#APA Reference Generator | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

ghost-likes-drawing · 7 months ago

Text

Just Wish I Knew What Caused it

(Fitpac exs to Lovers)

Ch. 4 (to be named maybe)

Translations done with the assistance from @keezers and @iridescentpull (Spanish) and @yama67 (Portuguese) Beta reading done by: @Caracolast (may your blog RIP)

First Chapter Previous Chapter.

Cw for mention of cannibalism at the very end

Fit was really glad him and Ramon went for icecream. If allowed him to finally let go of whatever figurative breath he'd been holding because of the stress of a new job, in a new state, which requires him to eat meals next to his ex.

A night with only his son was exactly what he needed.

Three days went by and Fit got used to the new schedule and changes in workload as Bobby and Roier were doing work too. Bobby worked well with Richarlyson even if they constantly were goofing off and having to be reeled in by one of their dads.

Speaking of dads, Fit needed to get his hearing aids checked because for some reason he was certain he'd been hearing Richarlyson refer to Roier as “Pa” and Bobby do the same to Cellbit.

That didn't make sense. Right? For a moment he considered maybe Cellbit and Pac were polyamorus but he remembered Pac's jealousy well enough to dismiss the idea immediately.

On a similar note he thinks Pepito had been calling Roier Apa but the conversations he heard that in were either in Spanish or just vague enough in English Pepito could have been talking about someone else.

The reason for Pepito’s insistence on speaking Spanish made sense very quickly after Roier returned. Fit noticed that Roier left work before lunch to go help Pepito in the kitchen generally taking either Richarlyson or Bobby with him so they could practicing their cooking skills.

It was Dinner time again and Ramon was scribing notes under the table of what Bobby and Richarlyson were talking about on Ramon’s other side. It was about a game of Football from the previous night and considering it was the start of July Fit assumed they didn't mean American Football.

Fit was kind of Zoning out in his attempt to not look in Pac’s direction and he was just kind of looking at Pepito and Roier.

The previous evening Fit and Ramon went back to the car so Ramon could talk about the things he'd learned and managed to put together from the last couple days so he can attempt to make friends with Bobby and Richarlyson. This information included, somehow, the fact Bobby was definitely Roier’s bio son which Fit had presumed anyway but was cool to have confirmation on he supposed.

The reason this matters NOW though, while interesting, was just raising flags.

Bobby could almost be Roier’s mini me. Bobby’s hair was more reddish brown and had a more feathery volume then Roier’s and Bobby’s face was a bit rounder and he was ever so slightly tanner but they definitely looked like father and son.

The thing was the more he looked at Pepito next to Roier when Bobby wasn't sitting right next to Roier the more Pepito looked like Roier too.

Pepito didn't look like Roier the way Bobby did. Pepito was much darker than any of the adults at the table. A fact Fit payed little mind to having already assumed him and Richarlyson were just adopted and probably not related to eachother, (considering Richarlyson was Afro-Latino and looked nothing like any of them) and the distant memory that Pac hated the idea of getting pregnant, but Pepito had other things. His hair grew in the same way and was exactly the same color. Pepito’s eyes were more green and brown but their eye shape…. Not to mention their noses.

Had Fit noticed these things in people before he became a parent?

Fit felt like a conspiracy theorist. Examining the features and coming up with solutions but they all felt… convoluted?

He thinks at some point someone mentioned Mike used to live here? Maybe Mike and Roier were Pepito’s bio parents? But then why was Cellbit and Pac the one Raising him? Why didn't anyone else talk about Mike? Mike was alive he overheard Pac on the phone with him. Could Mike get pregnant? And it had been over 12 years but he didn’t think Pepito looked like Mike

He must have started making a face because he gets a jab in the ribs from Ramon and when the world comes back into focus he's in a staring contest with Pepito. Fit blinked as obviously as he could and Pepito smiled so wide, clearly proud of himself and Fit put in a show of having lost. He heard a familiar restrained snort from Pac before Ramon signaled in the corner of his eye for his attention.

Fit looked to him. “Need something?”

Ramon signed “what?” Before gesturing to the accidental staring contests

“Gossip, tell you later” Fit signed Back.

“What Gossip?” He saw Richarlyson lean around Bobby to sign as he spoke. And he heard a restrained snort from Bobby

Fit could just see Ramon’s eyes light up at a chance to form a connection with the two boys. Ramon turned and while he couldn't see the question asked he could figure out it was probably “you two know sign language?” From the arm movements and then Bobby’s response

“Yea, our cousin Tallulah” he finger spelled then gave her name sign “started teaching us, we were around” he stalled to look at Richarlyson for help. “7 maybe 8?”

Fit hummed smiling and took a sip of his water to watch the boys talk.

“I was 7. You were 8.” Richarlyson answered.

Bobby seemed happy with the answer and looked back to Ramon “we kept on learning afterwards. she cried next time we saw her. She was so happy”

Ramon nodded “I know Lullah” he used the name sign before finger spelling and pulled out his phone to show a picture.

They both looked and clearly recognized her “you know her how?” Bobby signed

“My cousin. In 2 ways.” Ramon answered leaning to one side “1. my biological father is the younger brother of her dad, Missa,” he shifted to his other “2. my dad is close friends to her dad Philza. The two were in war together.”

Both kids nodded in understanding and Richarlyson signed “Cellbit and Philza worked on enigmas together after the war”

“Roier and Missa’s brother used to date” Bobby signed trying to be sly, presumably hiding from Roier who threw a small piece of meat at Bobby making him laugh.

“Okay asshole, my bad dating decisions aren't their business.” Roier chuckled out and got the piece of meat thrown back at him.

Fit looked around and realized Everyone had been watching the conversation… well except for Pac, the first time Fit looked at him since the meal started, “do you all know sign?” Fit asked aloud as he signed

Roier and Cellbit in tandum shook their hands to indicate it was only kinda

“We can understand well but we don't practice the way those two do.” Roier shrugged

“Besides Pac who refuses to try” Cellbit gestured his head toward Pac starting a laugh and then he paused seemingly after seeing Pac face “Ei espera-” Cellbit looked aprehensive “are you hard of hearing?” He turned back to Fit

Fit was taken aback and looked around the table for a second and everyone looked as bewildered as him. Except for Pac who looked completely done with everything. “Uh yea… the end crystals during the war took a lot of my hearing. I wear hearing aids for it and everything.” Fit kinda akwardly turned his ear to show them

Cellbit licked his lips and looked mortified “Pac é por causa disso?-”

Pac cut him off mid question “Sim, é exatamente por isso!” He sighed and stood up taking his plate with him “I'm going to bed” he huffed and brought his plate to the kitchen before turning back and climbing the stairs shooting Cellbit a look as he passed

Cellbit bit his lip “Eu peço desculpas amanhã, eu fui meio mlk.””

Richarlyson nodded in agreement but tugged at Bobby’s Overalls. They turned themselves at an angle so that no one could see their hands without making an attempt obvious before turning back to Ramon.

“Hey Ramon, after snack tomorrow do you want to practice with us? Tallulah and them are coming up for Pepito’s birthday so it's probably a good idea to be on the top of our game” Richarlyson said Decidedly

“Oh, sure! That'd be awesome.” Ramon smiled akwardly and looked to Fit clearly proud of himself.

Fit gave him a inconspicuous thumbs up.

“Yay! More practice!” Pepito smiled wide.

Richarlyson and Bobby looked panicked as they looked to eachother.

“Oh…Sorry Pepito. Next time you can join but I don't think Ramon wants to help teach you his first time practicing with us.” Bobby shrugged

“I don't mind” Ramon assured.

Richarlyson and Bobby looked to eachother. Then they looked to eachother then at their parents, Cellbit looked at them expectedly. Roier looked to Cellbit and the kids clearly trying not to giggle. They looked back to eachother.

“How about you practice with me and Richars the day after? You've gotten to spend a lot of time with Ramon.” Bobby offered trying to placate the seven year old “I've only just gotten the opportunity” he said matter a factly.

Pepito looked to Cellbit. And Cellbit nodded thinking it was fair although Pepito seemed unconvinced

“I’ll paint you a bunny” Bobby said flatly

“Deal!” Pepito sat off of his chair to shake Bobby’s hand and Bobby stood to meet his hand and shake it.

“I'll have it ready by next week.” Bobby Promised

“I'm holding you to that deal” Roier pointed to Bobby with his fork “I'm not raising liars”

Bobby smiled and nodded “I know”

“Or cheats”

“He’ll still get his birthday present” Bobby put his hands up defensively.

Roier nodded in approval and stood up taking his and Pepito’s plates to the sink. He came back and shooed Pepito out of his chair “come on Pepini, Bath time”

“Aaaaapppppaaaaa” Pepito whined and seconds later Bobby and Richarlyson were out of their seats going:

“Don't worry Pepito!”

“We’ll save you!”

“Hold on”

Roier tried to stop them "Esperen no alto” But it was to late

In a fluid motion Richarlyson hoisted Pepito out of his seat and on to Bobby’s back as they ran off with him. Pepito squealed in delight holding on to Bobby tight and laughing as the kids ran around the living room with Roier trying to catch up.

Cellbit just laughed

“Gatinho! Ayuda!” Roier shouted

“Awww but they're being so sweet. Gosto de ver você correndo atrás deles G..” Cellbit stood up quickly cutting himself off as the teenagers started running toward the door “Q MERDA! he blocked their path both kids running into him and they tumbled to the floor. Roier caught his breath and picked Pepito off of Bobby’s back.

“Ow” Cellbit groaned

“Ve a caminar y se te pasaf” Roier called back As he marched up the stairs with a still giggling Pepito in his arms.

The following day started the same as any other…. Kinda…

Fit had gotten done a bit earlier than normal and was the second one downstairs for breakfast when usually he was near last. He'd been only beaten by Roier who was currently cooing out in what sounded like concern but looked like an excuse to cuddle standing up while Cellbit dosed out assurances, Cuddling back with one arm and trying to finish breakfast with the other.

Fit couldn't understand what they were saying. it being to quite and he barely understood Spanish or Portuguese.

Fit was stood halfway down the stairs watching when Bobby and Richarlyson squeezed past him, saw their dads, looked to eachother and chuckled going to the table

“Blehhhh” Bobby called at them. “Get a room”

“At least my hard work payed off” Richarlyson hummed causing Bobby to laugh even harder.

