not have ruined the show for me if he’d died better. 1) It was narratively pointless and totally avoidable, 2) they could’ve framed it as heroic, but instead Han Seok’s hand patting his head is pushing it down, so he can’t even get shot with his chin up and his back straight, Taec’s already taller, so the angle’s fucked and the whole cinematography screamed “kicking an injured puppy” and most certainly NOT “survivor finally stands up to his abuser”. The final nail in the proverbial and literal coffin is that he is mourned by no one. They’re FLIRTING not 3 MINUTES LATER, it felt so tone deaf and left such a bad taste. As I said, I didn’t expect significant mourning from Vincenzo (gotta say, I didn’t expect no mourning, that was a shocker), and Cha young and the tenants had no real interactions with him and no reason to mourn him, which left only one person who could.

Which brings me to Han Seok.

Han Seok started out as a solid villain, clear goals, clear skills that help him achieve his goals and basically make him a villain worth defeating, and a very complex relationship with both his own psychopathy and his brother.

Let me get it out of the way: I do not believe Han Seok is capable of killing Han Seo because he had every reason and every opportunity to do so in previous episodes and couldn’t do it (I say couldn’t because a certain degree of reluctance is in itself inability). Han Seo’s danger far outweighed his material value the minute he shot Han Seok and then completely lost any value once he came out to the world as the chairman and it became clear that the prosecution would be going after him if anything happened, and not his brother. But time and again, he’s proven he’s all bark and no bite when it comes to Han Seo (killing-wise, specifically).

The scene where he asks him to beat Vincenzo to death could be interpreted as him wanting to give Vincenzo the “painful death” he would have given him, but honestly, I think he was way past that point. He just wanted him dead in the “You crazy? we have to kill him before he kills us” sense. To that end, killing off a key ally of Vincenzo’s, who betrayed you and almost got you killed a bunch of times, should take priority, but Han Seok’s priority is reclaiming Han Seo by forcing him back onto his side. Now, much like his “love for Cha young”, Han Seok’s keenness on not killing his brother was essential to the writers so that Han Seo can justifiably make it this far and still be useful to Vincenzo (he can’t help if Han Seok completely excludes him from all events, plans and management processes, so Han Seok needs to want to keep him on his side enough not to do that even when it’s more prudent).

All of this isn’t to say it’s unbelievable that he would kill Han Seo, but it’s DEFINITELY unbelievable that he would stay the same man after killing him. Someone here (I’m sorry, I don’t rememebr who) once said that Han Seo had become, over time, far more of a foil to his brother than Vincenzo was. To me, this means that Post-Han Seo Han Seok would be out of balance (tilted screen), unhinged in a way he never was before. The Han Seok we see shrugs and “oh, well”-s and moves on in a flash, not really any different from the villain he was four minutes and a whole brother earlier.

This is very consistent with the way the show has been de-humanizing him from the start. I’m not saying this to defend Han Seok in any way, he’s a serial killer, an abuser and a total maniac. But you can be all those things and still a human being. In fact, you can ONLY be those things if you’re a human being. The show used its villain vs villain idea to justify a lot, but in the end, Vincenzo had to be a protagonist. He had to follow up every “I’m a villain” with a contrived “but at least I’m not (insert something worse)”.

On the level of humans:

1) Vincenzo is supposedly different because he doesn’t hurt children or women (unless the women deserve it, and shooting a parent in front of their kid doesn’t count as hurting.)

But we never see Han Seok hurting women or children either. In fact, if we proceed with the “chayoung is the myung hee of the good guys” comparison, he hasn’t hurt any women nearly as badly as Vincenzo did.

2) Babel vs Mafia

Babel’s corruption is compared a lot to the mafia, with Vincenzo commenting repeatedly that the people are WORSE than the mafia...which is bullshit. Babel is a set of companies that provide goods and services, but use illegal means to maximize their profit, so they hurt/kill people in the process because they want more money and care about money more than ethics. The Mafia is an inherently criminal organization that functions PURELY on the basis of its criminality. Every single dime Vincenzo spends is blood money. None of it is clean. And while we’re on the topic, I find the whole “taking Miri under his wing” thing pretty unreasonable too because he tried to have her killed you guys, I cannot believe we’re just glossing over that. He had everyone who worked on that vault killed, just random fucking construction workers. And he’s not sorry. And the show tells you he shouldn’t be.

3) Repentance

Han Seok says outright he won’t atone, and while Vincenzo says no such thing out loud he just...doesn’t repent, I guess. He keeps the blood money, he goes back to being a full-time mafia dude doing mafia things. He leaves the same man he arrived.

So, if on the level of harm inflicted upon humanity, Vincenzo and Han Seok are pretty much equal (and Vincenzo might actually be worse), then why should we root for Vincenzo?

Well, my friend, that’s where the dehumanization comes in!

I was initially very excited to see their portrayal of a psychopath because of the very interesting ways in which the informal moral code and official justice system surrounding a psychopath/sociopath/narcissist affect their behavior and their chances of not turning out rotten, and the show looked like it was looking at corruption in general.

But as the show went on, the villain vs villain thing proved not to be enough, Vincenzo has to be better in some way (or if you’re as obsessed with him as the writers are, then ALL ways), so it became a villain vs monster narrative. Vincenzo isn’t ethical or fair or in any way interested in having a remotely positive impact on society, but at least he’s A HUMAN BEING unlike SOMEBODY. So, the characterization goes to shit, Han Seok becomes a cartoon card-board cut out of a villain and emphasis is put on how pointless his violence is, as opposed to how purposeful Vincenzo’s is.