Cellbit pulled away from the cuddle “Okay, merdinhas, seis querem brincar assim?” And chased after them in a brisk walk as they tried to escape in a brisk walk. Everyone too tired to give a good try.

Pac walked down the stairs and looked around “where's Pepito?”

Roier finished placing food on the table and looked around “must not have gotten up?

Pac went to go back up the stairs.

“Ey no it's your day off I'll get Pepito.” Roier stopped him and Roier went back upstairs

Pac hummed and went to sit at the table stalling Bobby and Richarlyson’s attempt to ‘flea’ to give Richarlyson a hug and a kiss on his head before letting them keep going.

Cellbit was polite enough to pause his pursuit.

Ramon went down the stairs and saw fit stopped and looked at his face “Fit are you okay?” He stepped out of the way as he saw Roier come down Pepito being dragged behind him coughing.

At the bottom of the stairs Roier stopped to see if it would correct itself. Roier lifted Pepito’s arms holding them so he wasn't covering his face anymore and and after a few more coughs Pepito gave a thumbs up. Roier let go and Pepito hugged Roier, Roier hugged him back before sighing and picking him up.

“Goddamn asthma” Fit could barely hear Roier whisper and Cellbit detoured from his chase to take Pepito into his own arms as Roier pressed a gentle kiss to Pepito’s temple.

Ramon started pushing Fit along to the table and getting them both seated.

Cellbit sat Pepito at the table while Bobby and Richas came behind him. With Bobby telling Pepito rubbing his back “Wow eres muy suertudo, cuando yo tenía asma nadie me dio mimos.”

“Trataste de pelear con Jaiden y conmigo cuando intentamos acercarnos a ti!” Roier protested causing Bobby a chuckle and a smile from Pepito as everyone got sat around the table.

Because Pac wasn't working neither was Richarlyson but Roier reminded him he still had to help cook this time because he and Bobby promised they could cook lunch on their own today. Richarlyson gave a thumbs up and everyone went on their way.

Bobby was as much help as normal and Ramon had been entrusted to fix up the engine on something Fit couldn't remember if he tried, but Roier and Cellbit were still acting odd.

Cellbit, who usually was the one being a freak about water breaks, was now being over shown by Roier who wouldn't let Cellbit work for 5 minutes without drinking water. Cellbit didn't protest but for most of them he clearly barely took a sip to satisfy the Mexican before moving on.

As the morning went on and got closer to noon Roier just seemed more and more clingy and Cellbit was getting less and less insistent on staying on track.

“Oh gracias a dios” Bobby huffed “I can go start on lunch, you two are so cheesy” he whined walking off causing Cellbit and Roier to giggle.

Fit wasn't sure what that was about but he was just trying to stay focused as he heard quiet arguing from the two still in Spanish and Portuguese.

“Kk se eu te beijar, você me deixa realmente finalizar meu trabalho aqui ?.. certo?.” Cellbit chuckled causing Fit to pause because he did understand part of that…

“Si, yes, i promise” Roier sounded like he was smiling

“De boa?”

“Por lo menos 5 segundos” Roier stipulated

“Okay, pucker up” Cellbit hummed

This couldn't be happening, right? Fit tried not to but he tuned his head and there he saw Cellbit cupping Roier’s face with both hands kissing him as Roier was pulling Him closer. Fit looked away not daring to be caught seeing that.

Roier let out a dramatized moan and Cellbit pushed him off with a scold “…. Volte ao trabalho,”

And Roier did not even bothering to remind and insist on the water half as much.

The lunch and the rest of the work day had a weird fuzz around it. At first Fit was processing the idea that Pac had been married to a cheater for who knows how long. Then Fit had to turn over the moral of telling Pac versus keeping him and Ramon afloat.

If he told Pac he'd lose his job eventually right? If Pac said how he'd probably be fired immediately. if Pac kept a secret of how he found out they'd divorce and probably liquidate and Fit would still have to find new work.

Snack time finished up and the work day was officially over. Pac, who had joined to have snack with everyone stood up giving Richarlyson a hug and giving a side one to Cellbit "Eu vou ver, se termino uns negócios pessoais, antes de eu tentar começar o jantar.”

“Okay de boa,divirta-se po”

Ramon gave Fit a quick hug before going upstairs with Bobby and Richarlyson to practice sign and in a Split second decision while Cellbit was looking to see what Pepito wanted Fit followed Pac outside.

“Pac! Pac!” Fit called out in a stage whisper, half walking half running down the stairs to catch up. “Pac, we need to talk!”

Pac groaned out a sigh turning to give Fit a glare warning him to reconsider. Fit stopped in his tracks and did but shook it off “Pac I'm being serious.”

Pac rolled his eyes and faced him fully “okay what could you possibly need to tell me, hm?” He shoved his hands in his Jean pockets

Fit paused “okay, you have basically no reason to believe me. I get it. But While I was working today…” Fit paused again not wanting to fuck up how he phrased it “And you know I had been noticing for a while that things seemed odd…” he paused again

“Spit it out Fitche!” Pac snapped leaning into his words

“Your husband is Cheating on You!” Fit finally managed. Before blushing at what was once a term of endearment being used in this context.

Pac’s face softened less from annoyance to confusion “I… excuse me, my what?”

Fit had to take a second to contain himself again and nodded “your husband… Cellbit… I uh saw him kissing Roier earlier” Fit looked away akwardly “and you know despite everything I don't think it's right to just let your husband cheat on you without telling you.”

It was quiet for a moment before he heard a soft snort, then a chuckle, then a laugh and by the time Fit looked back up to Pac he was double overed

“What's so funny?”

“Okay Fit who set you up to this? Hm? Cellbit? Não... ele tomou oque eu disse como sério..” Pac hummed he gave another chuckle “he's so protective because Mike’s not here… uuuuh Roier Right? has to be! Bobby and Richas Don't have enough weight to be worth it if I get mad and told Cellbit” pac nodded decidedly “what did he say to get you to joke about that?” He said still chuckling

Fit was taken aback and hand to pause unsure how to proceed “no… Pac I'm not joking. No one set me up to say that I'm telling you what happened.”

Pac stopped chuckling and Fit felt bad as he knew reality was setting in. But Pac just looked more confused “you're telling me you think Cellbit is cheating?”

“Yes” Fit nodded

“On me”

“Yes”

“With Roier?”

“Yes”

“Cellbit’s husband.”

“Yes!” Fit said exasperated before processing the words “I'm sorry his what?”

“Yea Cellbit isn't my husband.” Pac shifted his weight “he and Roier are married. I'm not married. Check their hands they never take their rings off.” He showed his own hand for a second before shrugging “Why did you think I was married to him?”

Fit paused and had to think back “I mean. I knew Cellbit had a husband I don't think I was told who. And then I showed up and you walked out and Richarlyson called you both Pai I just assumed!” He blushed a bit in his embarrassment “then he threatened me over you and and I guess that nailed it in that he was just a super protective, maybe a bit crazy, husband.”

Pac thought about it and nodded “oh yea that makes sense. And Roier wasn't home that first week” he chuckled “although if you thought that was protective and crazy you should see him when anyone tries to flirt with Roier or makes him feel unsafe.”

Fit nodded “I'll take your word…” Fit rubbed his neck “sorry for bothering you… guess I'm just kinda a dumbass?”

Pac hummed “yea kinda.. but you're well meaning, Ent.. esta bem.” He shrugged with a genuine smile

Fit nodded “well I'm glad you can see my attempt. Uh what’s the joke you thought I was pulling on Roier’s behalf?”

Pac snorted “ugh this thing from when we first moved here… it's a long story…” Pac waved him off “Não se preocupe.”

“Well if you say so.” Fit took a step back towards the house.

Pac turned away to continue walking “I'll see you at dinner Fit.” Pac chuckled again “it's still so funny… Me! Married to the man who ate my leg…”

“Yea hillarious” Fit agreed without thinking and went back up the stairs. He may not have meant for it to go that way but maybe this'll lessen the tension between them.

It wasn't until the door slammed behind him that Pac’s words fully processed.

“Did he just say Cellbit ate his leg?”

Chat, hate to say it. This Fic may die after I post chapter 5. I hope it doesn't but I'm at a loss with ch.6 but I'm TRYING. And there will be context Fics for this au, stuff in this universe I have that I have modivation and direction on. Hope anyone still reading this is having a good one <3

#just wish i knew what caused it #qsmp #fitmc #fitpac #hideduo #pactw #qsmp fitmc #Fitpac fanfic #qsmp ramon #qsmp richarlyson #qsmp bobby #qsmp pepito #qsmp fanfiction #qsmp fanfic #Ghost_Likes_Writing #guapoduo #celltw #< technically

31 notes · View notes

jstor · 2 years ago

Note

So say I purchased a journal article to prove a point in a piece of fan fiction I’m writing (because I’m nothing if not dedicated to scientific accuracy), how do I reference that? Can I get away with a footnote in the end-notes or does it have to be APA? Do I have to declare conflict of interest? Co-authors? What’s the standard scientific practice here?

Hi there! While full-blown citations are not typical in fiction, many authors dedicate a section at the end (such as an endnotes or bibliography section) to acknowledge some of their major references. MLA style is generally used by the humanities. This seems to be up to the author or publisher’s preference.

Direct quotations of works outside of the public domain usually require specific licensing and permissions.

Nothing said in this response is legal advice, but you should definitely take into account the permissions of any work in this case, regardless of whether or not you paid to access the content.

#jstor

119 notes · View notes

sophieinwonderland · 2 years ago

Text

Endogenic Syscourse Primer

There is a whole lot of misinformation out there about endogenic systems and the history of the plural community, so I wanted to write-up this primer for people who are new to syscourse or otherwise uninformed.

What is Plurality?

This is a complicated place to start since different people have different definitions.

Pluralpedia describes plurality as such:

Plurality is the state of having multiple headmates collectively sharing a single body. A group of headmates is called a system. Plural experiences are extremely diverse. Systems may be spiritual in nature or secular, median or partitionary, small systems or ones with thousands of headmates. Headmates are generally assumed to have their own unique personality. They often have their own names, pronouns, goals, and preferences. Referring to the system they belong to is often done using plural pronouns like we, us, them, and they, although it is best to ask. They may want to be seen as an individual, a part of a whole, an accompaniment to the core or host, or any other state of selfhood. Plurality comes in many forms.

Headmates isn't a universally agreed-upon term but is a catch-all. My own simplified definition would be that someone is plural when they have multiple autonomous self-conscious agents occupying a single body. These agents may identify as headmates, parts, or something else entirely.

Plurality is usually categorized as traumagenic and endogenic. Traumagenic plurality is caused by trauma and most commonly associated with dissociative disorders. Endogenic plurality is caused by anything else. There are also Mixed Origin Systems which may be a result of different causes, Quoigenic Systems with an unknown cause or who refuse to share their origin, and many other less common origins.

Does Plurality Exist Outside of Dissociative Disorders?

The answer to this is spelled out in the World Health Organization's 11th revision of the International Classifications of Diseases, or the ICD-11. This is the diagnostic manual compiled by the World Health Organization used in most of the world.

As you can see, the ICD-11 uses the term "distinct personality states" synonymously with "dissociative identities." The example of mediumship is also important, as a common counterargument is that the second entry is referring to more general self-states, like how a person can have a work self and home self with different behavior patterns. This is very different from what's experienced by mediums, where spirits and deities communed with have their own distinct names, personalities, genders, etc.

The existence of non-DID plurality has also been affirmed by psychiatrist Eric Yarbrough in his book, Transgender Mental Health which was published by APA Publishing, the publishing arm of the American Psychiatric Association.

Other forms of plurality are actively being researched, such as in this article on tulpamancy by psychiatry professor Samuel Veissiere which was in a book published by Oxford University Press. (Tulpamancy is a process of intentionally creating headmates. It's usually psychological but a small percentage of tulpamancers take a metaphysical view.)

Consistently, non-disordered and non-traumagenic plurality is affirmed again and again by psychiatrists and psychologists. And these are not some fringe minority going against the grain. There are no counter examples. There are zero psychiatrists saying plurality without dissociative disorders can't exist or isn't real.

Who Can Call Themselves Plural?

We've now established endogenic and non-disordered plurality as a real phenomenon with support from psychiatrists across the board. Another common argument you'll hear is that the term plural can only be used by systems with dissociative disorders.

This one is actually very easy to debunk.

The first use of plural in this way was by non-disordered systems to separate themselves from clinical language. At the time, "multiple" was used much more frequently in the community.

We don't claim that every multiple system/household is a happy loving cooperative one. What we do question is the *identification* of "real multiples" with the characteristics or symptoms of a psychological disorder. We go further: we question by what right or authority doctors and therapists are given sole jurisdiction over the definition of "an individual".

This is one reason our clan encourages use of the word "plural" rather than "multiple". "Multiple", even standing by itself, brings to mind MPD/DID, "multiple personality disorder", "dissociative identity disorder", which are specific diagnoses created by the medical/therapeutic community. "Plural" is a much more neutral word, more commonly heard in the context of grammar than psychiatry. (The other reason, of course, is that plural can be construed to have a broader meaning, applying to anyone(s) anywhere on the continuum who experience themselves as plural in some way. )

Non-Disordered Systems Were Separatists, Not Invaders.

Going on from the last point, this is something that is often obscured when discussing the history of plurality and why so many words are shared.

There's a narrative that non-disordered and endogenic systems were invading the spaces of disordered and traumagenic systems. But as we can see in the above post, this is actually the opposite of the truth.

The articles I've posted showing research into endogenic plurality, as well as the ICD-11 entry, are all from within the last decade.

In the 90s, multiplicity was considered inherently disordered by the public. There were theories that there could be endogenous and non-pathological forms of plurality at the time, such as was referenced in this paper by Kluft from 2001.

But there weren't many people to study extensively because people without mental disorders don't usually seek out psychiatrists.

During this period, if you had multiple self-conscious agents sharing the same body, you were assumed to have MPD/DID. Actual research into non-disordered systems is a relatively recent phenomenon.

And even as these theories of other forms of plurality may have been discussed in academic circles, they didn't make it into the public consciousness.

So people who experienced plurality for other reasons, or their plurality wasn't a disorder, assumed they had MPD/DID and joined up with those communities. There just wasn't an alternative at the time. (Plurality is incredibly isolating, making it hard for plurals to find other plurals and meet up before the internet.) Then, as more people began sharing their experiences, some realized their experiences weren't a disorder and began to break away.

Terminology being shared is a natural extension of this process.

Many of the Terms Used by DID/OSDD systems were made by the endogenic and pro-endo community

Aside from the word plural, headmate was another word coined to differentiate them from the more clinical "alter." Fictive and factive originated with the endogenic soulbonders. If you've seen people policing system language from endogenic systems, like with the word plural, there is a good chance that the language being policed came from the endogenic and non-disordered community to begin with.

There is also a common myth you may have seen around suggesting the term system hopping originated with RAMCOA survivors in reference to travel between sidesystems. This claim only dates back as far as 2021, while system hopping has been traced back as far as 2005 by spiritual systems describing movement between different-bodied systems.

Resources like Simply Plural and Pluralkit are also pro-endo, with creators stating they can be used by anyone, and Simply Plural having links to endogenic resources.

Who Can Call Themselves A System?

System is a term that actually does have a long history of use within the DID community, originating from the psychiatric field.

But system has still been used by non-disordered systems for decades. Most of the people arguing over the terminology haven't been alive as long as endogenic and non-disordered systems have existed and been identifying as systems.

Transgender Mental Health uses the term plural system for both disordered and non-disordered systems alike, as have other recent academic papers that talk about endogenic/non-disordered systems.

Additionally, system has been used in similar ways to its use in discussions of plurality at least as far back as the 80s under the Internal Family Systems model.

Dissociative specialists Dolores Mosquera and Colin Ross have also referred to certain autonomous voices in psychotic disorders as dissociated parts of a person's system.

More recently, Dr. Michael Lifshitz, in an AMA discussing his fMRI study into tulpamancers at Stanford University, also refers to the subjects as "tulpa systems."

The word system was never treated as a highly specific term in psychiatry that could only be applied to DID and OSDD systems.

And as more research is conducted on endogenic systems, this research is continuing to refer to endogenic systems as being systems.

Conclusion

Endogenic and non-disordered plurality is a real psychological phenomenon supported by multiple psychiatrists, psychologists and the World Health Organization in books that and articles that have passed peer review through the most reputable and prestigious academic publishers, such as Oxford University Press and The American Psychiatric Association.

Non-disordered and endogenic systems have identified as systems and been part of the plural community since the 90s. Many modern terms in the plural community originated with endogenic and pro-endogenic systems.

And the term system has never been a DID/OSDD term, and is not treated as such in psychiatric circles.

If there's one takeaway for anyone who is reading this that's new to syscourse, it should be that bigotry against endogenic systems isn't based in science or reality. Like most bigotry, it's based on hatred for hatred's sake, and fueled by misinformation.

I hope this was able to clear up some misconceptions.

Thank you for your time and patience.

167 notes · View notes

zeldahime · 1 year ago

Text

Zelda Liveblogs a Lancet Paper

Following this post, I am now going to liveblog reading the Lancet paper cited by the Economist article to predict worldwide fertility to drop by 3/4s of its current position if current demographic trends continue. It is an Open Access article, so the entire thing is open for anyone on the internet to read.

Citation:

GBD 2021 Fertility and Forecasting Collaborators (March 20, 2024). Global fertility in 204 countries and territories, 1950–2021, with forecasts to 2100: a comprehensive demographic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2021. The Lancet, 403(10440), 2057-2099. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(24)00550-6.

I refuse to use Chicago style. This is mostly because I memorized APA and don't want to learn a new one.

First, my background: I am not a demographer; I am not trained as a demographer; I have studied it auxiliarily to my other academic pursuits. I fall in a sort of educated in-between. I am currently a Master's student in library and information sciences, and my undergraduate degree was in political science, both at USAmerican universities. However, the field of economics is also very close to my heart, and I would have double-majored in it if the opportunity and financial costs had not been too high to justify it. During the five years I was a college drop-out, I studied economics independently, reading broadly within the field and taking non-certificate courses online. I've been taking non-certificate courses in economics through correspondence or online since I was about nine. I'm not an expert! I do, however, think I'm a fairly well-informed amateur.

And a note on language. This paper refers to birthing parents as mothers and to the demographic that gives birth interchangeably as female and women. I acknowledge that this is a cissexist patriarchical viewpoint that erases transmen, nonbinary and intersex people, and probably others I'm not thinking of. For consistency between my reflections and the paper and ease of reading, I will do the same. I'm conscious I'm part of the problem here, but don't see a way around it without making my bits harder to understand than they have to be.

With that out of the way, here we go:

Methodology (Summary)

This is where me not being a demographer is an important thing to know. I neither know nor normally care about the statistical methods used to determine demography, just that the demographers aren't retracting papers over it. However, I do know that in general the CCF50 (total cohort fertility before the age of 50) is a neater and more accurate measurement to build projections on than the TFR (total fertility rate by year) and that's the methodology the paper's authors went with. This is good and promising. TFR for known years and CCF50 projections sounds like a solid method. 👍

We additionally produced forecasts for multiple alternative scenarios in each location: the UN Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) for education is achieved by 2030; the contraceptive met need SDG is achieved by 2030; pro-natal policies are enacted to create supportive environments for those who give birth; and the previous three scenarios combined.

I'm very hopeful about these forecasts! They'll show a few different hopeful scenarios.

To evaluate the forecasting performance of our model and others, we computed skill values—a metric assessing gain in forecasting accuracy—by comparing predicted versus observed ASFRs from the past 15 years (2007–21). A positive skill metric indicates that the model being evaluated performs better than the baseline model (here, a simplified model holding 2007 values constant in the future), and a negative metric indicates that the evaluated model performs worse than baseline.

This is a very responsible thing for the authors to have done, and I am interested to see how this is reflected in the models.

Findings (Summary)

During the period from 1950 to 2021, global TFR more than halved, from 4·84 (95% UI 4·63–5·06) to 2·23 (2·09–2·38). Global annual livebirths peaked in 2016 at 142 million (95% UI 137–147), declining to 129 million (121–138) in 2021. Fertility rates declined in all countries and territories since 1950,

(Emphasis mine. The numbers in parentheses are the confidence interval.) I think this is the most important takeaway from the whole damn paper. Makes sense, since it's the first line of the findings. If you read nothing else, read these three sentences. Global birthrates are barely above replacement (which, if you recall from my other essay, is generally considered to be ~2.1). To me, this implies lot of problems that traditionally have been considered solvable with population redistribution (meaning, mostly, immigration) may not be solvable that way even if fertility were to stop declining today and hold constant for the rest of the century.