This is dangerous on multiple levels (and I promise this is the last point I’m making).

1) For people in general, dehumanizing abusers/murderers/etc. makes us very liable to forget that you don’t have to be “a monster” to cause harm, and it makes people complacent in their belief that they are “not bad people” since they aren’t total monsters. The Banality of Evil is a thing, and in this series, it goes completely ignored. No one is inherently incapable of good or inherently undeserving of humanity.

2) For victims of abuse in specific, it’s dangerous to portray abusers (including serial killer and non-serial killer ones) as entirely bad and unlovable, because it poses the dual risk of making victims less likely to acknowledge their abuse if it comes from someone who cares about or loves them on some level because the idea that someone cannot both love and hurt you is so stereotypical. Your abuser can genuinely want you in their lives and need you and, on some level, love you, and IT DOESN’T MATTER if that love doesn’t stop them from hurting you.

On the other hand, portraying the victims of abuse as capable of flipping an off switch and hating the abuser with no hesitation or second thoughts to the point of unapologetically and cheerfully helping someone kill them and having no mixed feelings about it sends the message that if you CAN’T do that, then are you really abused? Are sure you’re not complicit in your own abuse? Do you even want to get rid of them?

So this is basically why the way the show ended was so painfully disappointing for me. And the main reason it hit so hard was that it was initially so good and had so much promise. I really expected more.

#Vincenzo #vincenzo meta #vincenzo spoilers #not that mad anymore but still so disappointed #hong chayoung #jang han seo #jang han seok #so much it to fix #my brother says hi #he is disappointed too

119 notes · View notes

arcticdementor · 4 years ago

Link

There's some interesting stuff in here, but it still has to be read as propaganda from the New Yorker. Start with the subtitle:

The behavior geneticist Kathryn Paige Harden is waging a two-front campaign: on her left are those who assume that genes are irrelevant, on her right those who insist that they’re everything.

This is obviously a strawman; I don't know of anyone serious, on the right or otherwise, who claims that genes are "everything", that is, that environment has no impact. There are many leftists, on the other hand, who do insist, as one can see in this article, that genes have no real effect on behavior. This is such a wildly absurd belief that it should prevent them from ever being taken seriously on this subject, but for some reason the likes of Harden think they should set the terms of the debate:

I don’t disagree with you about insisting on intellectual honesty, but I think of it as ‘both/and’—I think that that value is very important, but I also find it very important to listen to people when they say, ‘I’m worried about how this idea might be used to harm me or my family or my neighborhood or my group.’

(In response to Sam Harris.) The connection to Turkheimer is interesting, as he has explicitly argued here that we just shouldn't study things that make him feel uncomfortable, and that people like Murray who do study them should therefore be ostracized. Here's Turkheimer:

If I may address my fellow Jews for a moment, consider this. How would you feel about a line of research into the question of whether Jews have a genetic tendency to be more concerned with money than other groups?... Hopefully I am beginning to offend you. Why? Why don’t we accept racial stereotypes as reasonable hypotheses, okay to consider until they have been scientifically proven false? They are offensive precisely because they violate our intuition about the balance between innateness and self-determination of the moral and cultural qualities of human beings.... But we can recognize a contention that Chinese people are genetically predisposed to be better table tennis players than Africans as silly, and the contention that they are smarter than Africans as ugly, because it is a matter of ethical principle that individual and cultural accomplishment is not tied to the genes in the same way as the appearance of our hair.

So Turkheimer is a dishonest hack; as far as I'm concerned, anyone who wrote this should be disregarded as a scientist. It appears that the apprentice, Harden, has learned from the master. Here she is sounding very much like him:

There is a middle ground between ‘let’s never talk about genes and pretend cognitive ability doesn’t exist’ and ‘let’s just ask some questions that pander to a virulent on-line community populated by racists with swastikas in their Twitter bios.’

Don't ask certain questions if I claim they pander to big meanies on the internet! So Turkheimer and Harden seem to share this outlook: certain questions shouldn't be asked, and certain answers to those questions are a priori immoral. It's no wonder then that the Vox article they helped write concludes, as this article puts it:

But there was simply no good scientific reason to conclude that observed racial gaps were anything but the fallout from the effects of racism.

Which also proves that the white-Asian gaps are caused by Asians oppressing whites. This is not a serious belief, but then again, these are not serious people.

#reddit #culture war roundup

2 notes · View notes

basicsofislam · 5 years ago

Text

ISLAM 101: Muslim Culture and Character: Morals And Manners: Buildinf Good Character

The topic of this book, “adab in practice,” is part of the larger concept of akhlaq, that is, morality. In fact, from one perspective, adab in practice is fundamentally practical morality and ethics. Therefore, the essence of these concepts will be explained first, beginning with a short introduction to akhlaq, and only after this will adab in practice be returned to.

Akhlaq, the plural of khuluq in Arabic, means the character and temperament of a person. The temperament of a person brings either good or harmful things. In the broadest aspect morality means that there is a moral character, that is, morality becomes deeply ingrained in the soul and as a consequence right actions and behavior come naturally and easily from within; then, the per- son with such a character no longer has to struggle intellectually to know what ethical choices to make.