Future fertility rates were projected to continue to decline worldwide, reaching a global TFR of 1·83 (1·59–2·08) in 2050 and 1·59 (1·25–1·96) in 2100 under the reference scenario. The number of countries and territories with fertility rates remaining above replacement was forecast to be 49 (24·0%) in 2050 and only six (2·9%) in 2100, with three of these six countries included in the 2021 World Bank-defined low-income group, all located in the GBD super-region of sub-Saharan Africa.

Holy shit. I cannot emphasize enough how low a TFR of 1.59 is. This is approximately the current TFR of the United Kingdom, and they're beginning to freak out even though they have relatively easy sources of additional replacement recruitment through the Commonwealth. Imagine that for the whole Earth. With only six countries as a potential source of surplus population to be redistributed.

Funding from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. Makes sense. This is the kind of thing that foundation funds.

Introduction

Low levels of fertility have the potential over time to result in inverted population pyramids with growing numbers of older people and declining working-age populations. These changes are likely to place increasing burdens on health care and social systems, transform labour and consumer markets, and alter patterns of resource use.

Oh man, I wish I'd gone through this paper earlier, I could have just quoted this bit and been done instead of trying to explain it from scratch! 😂

The UN Population Division estimates of past fertility are not compliant with the Guidelines on Accurate and Transparent Health Estimates Reporting (GATHER) statement in important respects; notably, they do not provide all code for statistical models or explicit details on criteria for exclusion or adjustment of primary data sources. Furthermore, the validity of UN Population Division projections has been questioned due to the assumptions applied in countries experiencing low post-transition fertility dropping below replacement level.

YES GO OFF 👏 The UN Population Division is so much more cagey about their data than the World Bank, it's so annoying, and they keep predicting increases that don't happen. I thought it was so weird as an undergrad but figured it was because of ~bureaucracy~ or privacy laws or whatever. It's nice to be vindicated [redacted] years later.

Our forecasts also suggest that, by 2100, the largest concentrations of livebirths will shift to low-income settings, particularly a subset of countries and territories in sub-Saharan Africa, which are among the most vulnerable to economic and environmental challenges. Extreme shifts in the global distribution of livebirths can be partially ameliorated by improved female education and met need for modern contraception. Outside of this subset of low-income areas, most of the world's countries will experience the repercussions of low fertility, with ageing populations, declining workforces, and inverted population pyramids, which are likely to lead to profound fiscal, economic, and social consequences. National policy makers and the global health community must plan to address these divided sets of demographic challenges emerging worldwide.

This is such an important point for them to make. Demography isn't a vacuum; it has significant real-world effects. By 2100, most babies born will be born in Africa, and we need to plan for that now. By 2100, most countries will not have enough workers, and we need to plan for that now. 2100 is not that far into the future. I, personally, will live to see the beginnings of the effects of this demographic shift, and I'm an adult who pays taxes and has a college degree and shit.

The Data Sources and Processing section is pretty standard and unremarkable. Good job.

Fertility Forecasting

We produced forecasts of fertility using an updated modelling framework (appendix 1 section 3) that improved on the methods in the 2020 study by Vollset and colleagues. In our updated methods, we used not only estimates of female educational attainment and contraceptive met need as covariates, but also estimates of under-5 mortality and population density in habitable areas to account for a larger variation in CCF50 across all countries in the sub-models (appendix 1 section 3.1, appendix 2 figure S2). Similar to Vollset and colleagues, we continued to forecast fertility with CCF50 rather than TFR, because modelling in cohort space is more stable than in period space.

Niiiiice. Covariates are things that, well, vary, alongside the thing you're trying to measure. For fertility, the most obvious one might be age of the mother at first birth; if someone is 16 at first birth, she probably will have more kids than someone who is 30 at first birth, for example. This model also includes how much schooling the mother gets, whether she has contraception, the mortality rate (that is, how many of them die) of children under five, and population density! That's a lot of statistical crunching and their model will be more precise for it. Precise isn't the same as accurate, but I think that with the variables they selected, they will travel in the same direction.

What a pretty equation. I don't understand it, but it's got a certain je ne sais quois.

For the education SDG scenario, the forecasts assume that by 2030, all people will have 12 years or more of education by the age of 25 years and then maintains the same rate of change as the reference scenario up to 2100. For the contraceptive met need scenario, to reflect the SDG scenario of universal access, the forecasts assumed a linear increase in contraceptive coverage to reach 100% by 2030 and then stay constant up to 2100.

I love how optimistic these scenarios are 😂 This truly is the best-case scenario for both the education forecast and the contraceptive forecast! I do hope everybody has 12+ years of education and 100% contraceptive coverage by 2030. Make it happen, António!!!!

(Joke explained: António Guterres is the current Secretary-General of the United Nations, and these goals are absolutely not going to be met by 2030.)

In the pro-natal scenario, we assumed a country will introduce pro-natal policies, such as childcare subsidies, extended parental leave, insurance coverage expansion for infertility treatment, 33 and other forms of support for parents to afford high-quality child-care services, once TFR decreases to less than 1·75. We then made three assumptions on the effects of such policies. First, we assumed the full effect of pro-natal policies will be to increase TFR by 0·2. Second, it will take 5 years after the policy is introduced for the full increase in TFR to occur, and TFR will rise linearly over that time span. Last, we assumed that both the policies and the increase in TFR by 0·2 will endure for the remainder of the century.

The pro-natal scenario is also incredibly optimistic. This kind of response simply hasn't happened in any country that's tried pro-natal policies as envisioned by the authors (my reference cases, just off the top of my head: Japan and France).

The optimism makes sense. They represent extreme cases, in order to contrast possible outcomes versus the reference case. This is good practice! It's just also funny.

Results

The Reference Case

I hate the embedded tables. They have the confidence interval in the same cell as the estimate. How very dare they, that's incredibly inconvenient for me personally.

The chart in Figure 1, however, I think speaks volumes:

It speaks so many volumes that I'm gonna go up and put it above the cut, brb. This chart shows the reference case; that is, it shows the fertility rate if the fertility trends of 1950-2021 continue into the future.

At the national level, estimates of TFR in 2021 ranged from 0·82 (95% UI 0·75–0·89) in South Korea to 6·99 (6·75–7·24) in Chad, with below-replacement levels of fertility (TFR <2·1) in 110 of 204 countries and territories (table 1, figures 2A, 3).

I think this range is neat and goes to show that while the trend is world-wide, it's still not even. Chadian women still give birth to about 7ish kids on average. That's more than 3x replacement, and more than 8.5x the average fertility of South Korea. South Korea is going to have different problems than Chad; Chad probably doesn't have to worry as much about their workforce being unable to sustain a large elderly population. (Don't look so cheerful about it. They've got lots of other stuff to worry about. 😬)

These charts are fascinating to look at to me. I think this really showcases just how dramatic the projected decline is. It's not just the Europe, it's not just wealthy post-industrialized countries, but everywhere. It's in Eswanti, it's in Indonesia, it's in Burkina Faso, it's in China. It really shows just how much Chad is an outlier (adn should still be counted, btw, just because it's an outlier doesn't mean we should discard it; it's dependent on study structure and you can't just throw out entire countries because they have high birth rates on a study of birth rates).

Our estimates indicate that there is approximately a 30-year gap between the time when TFR falls below 2·1 and when the natural rate of population increase turns negative. We forecast that 155 (76·0%) countries and territories will have fertility rates below replacement level in 2050; by 2100, we project this number will increase to 198 (97·1%), with 178 (87·3%) having a negative natural rate of increase (figure 3).

A 30-year gap sounds reasonable. That's about how long it takes for people to have/not have kids, and for their own parents to potentially die, in about equalish numbers (on a global scale, anyway). I do think this gap number is likely to increase as healthcare improves in places that are worse today and as fertility technology increases the age at which people can become pregnant, but 30 is a perfectly respectable number with actual statistical backing.

Alternative scenario fertility forecasts

This is the part I'm really excited about!!!

The first scenario, which assumes meeting the SDG education target by 2030, is estimated to result in global TFRs of 1·65 (95% UI 1·40–1·92) in 2050 and 1·56 (1·26–1·92) in 2100 (table 2). The second scenario, which assumes meeting the SDG contraceptive met need target by 2030, will produce global TFRs of 1·64 (1·39–1·89) in 2050 and 1·52 (1·21–1·87) in 2100. The third scenario, which incorporates pro-natal policy implementation, is forecast to yield global TFRs of 1·93 (1·69–2·19) in 2050 and 1·68 (1·36–2·04) in 2100. The combined scenario, in which all three other alternative scenarios are applied, is projected to result in a global TFR of 1·65 (1·40–1·92) in 2050 and 1·62 (1·35–1·95) in 2100.

So recall the reference scenario projections: 1·83 (1·59–2·08) in 2050 and 1·59 (1·25–1·96) in 2100.

I find it interesting that all cases are so incredibly close to reference, with overlapping confidence intervals. Functionally, there's not a lot of difference between a TFR of 1.68 and 1.52. They're both still well below replacement. It's about the difference between Sweden (1.67) and Russia (1.51). Russia, you may have noticed, is waging war about it.*

*This is not a stated goal of the Russian Federation in the Ukraine War. This is me personally making an assertion that the shifting demographics of the Russian population, including the below-replacement birthrate beginning to put pressure on their lacking social safety networks, has contributed to the many complicated and interconnected reasons why the Russian Federation invaded Ukraine, but please do not take me to be the final authority on the matter or interpret this statement as implying that demography of all things is the sole or primary reason for the war.

Discussion

The aforementioned changes in fertility over the coming century will have profound effects on populations, economies, geopolitics, food security, health, and the environment, with a clear demographic divide between the impacts on many middle-to-high-income locations versus many low-income locations. For nearly all countries and territories outside of sub-Saharan Africa, sustained low fertility will produce a contracting population with fewer young people relative to older people before the end of the 21st century. These changes in age structure are likely to present considerable economic challenges caused by a growing dependency ratio of older to working-age population and a shrinking labour force. 42 Unless governments identify unforeseen innovations or funding sources that address the challenges of population ageing, this demographic shift will put increasing pressure on national health insurance, social security programmes, and health-care infrastructure. These same programmes will receive less funding as working-age, tax-paying populations decline, further exacerbating the problem.

This is why the Economist article talks about birthrates the way it does. It's not about white babies or whatever people in the notes are sarcastically ascribing to an article they haven't read. It's about the whole world. There are 150 countries outside of the Sub-Saharan Africa region, and 44 of the 46 countries within Sub-Saharan Africa are projected to feel the many or all of the same effects as well.

It's about the way social security nets are structured and how they're going to fail. It's about the way that elderly people are going to be treated by our societies. It's about me, and it's about you, and it's about making sure that there are enough humans to take care of the other humans that need taking care of.

If we don't increase global fertility rates above replacement, which it increasingly looks like we won't, we need other solutions. The fertility one is easy fuckin' pickings compared to a complete overhaul of society, and you saw how little difference it actually makes. So did the authors:

To date, one strategy to reverse declining fertility in low-fertility settings has been to implement pro-natal policies, such as child-related cash transfers and tax incentives, childcare subsidies, extended parental leave, re-employment rights, and other forms of support for parents to care and pay for their children.49, 50 Yet there are few data to show that such policies have led to strong, sustained rebounds in fertility, with empirical evidence suggesting an effect size of no more than 0·2 additional livebirths per female. [...] Moreover, although pro-natal policies primarily aim to increase births, they also offer additional benefits to society, including better quality of life, greater household gender equality (ie, more equal division of household labour),53 higher rates of female labour force participation,54 lower child-care costs,55 and better maternal health outcomes,56 depending on policy design and contextual factors. In the future, it will be beneficial to perform an in-depth analysis on varying impacts of pro-natal policies in selected countries that have a meaningful impact on population. [...] Importantly, low fertility rates and the modest effects that pro-natal policies might have on them should not be used to justify more draconian measures that limit reproductive rights, such as restricting access to modern contraceptives or abortions.

I just want to highlight that the study authors explicitly argue for certain pro-natal policies that increase quality of life and caution against pro-natal policies that limit rights. These people aren't heartless.

They also discuss at some length the implications of the changing distribution of live births, where by the end of the century most live births will take place in the poorest nations, which are also the ones that will be hardest-hit by climate change. These nations already face famines, military rule, civil wars, terrorism, and climate changed-caused severe heatwaves, droughts, and floods. They advise politicians to take this into account when making policy decisions but don't go into what policy decisions should be made, which is wise since they're demographers and not political scientists, but disappointed me, the political scientist reading the demography paper and hoping to find something to criticize.

My takeaway:

Incredibly interesting paper. As a non-demographer, I think it's very convincing and hope that it sparks a serious conversation about the paths we need to take forward, in our own countries and as a global community. I especially hope that it inspires us to take bold action to drastically change our systems of elder care, which are already being pushed to the limit and will simply break under pressure if fertility rates continue to fall.

#economics tag #demography #the lancet #this is my idea of a fun saturday night #fun with statistics

17 notes · View notes

f--e-u-e-r-t-r-u-n-k-e--n · 1 year ago

Text

Collection of notes: On the confusion between gender and personality. Allowing confusion. Allowing not knowing how to define.

[I've been wanting to make a collection of notes for a while then I saw this interaction between users and thought it was time to contribute. but without the intention of making fun of them. Mocking attitudes prevent people from daring to research and learn.]

Personality n. the enduring configuration of characteristics and behavior that comprises an individual’s unique adjustment to life, including major traits, interests, drives, values, self-concept, abilities, and emotional patterns. Personality is generally viewed as a complex, dynamic integration or totality shaped by many forces, including hereditary and constitutional tendencies; physical maturation; early training; identification with significant individuals and groups; culturally conditioned values and roles; and critical experiences and relationships. Various theories explain the structure and development of personality in different ways, but all agree that personality helps determine behavior. >APA Dictionary of Psychology.

Personality psychology. The branch of psychology that systematically investigates the nature and definition of personality as well as its development, its structure and trait constructs, its dynamic processes, its variations (with emphasis on enduring and stable individual differences), and its maladaptive forms (i.e., personality disorders). The field rests on a long history of theoretical formulation (e.g., trait theories, psychoanalytic theories, role theories, learning theories, type theories) that has aimed to synthesize cognitive, emotional, motivational, developmental, and social elements of human individuality into integrative frameworks for making sense of the individual human life. It has also developed numerous tests and assessments to measure and understand aspects of personality. >APA Dictionary of Psychology. Questioning is a word that is used when people may question who they are sexually attracted to (…) is also used when people may question the feelings they have about their own gender. >Robie Harris "It's perfectly normal : changing bodies, growing up, sex, and sexual health" Effective Personality is a multidimensional construct, with a psychometrically confirmed structure, consisting of four spheres: Self Strengths (self-concept and self-esteem); Self Demands (motivation, expectations and attributions); Self Challenges (decision making and coping with problems); and Self Relationships (empathy, assertiveness, communication).

The first sphere, Self Strengths, refers to two questions: Who am I and How do I value myself? On the other hand, the sphere of Demands of the Self would answer: What do I want, what expectations do I have to achieve it, and on whom or on what does it depend for me to achieve it successfully? The third dimension asks: What do I do when faced with a problem? How do I make the right decisions when faced with a problem or difficulty? Finally, the sphere of Relationships of the Self poses the question: How do I relate to others? (Martín del Buey and Martín Palacio, 2012). (…) Gender differences are the discrepancies in men and women at the cultural, social and value levels, which have been transmitted over the years through the socialization process. The report made by the National Institute of Statistics of Chile (2011) shows the gender inequality between men and women with respect to the roles played by each one, as well as the different responsibilities of one and the other are also presented. Gender roles are the behaviors accepted as masculine or feminine, so they are directly related to the tasks and performances assigned to men and women differently (Instituto de la Mujer, 2013). "the processes of adaptation of gender roles have been strengthened to the extent that it is socially recognized that gender inequalities produce profound inequities that affect the development of women in all spaces of social, public, private and institutional life" (Instituto Nacional de Estadística de Chile, 2011, pp.12). Gender stereotypes refer to those beliefs and ideas imposed and rooted in society about the characteristics, aptitudes and attitudes that each gender should have (Instituto de la Mujer, 2013). Some examples of female stereotypes consider women to be dependent and emotional; while some examples of male stereotypes consider them to be courageous, rational, independent, decisive, etc. The United Nations Development Program shows that the Chilean woman is mainly represented as a mother, but also as a hard worker and fighter; while the image of the Chilean man is related to irresponsibility and machismo, as well as the provider figure. >Castellanos Cano, Silvia; Guerra Mora, Patricia; Bueno Álvarez, Jos�� Antonio. DIFERENCIAS DE GÉNERO EN PERSONALIDAD EFICAZ EN UNIVERSITARIOS CHILENOS International Journal of Developmental and Educational Psychology, vol. 5, núm. 1, 2014, pp. 131-139 Asociación Nacional de Psicología Evolutiva y Educativa de la Infancia, Adolescencia y Mayores. Badajoz, España A quarter of a century ago, philosopher Judith Butler (1990) called upon society to create “gender trouble” by disrupting the binary view of sex, gender, and sexuality. Key to her argument is that gender is not an essential, biologically determined quality or an inherent identity, but is repeatedly performed, based on, and reinforced by, societal norms. This repeated performance of gender is also performative, that is, it creates the idea of gender itself, as well as the illusion of two natural, essential sexes. In other words, rather than being women or men, individuals act as women and men, thereby creating the categories of women and men. Moreover, they face clear negative consequences if they fail to do their gender right.

Butler’s notion of performativity echoes a range of social psychological approaches to gender and gender difference. What we social psychologists might call gender norms and stereotypes (e.g., Eagly, 1987; Fiske and Stevens, 1993), or gender schemas (Bem, 1981) provide the “scripts” for what Butler’s describes as the performance of gender.

We are not the first to point out the relevance of Butler’s work to social psychology. Bem (1995) drawing on Butler’s work, argued in that as gender researchers we should create gender trouble by making genders that fall outside of the binary visible, in order to disrupt binary, heteronormative views of gender within and outside of psychology. Minton (1997)

To be clear, Butler does not argue that biological processes do not exist or do not affect differences in hormones or anatomy. Rather, she argues that bodies do not exist outside of cultural interpretation and that this interpretation results in over-simplified, binary views of sex. In other words, biological processes do not themselves result in two “natural,” distinct, and meaningful, categories of people. The two sexes only appear natural, obvious, and important to us because of the gendered world in which we live. More specifically, the repeated performance of two polar, opposite genders makes the existence of two natural, inherent, pre-discursive sexes seem plausible. In other words, Butler views gender as a performance in which we repeatedly engage and which creates the illusion of binary sex. She argues:

“Because there is neither an ‘essence’ that gender expresses or externalizes nor an objective ideal to which gender aspires; because gender is not a fact, the various acts of gender create the idea of gender, and without those acts, there would be no gender at all. Gender is, thus, a construction that regularly conceals its genesis. The tacit collective agreement to perform, produce, and sustain discrete and polar genders as cultural fictions is obscured by the credibility of its own production. The authors of gender become entranced by their own fictions whereby the construction compels one’s belief in its necessity and naturalness.” (p. 522) >Thekla Morgenroth and Michelle K. Ryan, Gender Trouble in Social Psychology: How Can Butler’s Work Inform Experimental Social Psychologists’ Conceptualization of Gender?

The second critical theory of gender is queer performative. This theory revolves around any gender action that varies from heterosexual behavior. Any gay, lesbian, transsexual, bisexual, transgender, etcetera person is in the gender queer group. The word queer refers to straying from the normalcy of heterosexuality to any abnormal sexual or gender preference (Wood). Researchers of the queer performative theory realized that because gender changes in all people and people do gender, categorizing gender as a verb makes more sense.

The interchangeability of gender traits in stereotypical straight and queer people is easy and often done. The gender identity of a person is fluid and not a rigid structure (Wood). Gender identity change is common now in most every group of people.