Human characteristics can generally be divided into those that society approves of and those that we disapprove of. Decency, hu- mility, and kindness are traits that are seen in a positive light, while arrogance, deceit, and miserliness are generally perceived as negative human characteristics. To recognize these characteristics and their attendant traits is to understand what is meant here by the phrase “moral character.” Nawwas ibn Saman once asked the Prophet how to recognize the difference between goodness and sin. The Prophet answered, “Goodness is good moral character. Sin is anything that pricks one’s conscience, and which one does not want others to know about.”1 Another narration from Jabir re- ports that the Messenger said, “The most beloved to me among you and the ones who will be closest to me on the Day of Judgment are the best in moral character. And they who are most loathsome to me and will be farthest from me on the Day of Judgment are those who gossip, those with unbridled tongues, and those who condescend.” When they asked him, “O Messenger of God! Who are those who condescend?” he replied, “They are those who are arrogant.”2

Ethics, which is the study or science of morals, can be divided into the theoretical and the practical. While theoretical morality is concerned with those concepts that constitute the principles and rules of morality, practical morality is concerned with the duties that constitute the basis of a moral life. As reported by the Prophet, “God looks not at your outward appearances, nor at your wealth or belongings. God looks only at your hearts and your deeds.”3 For this reason, here we will be mainly concerned with the practical side of morality, and as mentioned above, the pur- pose of this book is to explore adab in practice. At this point, with a view to clarifying the meaning of human responsibility, let us take a closer look at the concept of duty, which is pivotal to devel- oping a good character with adab.

THE NATURE AND TYPES OF DUTY

Duty is the moral responsibility of a person who has reached pu- berty when they have been asked to do something good or help- ful. Accordingly, Islamically there are two types of duty. One is the obligatory (fard) group of duties, that is, those the perfor- mance of which is binding and the abandonment of which is for- bidden. For example, performing daily prayers, fasting during the holy month of Ramadan, and offering prescribed purifying alms fall into this category. The other type of duty is that which, al- though not obligatory, is encouraged or desirable; it is these du- ties that religion presents as being inherent parts of a good moral character. To observe these duties on top of the obligatory ones shows greater spiritual maturity and is worthy of Divine reward; the observation of them pleases God. To neglect such duties would be a shortcoming. An example of this type of duty would be the giving of money or goods to those in need (sadaqa), over and above the prescribed purifying alms (zakat), and generally being kind and polite to everyone.

Duties can further be classified as those fulfilled in the cause of God, or for the benefit of the individual, family, or even soci- ety. From this perspective, duties can be divided into different sorts—divine, familial, and social duties. Let us more closely ex- amine these categories.

Divinely-Ordained Duties

It is incumbent upon every person who has come of age and who is in possession of all their mental faculties that they recognize and worship God. For a human there can be no greater blessing or honor than this servitude to God. One worships God by willingly and gratefully performing acts of worship, such as daily prayers, fasting, charity, and such other commitments that require both physical and financial abilities, like the pilgrimage to Mecca. In ad- dition to these duties that pertain to the personal practice of Islam, safeguarding and defending one’s homeland is also a sacred duty.

Another very important divine duty is to struggle against one’s own evil-commanding soul. Those who cannot discipline their ego or self through moral education will not be able to help themselves, let alone society. Believers, both as individuals and members of soci- ety, need to exert themselves to strive in the way of God in all their actions at all moments of life. This is what Prophet Muhammad, peace and blessings be upon him, meant when he said, “We are re- turning from the lesser jihad (struggle) to the greater,” while he was returning to Medina from the Campaign of Tabuk.4 Emphasizing that they were returning from “the lesser struggle to the greater,” the Prophet directed his Community to this “greater struggle” that is waged against one’s carnal self at all moments of life.

Being this comprehensive in nature, jihad includes every ac- tion, from the simplest act of speaking to remaining silent or per- forming supererogatory acts of worship, such as extra prayers, worship and fasting to attain the good pleasure of God. Likewise, to enlighten our hearts we can read the Qur’an, or to increase the light of our faith we can continually remember and reflect on the Divine Attributes of our Almighty Creator that are manifest all around us.

Individual Duties

Each person has some duties toward their own self as well. Some of these pertain to the body, and some to the spirit. The following are the main duties that fall into this category:

Training the body: For everyone it is crucial that the body be kept strong and clean. Prophet Muhammad, peace and blessings be upon him, said, “A strong and vigorous be- liever is better than a frail and weak one.”5

Caring for one’s health: Health is a great blessing; there- fore, it is vital to avoid things that may damage one’s health and to seek treatment when one is ill.

Refraining from dangerous practices of abstinence or self- denial practiced in the name of spiritual discipline.

Guarding against things that wear down and age the body.

Strengthening willpower: A person needs to develop healthy self-control. This involves learning what is good for the body and partaking of it, as well as finding out what is harmful and avoiding it.

Duties relating to the mind and intellect, such as pursuing learning and enlightenment, awakening higher emotions and positive feelings in the heart, and honing one’s talents and skills.

Family Duties

The family is the very foundation of a healthy society. Each mem- ber of the family must accept some responsibility for the others in the family. Some of the primary duties of a husband, for instance, are to behave kindly toward his wife, to meet her basic needs, and to be loyal to her. A narration of the Prophet says, “The best of you is he who is the best to his wife.”6 A wife who is happy with her spouse will support her husband’s decisions, as long as they do not conflict with religious directives and contribute to protecting the family honor and property. All these are pivotal to happiness in marital relations and to a happy family.

Parents in such an atmosphere commit themselves to nurtur- ing, educating and training their children to the best of their ability, setting them on the path to success in life. Fathers and mothers should treat their children equally, holding them in equal regard and affection. They should be gentle towards their offspring, and raise them in such a way that they will not be inclined to rebel. Parents also have the duty to be models of virtue for their children.

Respect and obedience are, in turn, some of the basic duties of children towards parents who have brought them up according to the principles set out above and with love and compassion, feeding and caring for them. This is why children should not show displeasure or impatience with their parents. A son or daughter who ignores the wishes of their parents and does not heed them nor come to their assistance if they are in need is not a source of blessing for the parents. Such a person not only is not a useful member of society, but will also stand before God as one who is guilty of shirking their duty.