Respect and knowledge of all types of gender queer people is a major goal in this theory (Wood). If all races, groups, and sexes are to be respected then shouldn’t all other traits? Queer performative theory has two main points to convey. The first point is how gender should not bind a person’s attributes and characteristics. Physical traits can always change. People dye their hair other colors, get braces, lose weight, and go bald. Queer performative aims to prove that gender just like those physical characteristics can be changed. The term “man” interchanges from an eighteen year old, to a WWII veteran, then to a bedazzled drag queen. Consequently, the term woman interchanges between a young bride, to Cat Zingano, to Marilyn Monroe. The sex of a person is only one part of a whole human being (Wood). People cannot look to the sex of another person for the gender stereotype they wish to impose upon them. Even biological sex characteristics get murky at times. Back in 1629, a court was troubled with the case of manservant T. Hall (Meadow). Hall was both womanly and manly to the people around. The people physically checked Thomas/Thomasine and when they could not prove or find a sex, court order Hall to wear both women’s and men’s clothing at all times (Meadow). Nearly four hundred years ago this case was given and stories nowadays hardly have changed. The second main idea of queer performative is how our gender is in a constant state of flux (Wood). We could never live completely without changing out gender outlook. Identities are performed when dads watch baseball meanwhile bottle-feeding their newborn child. Gender identities are expressed when second grade girls do not cry when they are teased but retaliate with force. Some girls love to be girls; others just like to be themselves without any boundaries at all. I grew up in dresses. I actually had to learn how to crawl on my hands and feet because my knees would become caught in the skirts. When I grew and was in grade school, I still wore dresses very often. However, I would fight, kick, and hit any boy or girl who said any harm to my friends or me. Gender is not a wall or structure! >Critical Theories of Gender. https://www.azwestern.edu/sites/default/files/awc/student-success-center/15-03-02_Critical_Theories_of_Gender.pdf

[Takes references from "Wood, Julia T. Gendered Lives: Communication, Gender, and Culture. 10th ed. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Pub., 2013. Print".]

14 notes · View notes

cathy-gabby · 3 months ago

Text

SHIPPING: Sink or Sail

(Disclaimer: The following contents are based on my own casual observations. Please do not shoot. If you are an avid fan of another member, please skip this blog.)

Life has been very hectic these days I could hardly breathe. During these times, I would have opened my AO3 and read Jnkk aus for relaxation and stress-relief. However, there is now a dearth of Jnkk aus that interest me and I have reread all my favorite stories too many times I can recite their lines with my eyes closed. So I resort to YT and look for Jin and Jnkk videos – sadly, because of ME, most recent videos are recaps of famous moments and Jnkk roman empires. My favorite YT channels have also gone on hiatus; others even deleted their accounts. I think I have also reread all of my favorite tumblr posts. So I checked X and searched for Jnkk AO3 recommendations and voila, several promising titles popped up. Clicking on some, I found many have a million or more views. Wow! The most viewed Jnkk au I have read has only around 200k views.

These aus are of course of the most famous ships – tkk, jkk, and surprisingly, ymn. There were even some spe, njn, and tjn. As much as I talked myself into thinking that I would open at least one for curiosity’s sake, I could not make myself do it. I cringe just with the thought of reading these stories – well written, perhaps – of other ships that I am not interested in. My HYPOCRITE self cannot believe that there are people who romanticize real people’s interactions; some may even actually believe that these real people are together in real life. (Shout-out to the writer for describing herself.)

There is a tried and tested formula to kpop – rapper, dancer, vocal, visual members; rigorous dance routines despite the inane music, and of course, shipping and fan service. One could even make a sweeping generalization that shipping is synonymous to k-pop. Never mind the rappers who cannot dance, the visuals who cannot sing, or the vocalists who overuse autotune – as long as the members perform fan service on stage, fans go wild with happiness, which means more album sales, more streams, more money.

And because shipping is such a lucrative business, BTS is not even exempted from it. Go where the river flows, they say.

When most of the members were underage, there was only playful banter among the members. tkk were the playful evil twins – running amok like the mischievous rascals that they were. jkk were the Busan boys – little jm as baby jk’s confidante and both were Jin’s little helpers for whenever he cooked for the group. When all the 7 members were of legal age, tjn emerged as the first ‘romantic’ ship. And so here we are now, a multitude of ships later of even the most bizarre and ridiculous pairings, with tkk and jkk fans killing each other squid-game style as to who is the realist pair.

But hey, who am I to discount anyone’s belief of their ship when I myself am a ‘believer’? When us Jnkkrs claim that we are not shippers but believers, what stops others from being ‘believers’ and not shippers of their own otp? I could list down a hundred reasons why Jnkk is real and others will list thousands of their own, with footnotes, annotations, and references in APA 7th edition format. So I say, to each his own. Whatever floats your boat.

As for me, I believe in Jnkk because I believe in Jnkk. Jin is my ultimate bias; I only pay attention to him – every quirk, every twitch, every word - so I notice who he is bias to and who else tries to attract his attention. All members might have been attracted and ‘in love’ with him at some point in their lives. Namjoon with puppy eyes a little upset that Jin did not make seaweed soup for him on his birthday (but made one for Jungkook a few weeks before). Suga professing his undying love for Jin while intoxicated (Maybe that was the only time he could tell his very oblivious hyung his intense feelings for him?). Jhope being overly touchy with Jin. Jimin confessing that he fell ‘in love’ with Jin’s face when he was 16 years old. Tae claiming that Jin was his most favorite person in the world. And Jungkook?

No comment. Teeheehe.

When members and fans say that Jin is the best hyung, he is really the best hyung. (Again, disclaimer: These are all my own opinion and observations.)

Despite being older, Jin respects Namjoon as the leader. Now that they are both mature, their relationship has always been that of mentor-mentee dynamic – the CEO referring to the chairman for advise. Why does Namjoon stay close to Jin during speeches and interviews? Why did Jin seek Namjoon after he gave that iconic speech about sajaegi while the latter clapped his hands with much ardor and pride for his hyung? (But when he got nervous as the music show MC, Jin looked for Jungkook.)

When Jin needs someone to drink and do things with, he asks Yoongi even when Yoongi does not want to. Getting a morning meal during ITS4? Going fishing very early in the morning? Getting a buzz cut for military service? Jin asks Suga and Suga comes along 100%. (Of course he will always choose Suga as a roommate, not even his mother, or father, or brother, or Jungkook.)

As a casual observer, I can say that Jin has always been protective of Jimin. Of all the members, Jimin is the most prone to depression and anxiety; he has always been hard on himself. Did he not say that Jin taught him how to be happy (or something to that effect)? Jin, to some extent, allows Jimin to be playful with him (but not as much as he allows Jungkook to get his way with him). It is no surprise then that he is one of the most affected when Jin left for mandatory service, second only to Jungkook.

Not surprisingly, Jin also tolerates Taehyung’s advances, to some extent. He knows that tjn ship has long sunk in the deep recesses of the ocean but he gets Tae’s level of skibidi and indulges him and the handful of loyal tjnnies.

Of them all, Jin is most comfortable with JHope. Yes, Jhope, not with Jungkook. He gets to be young and playful with him. He knows that whatever interactions they would have, people will not put any meaning to it. It’s the same with how he is comfortable with Suga, on a mature and philosophical level. They are not a ship and no one ships them. With the other members, Jin is always wary with the cameras and fans’ reactions. Either because they are a ship or the other members’ fans are just next level crazy.

So, is he not comfortable with Jungkook? He is. Very much. But he always has to be the level-headed and circumspect one. Some of Jungkook’s fans and most of his shippers are off-the-charts bonkers. Plus, he always has to be ready for what Jungkook will do or say next to him, cameras and audience be damned. I’d say it is all Jin’s fault. JK has always been his ultimate bias. He has allowed JK to always have his way with him, from head to foot. Manhandling him any which way he can, which Jin is obviously likes (bonus points if they are ripped, tattooed, and pierced).

Does JK also get his way with other members? Does he also melt them with his googly eyes? Yes, yes, and yes. If Jin is the ultimate hyung, Jungkook is the ultimate baby of the group, a spoiled brat in the good sense of the word. Jungkook has always been Namjoon’s number one fan (and crush – oohh, those thighs!); Suga is his most favorite older brother (his idol even, when it comes to fashion and drinking). He is also very playful with JHope (who tolerates him like an older brother to a younger brother). His relationship with Tae is a little complex because of shipping and because at the height of the tjn ship, Tae always got his way with Jin, insensitive to Jin’s discomfort and Jungkook’s feelings. But I daresay when Jin was enlisted, Tae was a very good friend to JK, inviting him for games and activities with his friends (to maybe distract him from his loneliness). He is most comfortable with Jimin, of course. I think I have written already about how Jimin perhaps might have been the first to know about JK’s blooming infatuation towards Jin. Jimin might have even acted as the ‘bridge’ so JK will get closer to Jin. It is obvious how comfortable he is with Jimin as he promotes their ship willingly and happily.

All these pairings are just with Jin and JK with other members. There are other pairings and more popular ships out there. But I am more interested in how these two interact with the others and with each other.

So is Jnkk a ship? (In my previous draft, I wrote 2 pages of Jnkk history but I scrapped it to stay on the topic. Maybe I would be able to post it someday.)

At first, they tried to sell it as a ship – hyung-maknae dynamic. And their interaction was purely playful, with Jungkook getting his bratty ways with Jin. But one cannot deny Jungkook’s longing stares, and possessive actions. Of course, as the youngest in the group whose members were all attracted to Jin, one cannot help but be territorial. But did Jin reciprocate?

Jin’s soft and adoring gazes were all brotherly. The man was oblivious, through and through. (Even now. But that is a story for another day.) Anyway, personally, I believe Jin was with jhs before their debut and until about two years after. Then later, maybe with ljh, around 2016. (Jin’s clean break habit is so thorough. When he is done, he is done. Period. I followed jhs on IG – he posted a big fat F U to his musician friend who attended Jhope’s listening party where Jin and JK were cozy. Interestingly, he archived all his posts and went on IG hiatus on the day HAPPY was released. ljh, on the other hand, could not stop talking about Jin until now. Sadly, Jin does not even acknowledge his existence, despite inviting Sandeul twice on Run Jin.)

Around the time when JK was already of legal age, the dynamic changed. Instead of hyung-maknae, it is now a friendly banter between friends of the same age. Perhaps they were both excited but there were times when they would forget themselves, hence, the Dispatch article which started some rumors about them. After that, they always had to stay guarded; or rather, Jin had to be always on high alert because Jungkook did not care about restrictions and shipping and audience. He would get unhappy and detached when he’s not near Jin to downright sulky when Jin would not pay him any attention.

Later as JK matured and perhaps when they became more secure with each other (JK might have been afraid that Jin would prefer someone older; Jin might have been wary that JK would want someone younger), the public displays and playfulness have mellowed down. (The pandemic might have helped, allowing them to become even closer. But like water that seeps through cracks, love isn’t something that can be covered up; it flows through in the simplest moments, making it clear to anyone watching. But that is a story for another time). JK is now more active in promoting his ships; Jin is a happy onlooker while also giving the bare minimum for his own ships. All to make the fans happy. (And to draw attention away from them.)