Likewise, siblings have duties toward one another, such as showing affection and compassion for each other, as well as help- ing and respecting each other. There is a very strong bond be- tween brothers and sisters and this should be maintained at all times. Brothers and sisters who cut their ties with one another over finances or property disagreements cannot be considered to be blessed or benevolent. Finally, if a household has hired help, this helper also must be treated as part of the family. They deserve kindness and gentle treatment and should never be overloaded with work that is too difficult for them to carry out.

Social Duties

Human beings have been created as social beings, and as such they live in social groups and have formed civilizations. Socializing is one of our basic needs, and social life involves certain expectations between people. When these are disregarded, society breaks down and people can no longer coexist peacefully or work together. The main responsibilities in this category are the preservation of the following inalienable rights:

Protecting the life of every individual: Every person has the right to life. No one has the right to take another person’s life. According to Islam, one who wrongfully kills a per- son is as guilty as if they have murdered all of humanity; likewise, one who saves one person’s life is as blessed as if they have saved all of humanity.

Safeguarding the freedom of all people: God Almighty cre- ated every human being free and equal. At the same time, it is certain that this freedom has boundaries. We do not have the prerogative to do anything we want; if we had such freedom this would violate the freedoms of others.

The consideration of conscience: When a person has a well- functioning conscience, this allows them to differentiate between good and bad. The value of such a conscience can be better understood if one observes outward consequenc- es. A person who engages in incorrect behavior cannot be said to have a functioning conscience. Islam assigns great importance to having a conscience that helps one to be concerned for the happiness and guidance of all humanity.

To this end, it encourages pity towards those who have a faulty conscience, and tries to bring them to the right way. One can never try to control or rule another person’s con- science; this is the province of God alone. Each person will be rewarded or punished for what is in their con- science. However, this does not mean it is wrong to ad- monish or advise a person who has a bad conscience, if the idea is to help the person.

Protecting freedom of mind: Any thought or opinion, right or wrong, must be approached in a scholarly man- ner. This is the only way for a truth to be discovered, and it is also the only way for society to prove the harmfulness of false ideas.

Protecting the honor and reputation of individuals: In Islam, everyone has the right to maintain their honor and dignity. Any attack against honor or dignity, we have been taught, will be gravely punished. It is for this reason that gossip, slander, ridicule, the cursing of others and saying negative things about others are absolutely forbidden in Islam.

The preservation of other people’s property: It is also for- bidden to usurp the property or possessions of any other person. What is earned by a person belongs strictly to that person. This is essential for the development of a civilized society. It is reasonable and necessary that the individuals who make up a society will have different degrees of wealth, according to their profession and training. In a fair and equitable society all should be grateful for and sat- isfied with their own portion.

2 notes · View notes

migleefulmoments · 7 years ago

Note

Wow, the tinhats are on fire today. Bitching about it being disrespectful to have their sexuality defined for them (hypocrite, much?), actually saying Darren STATED ON RECORD that he was gay (wut, then why does he need a beard?), reading the minds of Darren's parents, apparently have direct access to Darren, Mia and Ben's bank statements to know how much money they have. These Emmys have really given them a fright and rattled their cages LMFAO.

I literally just wrote a post tagging them about that ridiculous post calling out someone for saying she is straight when she considers herself pan. Whatever dude. Getting angry over an anon calling you straight is f’ing pathetic when 1. you are nobody and there is no reason for anybody to give a shit about your sexuality and 2. you aren’t actually talking about your sexuality-pan or otherwise- on your blog. I mean if you had a blog that was about your sexuality then your sexuality should be respected but bitching because someone didn’t check your bio to see if you felt the need to proclaim your sexuality before posting about CC is pathetic. Franky, I don’t fucking care who anybody except my husband sleeps with. I certainly wouldn’t feel the need to check a Tumblr bio to ascertain the sexuality of the owner of a blog whose sole reason for existence is to discount everything Darren says about himself, his sexuality, his love and to criticize every move he makes while blaming it on an elusive and every-expanding contract, the evil players in Hollywood, his inept yet all-controlling manager and the evil beard he hates but who controls his life simply to torture him and “get promotion”. Oh, and she also exists to cyberbully Mia, a woman that she is so jealous of she spends her days creating and perpetuating lies to make herself feel better about her pea green envy of Mia.

Basically the Emmy’s showed the world that Darren is deeply in love with and ridiculously smitten with Mia Swier. It is really hard to defend your mantra that Chris is “captain of this ship” and supporting Darren with all his might because they have a LOVE for the ages and are in the fight of their lives against the evil of Hollywood when Darren wears his heart on his sleeve and declares his love so freely. So let’s dissect their lies:

1. Did Darren state on Record that he was gay? Well if he did it was in one poorly recorded livestream while telling a joke and he was off camera. He HAS actually stated with his mouth, while on camera, in clear language, and in written article after article, that he is straight. He has elaborated on what it is like to play gay while being straight and he has talked about representation over and over. He has also said- out of his mouth, while on camera- that he is engaged to and loves Mia. Back to the declaration “I’m gay”. Jordan Roth was Parascoping from an event viewing (Emmys?) and a bunch of guys were standing around. A pic of Taylor Swift in a bathtub had just broke the internet and he made a joke about it. Darren off camera makes a joke like “I see that everyday” and then something garbled is said amongst the laughing and over talking. CCers claim Darren says “but I’m gay” which seems odd that he would declare such a thing in that context, on a livestream. It isn’t a natural response to having just said you see “that sort of thing all the time” and WHY THE FUCK WOULD HE OUT HIMSELF LIKE THAT ON a LIVESTREAM? Also I have listened to that audio a hundred times and I don’t hear “I’m gay”. Oh, and Jordan doesn’t respond in the way one would if a closeted friend just screwed up and outed themselves. CCers hang on to that moment like it is a defining CC moment while disregarding and denying all of the times Darren has said he is straight and all the behavior that proves he is with in fact, the fiancee of a woman named Mia