Yes, their separate ships and those of others must be fed. Despite being already at the pinnacle of success and this generation’s representative band, members STILL perform fan service and EVEN NOW while serving in the military. Of course, I am not discounting the fact that these seven members have gone through hell and reached the top together for more than ten years. Their bond is more than that of friendship; it’s brotherhood. Their interaction, therefore, is as real as any other.

So why does BTS still perform fan service? Is it the fans who put stupendous meaning to every single word or twitch or eye contact? Is it the company which heavily promotes these ships so they run their way to the bank? Is it the members themselves who capitalize on genuine interactions for extra attention? or to satisfy the terms of their contract?

I say – all of the above?

I just hope that after everyone has served ME and when they play out the terms of their new contract, that the fan service will stop. That Jungkook will put an end to all the deluluness of his shippers. If tkkrs and jkkrs will all collectively perish because of it, then so be it. If Jnkk is also a ship, then he should stop looking at Jin like he is undressing him in front of everyone (teehehe!).

But no, for me, Jnkk is not a ship. Whatever they may have, it is only for them and between them. I and the rest of their believers are just so happy that we get to witness it in this lifetime. If, somehow, Jin ends up married with another partner, that is all right with me. I will support him and his partner all the way. Will I be angry that I may be deceived? No, because I choose to believe in them. I would just feel thankful that at some point, and on busy days like today, Jnkk makes me happy.

And then I move on.

But for now, I am here.

PS: I am rambling so bad. I have to get back to work but I need to get all of these off my chest. Perhaps, someday, I would get to edit this.

#jin #seokjin #kim seokjin #bts jin #jinkook

3 notes · View notes

literaryvein-reblogs · 2 months ago

Note

thank you so much for your blog!!!! it’s genuinely so useful and insightful when writing. is there anything on writing blind characters? more specifically types of blindness and blindness throughout history + how it impacts them in their day to day life? Thank you in advance!!!

Writing Notes: Blindness

TERMINOLOGY

“Blind” or “Legally Blind” - in general, is acceptable for people with complete or almost complete vision loss.

For others who have a loss of vision, the American Foundation for the Blind uses the term “low vision,” which it describes as “uncorrectable vision loss that interferes with daily activities.”

The foundation says that other terms commonly used to describe vision loss – “partial sight,” “partial blindness” and “poor vision” – are no longer in general use.

The foundation also uses the term “visually impaired,” but some object to the use of the words “impair” or “impairment” when describing a disability.

NCDJ Recommendation: “Blind” may be used for people who have complete or almost complete loss of sight.

Other terms are acceptable for those with some vision loss.

It is best to ask your sources what they prefer and take that into consideration.

Similarly, ask whether the person prefers identity-first or people-first language. Many prefer “blind” or “blind person,” while others prefer “a person with blindness.”

Other commonly used terms include:

Limited vision: Acceptable when a person is not legally or completely blind

Low vision: Acceptable when a person is not legally or completely blind

Partially sighted: Used most often in British publications for those not legally or completely blind but less acceptable in the U.S.

Visually impaired: Similar to the term “hearing impaired,” some may object to it because it describes the condition in terms of a deficiency.

Because these terms tend to be imprecise, consider asking how the visual condition affects acuity. For example, a person may be able to describe having low central or peripheral vision.

APA Style. Description of blind people or people who are visually impaired:

Problematic

visually challenged person

sight-challenged person

person with blindness

Preferred

blind person

visually impaired person, vision-impaired person

person who is blind

person who is visually impaired, person who is vision impaired

BLINDNESS & VISION LOSS

Blindness - A lack of vision.

Profound, near-total, or total impairment of the ability to perceive visual stimuli.

It may also refer to a loss of vision that cannot be corrected with glasses or contact lenses.

According to the World Health Organization’s international classification (1990), blindness is defined as visual acuity less than 20/400 in the better eye with best correction or a visual field less than 10° in the widest meridian in the better eye.

Partial blindness - very limited vision.

Complete blindness - cannot see anything and do not see light.

In the United States, the criterion for legal blindness is visual acuity of 20/200 or less in the better eye with best correction or a visual field of 20° or less in the widest meridian of the better eye. People with vision that is worse than 20/200, even with glasses or contact lenses, are considered legally blind in most states.

Vision Loss - the partial or complete loss of vision.

May happen suddenly or over a period of time.

Some types of vision loss never lead to complete blindness.

Alternative Names: Loss of vision; No light perception (NLP); Low vision; Vision loss and blindness

Common types of low vision include:

Central vision loss (not being able to see things in the center of your vision)

Peripheral (side) vision loss (not being able to see things out of the corners of your eyes)

Night blindness (not being able to see in low light)

Blurry or hazy vision

Cortical Blindness - blindness, with normal pupillary responses, that is due to complete destruction of the optic radiations or the striate cortex. Because the subcortical structures (white matter) of the visual system are involved, it is also called cerebral blindness. Typically caused by a stroke affecting the occipital lobe of the brain, cortical blindness can also result from traumatic injury or hypoxia. In children, it is often a consequence of hydrocephalus, meningitis, toxic or hypertensive encephalopathy, trauma, or diffuse demyelinating degenerative disease. Complete loss of vision in a portion of the visual field is called partial cortical blindness.

Functional Blindness - visual deterioration without any apparent change or disease affecting the structural integrity of the visual system: one of the most frequent symptoms in somatization disorder. In addition to loss of acuity, visual functional phenomena may include photophobia; burning, painful, or tired eyes; monocular diplopia (double vision); ptosis; blepharospasm; convergence problems; and severe concentric visual field constriction in one or both eyes. Despite the symptoms, the pupils continue to react to light, and the patient automatically avoids (i.e., is able to detect and thereby avoid) objects that would cause injury. Complete functional blindness is rare. The condition was formerly known as hysterical blindness or psychic blindness.

Low Vision - reduction of visual capacity (especially visual acuity and visual field), regardless of the underlying cause, that cannot be corrected to the normal range with glasses, contact lenses, or medical or surgical treatment. Low vision causes problems with various aspects of visual performance (e.g., mobility, reading) and is often associated with a decline in quality of life, an increased risk of depression, and decreased functional status. Low vision services provided to those with this condition include assessment of an individual’s residual vision and instruction in the use of high-powered optical devices (see vision rehabilitation). Also called partial sight.

Visual Impairment - partial or total inability to see, or to see normally, due to partial or complete loss or absence of vision or to visual dysfunction. Visual impairment encompasses the continuum from blindness to low vision. It can result from disease or degenerative disorder (e.g., cataract, glaucoma, diabetic retinopathy, or macular degeneration), injury, or congenital defects (e.g., refractive errors, astigmatism). The degree of visual impairment is assessed in terms of disability in everyday life. Also called vision impairment.

Adventitious Visual Impairment. Partial or total vision loss that results from injury or illness following a period of normal visual ability. Onset of the impairment can produce severe grief, mourning reactions, and dependency. As a consequence, any residual visual capacity may not be used effectively, exacerbating psychological and social-adjustment problems. Also called acquired visual impairment.

Congenital Visual Impairment. Partial or total vision loss already present at birth or occurring soon after birth. Major causes are infections, bilateral cataracts, and prematurity. Unless specially stimulated, children with this impairment are likely to show delay in sensory, motor, and social development.

POSSIBLE CAUSES

Accidents or injuries to the surface of the eye (chemical burns or sports injuries)

Cataract

Diabetes

Glaucoma

Macular degeneration

Refractive errors

The type of partial vision loss may differ, depending on the cause:

With cataracts, vision may be cloudy or fuzzy, and bright light may cause glare

With diabetes, vision may be blurred, there may be shadows or missing areas of vision, and difficulty seeing at night

With glaucoma, there may be tunnel vision and missing areas of vision

With macular degeneration, the side vision is normal, but the central vision is slowly lost

Aging doesn't cause vision loss on its own. But many diseases that are more common in older adults can cause it.

Other causes of vision loss include:

Blocked blood vessels to the retina

Complications of premature birth (retrolental fibroplasia)

Complications of eye surgery

Lazy eye

Optic neuritis

Stroke

Retinitis pigmentosa

Tumors, such as retinoblastoma and optic nerve glioma

Total blindness (no light perception) is often due to:

Severe trauma or injury

Complete retinal detachment

End-stage glaucoma

End stage diabetic retinopathy

Severe internal eye infection (endophthalmitis)

Vascular occlusion (stroke in the eye)

Other eye disorders, eye injuries, and birth defects can also cause vision loss.

IMPACT OF VISION IMPAIRMENT

Young children with early onset irreversible severe vision impairment can experience delayed motor, language, emotional, social and cognitive development, with lifelong consequences.

School-age children with vision impairment can also experience lower levels of educational achievement.

Vision impairment severely impacts quality of life among adult populations.

Adults with vision impairment can experience lower rates of employment and

higher rates of depression and anxiety.

In the case of older adults, vision impairment can contribute to social isolation,

difficulty walking,

a higher risk of falls and fractures, and

a greater likelihood of early entry into nursing or care homes.

EXAMPLES IN MEDIA

All the Light We Cannot See: One of the two main characters is blind.

Blindness (1995): An unnamed country is swept by a plague that causes everyone to go blind, creating societal chaos. It was adapted into a film in 2008.

One Hundred Years of Solitude: Úrsula Iguarán, matriarch of the Buendía family, progressively goes blind as she grows older. However, none of her family members ever discover this, since she completely memorized how their house looks and is able to walk around as if she could see.

Sources: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ⚜ More: Notes ⚜ Writing Resources PDFs

Thank you for your kind words, means a lot! Here are some related information. You can find more details and examples in the links. Hope this helps with your writing!

More: Color Blindness ⚜ Quadrantanopia ⚜ Face Blindness

#anonymous #blindness #character development #writing reference #writeblr #literature #dark academia #writers on tumblr #spilled ink #writing prompt #creative writing #light academia #writing inspiration #writing ideas #writing resources

59 notes · View notes

aquamarinest · 1 year ago

Text

writing an A+ essay for the humanities courses by your TA, step by step:

First step is always to read your guidelines very carefully and take note of the format; this means the word limit, referencing style (MLA, APA, Chicago, Harvard), and spacing. Write down the steps your professor expects (announcing your topic, first draft, meeting etc.) and their due dates.

finding your topic

🎀 start with your syllabus, is there any topic that you'd like to delve in to more? something that catches your attention? is there anything in your notes that you'd like to explore?