2. Darren’s parents. I posted earlier that I believe the pics are “proof” that Charles doesn’t love or respect Cerina or Darren- he’s walking in front of them after all. He’s also reading his phone- another sign that means he doesn’t actually love or respect those he is with. NOBODY walks in front of someone they love and respect and NOBODY ever looks at their phone when they are with someone they care about and a picture isn’t a snapshot of 0.01 seconds of someone’s life...it is an entire story for strangers to dissect. The pics are are a “stunt” and not at all indicative that the group is annoyed that Paps are literally walking backwards in front of them snapping pictures. Nope they are statements about the disgust the person walking in front carries for the other members of the group. At least THAT is how Tinhatters have seen it every time pap pics of Darren and Mia are released and he’s in front of her or on his phone so it must apply here as well, right?

3. There was also an argument that Cerina and Charles are pulling stunts, pretending to be “one big happy family” because “they love their child so much they would do anything”. That isn’t how parental love works. Bad behavior, lies, and deception are not OK simply because you do it out of love. I love my children to death but I would never outright deceive the world by literally participating in “stunts” over and over where I was putting on a performance that was counter to everyone’s best interest. I wouldn’t consider it “supporting my child” by doing anything that kept them in the closet or forcing them to lie over and over or colluding with them to pretend they are engaged to someone they hated. Ethics and morals still matter and doing what is right matters and supporting the good things-not the bad things- in our kids’ lives matter. But the CCers pretend that love matters more than anything...as long as it is about love then nothing else matters. That is the Disney-princess version of life and love. It doesn’t hold up in reality.

4. Speaking of Makes No Sense... The idea that every time Mia is talked about, mentioned, in a photo or standing near Darren he is promoting her. WTF? “Promotion”. Mia doesn’t even have social media...she isn’t promoting herself. Darren isn’t promoting her. Stop being so f’ing jealous of her CCers. It doesn’t look good on you.

5. Ben...oh lord Ben. That whole trope is entirely made up. Ben might have stayed with them long ago but I follow him in IG and he is rarely in LA and never for more than a few nights. There is nothing to suggest he is even staying with them anymore. Mia and Ben are clearly friends and Mia and Darren both openly share their lives with her friends. Mia wearing Ben’s hat means absolutely nothing and Ben’s arm around Mia at an IHeartRadio event means they are friends and Ben supporting the bar means it is a fun place to hang out and he likes them. Nothing more. The whole story about them in bed and taking pictures on Valentine’s day 1854 is so pathetic and contrived... I just can't. Every time the CCers stomp their feet and yell “Ben Ben Ben HOW CAN YOU IGNORE BEN” I think of Trump and his pathetic attempts to prove that Mueller is a witch hunt...or Tucker Carlson and Laura Ingraham claiming they aren’t racist. It is just as desperate.

There are a lot of comments today- made by single woman- about what a healthy relationship should look like. There is nothing about Ben and Mia and Darren except desperate CCers trying discount Darren and Mia’s engagement. Hell, maybe both Darren and Mia are sleeping with Ben....a throuple if you will. It doesn’t matter if they are because IT ISN’T ANY OF OUR BUSINESS. Having been in a relationship for *cough *cough 24+ years with the same man, I can say that there is nothing about Mia and Darren- including Ben- that makes me think it isn't a healthy relationship. Long term relationships are hard work..not the stuff of Disney princess love and CC BS. If Ben stays with them when he is in town, who cares? He is in town so little. I can imagine staying in hotels gets old and staying with friends whose home is filled with music and singing has to be a joy.

I agree with you, the Emmys rattled the CC family... big time. It is hard to ignore the look Darren gave her as he declared her “my darling Mia” and said the most romantic thing I have heard a man use to proclaim to his love ...well, EVER. It is hard posting the same pics of Darren and Chris talking on stage over and over and over and over and pretend that means they are in love or that it wasn’t 10 years ago. They have sunk to arguing that when we watch Glee we aren’t seeing Klaine on screen but rather that is CrissColfer and they aren’t acting..they are in love in RL. Um, dude NO, those were characters. They were reading lines written for them by writers. They were following stage direction and hitting marks. After the Emmys, the CCers were left analyzing WHERE Darren and Mia’s noses touched because their kiss during the excitement of hearing his name announced wasn’t perfectly coordinated. Darren’s aim was a little off -apparently- they bumped noses and that proves they don’t kiss often. I MEAN THAT IS IRREFUTABLE PROOF THEY ARE FAKE. There was also a proclamation that clearly Mia practiced on objects and other people so she could grab Darren’s face and plant one on him after his name was announced. Making that kind of shit up is the epitome of desperation. They are running scared. Their entire fandom is based on lies, anger, hate and criticizing people who don’t care about them. So when it falls apart, there is no reason to be a CC Family. Their international friendships which are glued together by their hatred and envy of Mia, ceases to have a reason to exist. When it all falls apart, they have no reason to be so sanctimonious or self righteous and they cease to be internet “famous” as they have labeled themselves. If they aren’t fighting for Darren’s very soul, they don’t matter. That just sucks. Of course I watch them double down on “how will NEVER marry her” and I know they are setting themselves up for a big fall...it’s a train wreck happening in slow motion. Of course he will marry her. He has said so publicly several times. Their friends congratulated them and showered them with love-ya know, people who actually know them. I know the CC family will have a few days of anger and then they will regroup and talk about how getting married to one’s beard is the new “breaking up with one’s beard” and that Chris was supporting Darren with everything he had. They will hate the beautiful wedding song Darren and performs for Mia and then they will claim it was really a secret message for them-the people who are really listening- to proclaim his undying love for Chris. Chris will continue to ignore Darren and while most of Hollywood sends Darren and Mia love, the CCers will claim that the ONLY reason Chris wouldn’t send a social media post to Darren is because he contractually can’t. That alone is telling...there is NO other reason he would ignore Darren... I mean, that is the only thing that makes sense, right?

15 notes · View notes

abe-van-zonneveld2 · 3 years ago

Text

Dutch Psycho

“Because psychopaths have no empathy for the feelings, needs, or rights of others, they also feel no remorse—even when their actions harm others. Because of these combined traits and deficits, psychopaths are much more likely to engage in crime, violence, abusive behavior towards others, and other forms of cruel or dangerous behaviors.

Many psychopathic people are pathological liars and master manipulators, which can make it much more difficult to spot the signs of a psychopath. Psychopathic traits and characteristics often become more obvious when you have more frequent interactions with a person, at which point the symptoms of psychopathy may become more evident.

While they lack true empathy, they are often very skilled at “faking” prosocial behaviors like flattery, kindness, and false sympathy. They may use these skills to get things that they want from people, but eventually they are unable to keep up the act. Over time, the charm and charisma will probably wear off, unmasking an underlying coldness or cruelty.

2. Unnecessary Cruelty or a Mean Streak Once the superficial charm and charisma wears off, a psychopath will often demonstrate moments of cruelty or meanness. These may include gossip, biting comments, lashing out aggressively at others, or laughing or being entertained when they hurt or embarrass someone. Cruelty and meanness are hallmark signs of a psychopath, and often lead to a pattern of violating the rights of others

3. Lies, Exaggerations, & Dishonesty Many psychopaths are prone to pathological lying. They may exaggerate the truth to get their way, inflate their ego, or get others to think, feel or do what they want them to. Most normal people feel guilty or at least a little worried about being caught in a lie, but a psychopath’s lack of conscience makes lying a guilt-free activity. In fact, deception is even a listed symptom of ASPD, and can even show up as a person ‘faking’ remorse, empathy, or care and concern for other people.

Psychopaths commit some of the most cruel, violent, and heinous acts in society, but they rarely take responsibility for their actions. Instead, they are more likely to blame other people, make excuses, and try to justify their actions, no matter how bad they are. This sign of a psychopath is indicative of their lack of morals, conscience, and empathy, meaning they do not have the same sense of ‘right and wrong’ that most people do.

5. Need for Power, Control, & Dominance Many psychopaths seek out positions of power and authority because they enjoy domination and control of other people. According to some research, psychopaths are slightly more likely to seek out and secure positions of leadership in the corporate world, suggesting there is a grain of truth in the stereotype of the psychopathic CEO. There is also a known overlap between psychopathy, narcissism and Machiavellianism (immoral and exploitative tendencies), which can lead to a hunger for power and control.

6. Sadistic Enjoyment of Pain & Suffering Sadism is a word that describes a sick sense of pleasure from the pain and suffering of other people. In some psychopathic people, the pain of others is sexually arousing and in others, the pleasure is non-sexual and has more to do with excitement, power, or the ‘rush’ of the experience.

7. Boredom & Thrill-Seeking Behaviors Because psychopaths lack some of the normal emotional wiring that most people have, it takes a lot more to excite them, make them happy, or give them a thrill.

8. Disregard for Rules, Laws, & Norms Psychopaths do not follow the same code of ethics as most people in society, which is why they often behave in immoral or even illegal ways. These may include minor offenses like inappropriate comments or profanity or more serious offenses like crime and violence. While not all psychopaths are violent criminals, a very high percentage of people who commit crimes (especially violent crimes) have psychopathic traits.

9. Unaffected & Unafraid of Consequences While most people who engage in criminal behaviors live in fear of being caught, psychopaths don’t always have this same fear. This may be partially explained by the fact that psychopaths are believed to have abnormalities in areas of the brain that create normal fear responses, and also in the parts of the brain linked to impulse control and good long-term decision making.

10. Detached, Cold & Callous Demeanor Researchers believe that psychopaths do not have the same emotional wiring as normal people, which is why they often display a cold, callous, and apathetic demeanor. The differences in the structure of their brains is believed to limit their ability to experience a normal range of human emotions, making them less likely to experience strong emotions. In situations when others are sad, upset, anxious, or excited, a psychopath may seem oddly detached or apathetic.

Psychopaths lack the ability to empathize with other people, so it makes sense that they have trouble forming and maintaining close relationships with people. While they may be able to use their charm or powers of persuasion to fool people into liking them, they usually lack the ability to maintain these relationships over time. This is why most psychopaths have very short, shallow relationships with people, as well as many people who they’ve betrayed, hurt, or turned into enemies.

13. Exploitation of Others for Personal Gain A psychopath will use, abuse, and exploit other people, especially when it means getting something they want. In their pursuit of power, wealth, fame, and so forth, there are no lengths they won’t go to in order to get what they want. This is bound to leave many casualties in their path, and a psychopath will have no remorse when they need to throw someone under the bus in order to get ahead, even when this is someone who has helped them along the way.

Some psychopaths devise detailed plans on how to con, exploit, or take advantage of people who are naturally generous, kind, and trusting.

15. A Lack of Conscience Even when they harm another person, a psychopath will not feel genuine remorse for their actions, and they may not even be phased by the consequences of their actions when they get in trouble.

Also, a psychopath may occasionally provide a disturbing view into their twisted minds when talking about strange things they like, mean comments about others, or statements that make it clear they don’t care about other people.

19. Hostile & Oppositional by Nature Another one of the psychopath traits that is less commonly known is a hostile and oppositional demeanor. While psychopaths can pretend to be friendly, kind, and charming for a short time, their true nature is much more aggressive. Psychopaths are more likely to hold racist, sexist, or misogynistic views towards others, and also more likely to treat people in hostile or unkind ways.

20. Masters of Deception A final warning sign of a psychopath is a person who seems to be especially skilled at the art of deception. Psychopaths are masters of deception, and use lies, distortions of truth, gaslighting, and other dishonest tactics to emotionally manipulate other people and falsely represent the truth.”

https://www.choosingtherapy.com/signs-of-a-psychopath/

#the f'lying dutchman #abe van zonneveld #sunandreign #zonneveld

1 note · View note

ghostmartyr · 7 years ago

Text

Obsession and Fandom

2018 being a year of doing better, apparently I’ve decided that being overly honest about fandom and my interactions with it is an A+ idea.

I think most people on the internet these days have no idea what OCD is. Even the people who know enough to understand that it’s a serious problem don’t often examine it past that. Something to do with washing hands and perfectionism, only damaging and crazy.

OCD is built on doubt.

Pick a thing, any thing, that you believe to be true. You turned off the lights. You didn’t run anyone over on your way home. You would never hurt a child. Your God is real. You love your significant other. Your house is not currently on fire. You don’t live on a fault line. Your hands are clean.

Where OCD starts is in the anxiety of uncertainty. In panic loudly suggesting in your own voice, “what if?” You can’t just remember that you turned off the lights. What if you were wrong? Human memories are so fallible. What if your electricity bill spikes and you can’t pay it and you get kicked out and you don’t have enough money left to eat?

Go check.

Twenty times at four in the morning.

Then one more time, to be certain.

Always one more time.

The cycle itself is very simple. Something makes you anxious. You react with compulsions to wave off the anxiety. The compulsions upgrade the importance of whatever made you anxious. The next time the source of anxiety hits, it’s worse, and the compulsions just keep digging into the rut.

Part of what makes that cycle so hard to shake is the obsession aspect.

The general rule of treating OCD is that you need to cut out compulsive behavior. That’s the component that’s keeping everything running. Understandably, this is harder than it sounds.

OCD is a broken coping mechanism. The compulsions put distance between you and the anxiety. Every time you check, and it’s all okay, your brain rewards you with relief sweet enough that you don’t draw the link between that compulsive behavior and the terror that spawned it. The compulsions are how you’re fighting the anxiety, and not fighting means that this great threat will certainly kill you.

Enter the importance of the obsession.

Someone once made a chart about tumblr, and how it treated emotional response. I don’t remember the specifics, and can’t find it, so I’m kind of just hoping I’m not grossly misrepresenting the example, but it was a simple bar chart, illustrating how tumblr did away with a balanced range of highs and lows. Every bar went through the roof.

Obsession is a time-honored way of describing passionate interests. You don’t just like a movie; you’re obsessed with it. It makes your heart beat faster and consumes all your waking thoughts, because that’s just how much it means to you. It is The Thing for you.

In fan circles, this is perfectly normal. We all show up because we love a thing (or hate how we should have loved a thing), and are willing to devote hours and hours of our loves luxuriating in it. This thing, which is just a movie or a comic book or a band, has intense value to us. It matters. Fiction matters to our reality.

What happens with obsession is that you lose the ability to correctly perceive something’s importance. Because whatever it is you’re obsessed with is The Most Important.

Fannish obsessions are, ideally, about enriching your life. They add joy, or some other sense of fulfillment. OCD obsessions impede life. Things that may or may not be inconsequential become so Important that it’s impossible to think that chilling out about them is even advisable.

It matters that you know the lights aren’t on. How could your brain think otherwise? Worse, it’s dangerous to think otherwise. A clear threat to your livelihood is presented in knowing whether the lights are on or not. Are you really going to be so careless as to disregard that?

It matters.

No, you can’t just shut up about this and go about your life, because it matters.

One of the fascinating things about psychological disorders is how quite a few orderly humans have usually brushed against symptoms. Most people don’t have depression. Many people understand feeling depressed. Most people don’t have anxiety. Pretty much everyone has felt anxious.

Plenty of people have superstitions and rituals.

Plenty of people get obsessed with things.

Unfortunately, that can make it hard to communicate the problem. People relate to other people through their own experiences. If you tell them something that sounds like something they’re familiar with, they’re going to assume that it’s that thing they’re familiar with, not something different. Going with depression, since I think that narrative’s the most common to hear nowadays, many people have had terrible days, and felt really broken, and sad, and like the world is ending.

Then a good night’s sleep happened, or the next day, or the next week, and the trauma was over, so it passed, and it was all good.

So don’t let a few bad days get you down! :) :)

It’s well-meaning, but frustrating. Sounding the same does not equal being the same.

I'm trying to be extra careful about that here, because OCD is misunderstood frequently enough without my help. Discussing behaviors I’m more aware of thanks to an anxiety disorder is not the same as saying those behaviors only ever belong to that thing.

Not every rectangle is a square.

So. Let’s talk why I’m bringing all of this up.

Humans like labeling things. That means that nearly everyone with OCD who has gone and investigated themselves on the internet is familiar with very specific ways to denote how their OCD presents.

Disaster OCD. POCD. ROCD. Harm OCD. Pure O.

To be as clear as I possibly can, all of those extra unique titles are just a fancy way of saying, “I obsess about X.” It is all OCD. They are useful categories when it comes to explaining your personal experience, but the diagnosis remains OCD. The extra fluff of other letters or words is just shorthand.

What I have would be called Pure O. It stands for “pure obsessional.” Like several bits of naming vernacular OCD communities adopt, that’s a misnomer. It gets the name because with Pure O, the compulsion is obsession. All of the compulsions are relatively invisible because they happen internally.

To be even more specific, one of my themes is moral scrupulosity.

An obsession with being moral.

If I’m angry over something, my mind wants five hours of pacing and detailed thought analysis explaining why, in order for it to judge if it is acceptable to have those feelings.

If something hurts me, my mind wants five hours of pacing and detailed thought analysis explaining why, in order for it to judge if it is acceptable to have those feelings.

If I like something untoward, my mind wants five hours of pacing and detailed thought analysis explaining why, in order for it to judge if it is acceptable to have those feelings.

It isn’t enough to have feelings. Those feelings have to be Right. They have to be justified. If I can’t justify them, they shouldn’t be there, because I need to be right. I can’t just dislike something. I can’t just be angry. I definitely can’t like things.

There have to be Reasons.

Before I went to therapy, that was my entire life. Not letting any of my emotional responses go, because the most Important thing in the world was being a good person, and the only way to know that I’m being a good person is to have a solid copy of every argument that I can come up with that’s even slightly to related to whatever it was I was thinking about.

Usually, the end result (using ‘end’ loosely) was a bunch of exhausted, dizzy thoughts, and deep emotional unrest. Along with hours of my life that I’d spent entirely inside my own head, contributing nothing to the outside world.

Fandom right now is such a trip for me, because it’s full of people validating my worst moments. They dance with the rhetoric that the hell inside my head invented for me, and that’s considered right and proper.

Everyone gets so worked up over whether or not something is problematic. Everyone gets so worked up over whether or not it’s okay to ship a thing. Everyone gets so worked up over there only ever being five ways to ethically enjoy a problematic thing. Everyone gets so worked up disagreeing.

Everyone gets so worked up over proving their point.

Because it’s all so important.

When I was first seeking treatment specifically for my OCD troubles, I talked to my therapist about its qualification as an anxiety disorder. Yes, I told her, I spend hours and hours and hours turning things over in my head, it makes me miserable, and it is a problem, but... I don’t feel, like, anxious about it.

She asks me what happens if I stop. I stare at her blankly. ...Stop? ??? What do you mean... stop? There wasn’t any answer to that. Not following through on my compulsions was such an impossibility that I couldn’t even figure out why it was so important to do them.

The compulsions are a broken coping mechanism to keep the anxiety at a distance.

Put in the terms of standard human interaction, it’s a layer of crap meant to distract from the real issue.

The real issue is the feelings, and the refusal to let yourself have them.

You treat OCD by cutting out the compulsions and letting the anxiety happen. Instead of prolonging it, you let all of the torment wash over you. You don’t engage. You just allow it to exist.

Slowly, you ease out of the rut the compulsions dug. Are the feelings fun? No. Does every part of your soul want to kick and scream and defend yourself? Yes.

Will that ultimately make the pain worse?

Hell yes.

There are so many different ways to look at my mental history, look at fandom, and start going off about how damaging certain things can be. I honestly wouldn’t know where to start if I wanted to get through them all. I began this post without a clue where I’d end up.

The thing about making stuff Important is that then you can borrow from other Important things to illustrate your point. After all, it’s all on the same level of importance. This creates a loop of intensity, where the Importance keeps growing, and growing, and any threat to the Important thing is worthy of unholy wrath for the sake of all that is good in the world.

Very, very quickly, rival ships aren’t just an unpleasant thing. They’re dangerous. They caused you discomfort, pain even, and here’s ten thousand reasons that make an ironclad case for destroying every trace of the evil.

Borrowing rhetoric feels good. It turns your uneasy feelings into something bigger than yourself; something righteous. You aren’t just a tired human who wishes fandom liked what you like more, you’re a crusader against injustice.

We’re all tired humans.

Whatever you’re feeling, however awful or good it is, one of the most destructive things you can do to yourself (or others) is demand a reason for it. Humans are emotional idiots capable of feeling more for people who don’t exist than for each other.

It’s okay to have feelings just because you have feelings. They don’t need to be right or wrong. You are allowed to exist without reason. You can read a book or listen to a song and take it however you want.

The people around you can, too.

Obsession steals away perception. It makes small things feel more important than anything else. Shouting at other people for doing things wrong becomes more obviously meaningful than building up what you find to be right.

The most important thing in your fandom experience should be yourself. It is not supposed to hurt you. Pain is the universal sign that something is wrong. Experiencing it during something that should be enriching your life is a problem, and just because other people can set it off doesn’t mean that they’re the cause.

Whenever someone brings up fandom and its purity kick, I remember what it’s like to be trapped in that type of thinking. It’s still something I struggle with. Daily. People diving into it blindly because the train tracks are all set up and ready to go is distressing.

I don’t really know what I’m trying to get at with all of this, so I can’t wrap it up very neatly. I just wanted to share, on the off chance that someone might find something valuable in it.

53 notes · View notes