🎀 alternatively, you can take a look at your reading list and take note of journals that the articles were published in. you can write down some of the journal names and read through their latest publications through your library access for inspiration.

🎀 after you have a general idea of what you'd like to research, do an initial web search, a jstor search, and a library search. skim through the abstracts and selectively read what looks interesting to have an idea on this area of study and note down the kind of questions they try to answer in these papers.

🎀 book an appointment with your professor. chances are you're already required to let them know what you'll be writing on before you hand the paper in. so go to their office hours and tell them this is what you'd like to research, even if you're kind of scared or anxious or nervous, go and talk to them. they'll ask you some questions about how you'd like to go around researching your topic, and you can tell them about the kind of questions you found that could be interesting to pursue. they can advise you on how to narrow your topic down or point you towards some useful material. with that, you can start researching!

how to research

📚 while there is no one-size-fits-all research method, something helpful to do is picking out books on the topic and going through the bibliography. don't try to read everything ever written on this topic, but look at the abstracts and key words and skim through papers & books to find things relevant to your topic.

📚 definitely look into your professor's recommendations and you can jump from there, just bibliography hop and note down page numbers and citations on your word page that you'd like to use.

📚 as you read and note quotes, after some point you'll see a pattern and a shape of an argument forming in your head. arrange your quotes into logical sections that follow that argument and read a bit more to see if you can specifically find things written about that argument you've discovered. continue noting quotes.

📚 remember that for an undergrad paper, your professor will advise you on how many references you should ideally have in your paper and you should follow that. in your quotes stage, try to shoot a little bit higher than the advised number of bibliography you're expected to have. always, ALWAYS write your citations correctly with page numbers, even if you've paraphrased their arguments for your notes.

writing your paper

🩷 now, at some point you'll need to slow down on reading and start writing. you have some writing on your word page already, and chances are, you're already sitting with an over-the-word-limit paper just containing quotes. this is ideal.

✨️ start with trying to articulate your argument, and summarising the thread you've built with quotes. what is it that you're trying to answer here? how does it relate to your material (your primary source, this could be a literary book, an archaeological evidence, a building, an object, a painting, etc)?

🩷 do a little sectioning with your quotes, label 2 or 3 sections and group the quotes this way. then, write down what this group does, what do they argue for, what is the context of this argument, and how it relates to your argument.

✨️ go through all your sections like this. you can strike down some quotes, or choose to paraphrase them (you still need to cite them when you do this). try to use quotes that communicate with each other, or build a bridge between your different quotes. Add two more sections labeled: introduction, conclusion.

🩷 in the introduction you should give a brief context of your primary, verrrry brief, and then your argument that is stated as clearly as possible. you can give a short path as to how you're going to argue and what kind of proof you have; and also write down how you've organised your paper.

✨️ in the conclusion you summarise your argument and write down the implications of this in the general context of this area of study; what does it mean for this topic in general, what impact does it have, does your argument fill a gap, does it contradict the general consensus, does it prove that the general view is correct? you could write down what could be further studied for extra flair.

editing

🪸 check your citations, references, and bibliography. check them again. are they in the correct format? do they include all the information you need to provide? is it alphabetical? have you correctly gave references everywhere you needed to do and did not accidentally plagiarise anything?

🪸 check your spelling and grammar. try to do this about three days after you've written the paper. if you're pressed for time, have someone else read it for you. you will not be able to catch your grammatical errors after writing it because you become blind to your own writing after a certain time. if you want that A, the paper should look polished and have the correct formatting.

🪸 make sure your name is on the paper so you'll see it marked with an A+. Well done!

#studyblr #gradblr #study tips #essays #humanities #litblr #academia #pink academia #light academia #🌺

20 notes · View notes

stardustedknuckles · 2 years ago

Text

Absolutely fucking hate the perfectionism required for citations for a paper. As a tutor, I get kids all the time being like "I need review of this, this, and this, and also my citations" and I have to be strategic about like. Listen. I used bibme.org all through college and I still think citations are THE dumbest shit academia ever pulled. I get that having a standardized way to cite sources is useful. What I don't get is why I am expected to memorize so much technically useless shit for every possible form of media I could be citing and that I could lose points on a perfectly great paper if I get anything wrong, which means I will already be double checking my citations, so why would I NOT just generate them automatically? Not only am I expected to memorize where the commas, italics, and periods go for print, media, interview, article, and etc. for MLA, but then it all changes for APA and such? Fuck that. At this point, when I get papers that ask me to check citations, I go through and address everything else (you know, the stuff a student can't actually look up themselves) and then say "the general format of the references page looks correct and the in-text citations are fine, but citations are the one part of an essay that can be double checked without me and therefore I focused my efforts on the content of the paper." Like I DO make sure the citations at least LOOK correct, but I'm not about to start counting author names and checking period vs comma and all that.

#we're meant to keep our rejection rate of assignments as low as possible #and one just came through that was an annotated bibliography #and you know - I might have tried it if the review time hadn't been 35 minutes.#you want me to go through the content of this AND double check the citations because they are a fundamental aspect of the assignment?#not in 35 minutes no

14 notes · View notes

pearwaldorf · 2 years ago

Text

OK so I have not actually written anything that requires properly formatted citations in a long time, but I have distinct memories of hand formatting* in both MLA and APA and MLA fucking sucks. Can I tell you why? No, it has been too long. But it does.

I don't think I've ever cited anything in Chicago but I have looked at it and it is sensible. (People who are super hardcore about it need to get hobbies tho. Yes I am aware I'm in a glass house.)

* I didn't discover citation management software until I was almost out of grad school. I am so fucking grumpy about this. I spent hours doing these by hand. HOURS. Please download Zotero and learn how to use it to store things and generate references if you are a student in higher ed.

#pear text

3 notes · View notes

sophieinwonderland · 2 years ago

Text

Oh, hey! It's been a while since I've dealt with anti-endos invading the endogenic tags!

Guess it's time to deal with this.

Off to a bad start right away.

I almost always only see "endos" as a pejorative used by anti-endos. It's rare that endogenic system refer to themselves as "endos." While I wouldn't say it's quite a slur, it's not

Okay, so right from the start, the sources they cite for the claim that endogenic systems are impossible under the Theory of Structural Dissociation are from DID-research... a blog by a doctoral student.

And these pages don't even say anywhere what @jananpa claims it does. Let's actually hear what the authors of the Theory of Structural Dissociation have said about the existence of other forms of plurality.

There you have it from two of the authors of The Haunted Self, the book that started the Theory of Structural Dissociation, that it's possible for other "self-conscious dissociative parts" to exist outside of trauma and dissociative disorders. (This is also consistent with how the ICD-11 states that you can have multiple "distinct personality states" without DID.)

At no point has the Theory of Structural Dissociation ever claimed that endogenic systems are impossible.

Stop lying.

Stop misrepresenting the theory of Structural Dissociation when even the authors don't support you.

Just noting that the source here is a Carrd which in turn doesn't provide sources for any of its claims.

This is probably where @jananpa got most of their misinformation since everything they say is taken straight from its talking points.

On this note, Jananpa mentioned wanting to major in psychology. If they go down this route, I sincerely hope that they learn how to tell if a source is trustworthy or not on their chosen career path, and to not just blindly believe every bigoted Carrd they come across.

This isn't actually an unfair assessment.

Well, aside from the repeated claim that endogenic plurality violates the Theory of Structural Dissociation, which we literally just proved was a lie. It is true that there isn't a "study" in the chapter.

All that this really shows is the opinions of Eric Yarbrough, who is a Distinguished Fellow of the American Psychiatric Association, in a book that was peer reviewed and published by the APA's publishing arm.

It's not a study. But it DOES show recognition and support in the psychiatric field by notable professionals.

Which is more than you can say of the anti-endo opinion that endogenic plurality isn't possible, because absolutely no psychiatrists will ever back you up on that claim, and it's disputed by both the creators of the Theory of Structural Dissociation and the World Health Organization.

Oh no! The sample size is six less than the rule of thumb for a minimum! The horror! 😲

But wait... did they... actually look at that source of theirs???

While the minimums have the largest margin of error, a 10% margin of error isn't really an issue in surveys that are just gathering general opinions like this. And this shows the 10% at 96 for population of larger than 5000. Basically only two off of what's listed here.

It's utterly ridiculous to say a sample size of almost 100 is even close to the equivalent of a sample size of 11.

I'm not going to comment on the Jung article itself since I haven't looked into this much. If anyone wants to add anything, they're welcome to. But obviously older works about plurality aren't using the word plural because the term itself is recent. They just describe instance of people experiencing multiple self-conscious agents sharing a body. Acting like someone not using the word plural is this great "gotcha" is silly.

What I will say on this is that yes, inner worlds can be consciously created in DID. There are guides out there on how to do it.

Actually, I don't think the leading theory is even that trauma causes you to "gain" an inner world (at least not directly), so much as retreating into fantasy worlds is a common trauma response and that action causes inner worlds to develop. Outside forces (trauma) result in an action (escapism) which leads to inner world development.

But the action does not require trauma.

Not everyone exposed to trauma develops complex inner worlds because not everyone responds to trauma with the same coping mechanisms.

You should also pick an armchair diagnosis and stick with it. Is his inner world SZPD or MADD? These are very different disorders.

Or better yet, don't do either. Not all daydreaming is maladaptive, and you shouldn't assume somebody has a disorder just because they have complex inner worlds. Immersive daydreaming is a common practice, and it's not maladaptive unless it interferes with daily life.

No.

Stop.

Literally all of this is wrong!

For starters, there's no evidence anywhere of the Tibetan Buddhist practice being closed, and the Dalai Lama has said that people of other religions can use Tibetan Buddhist meditations.

“Many Christians tell me they believe in Buddhist meditation, which can be learned by Christians. We teach right attitude. We teach meditation, which can be quite deep. These would be things that the West can take, and I think it is clear that Buddhists should practice certain Western methods, too.”

Moreover, the Tibetan Buddhist practice is not called Tulpamancy. "Tulpamancy" is a term associated solely with the Western practice.

And Tulpamancy is largely NOT a religious or spiritual practice. From Varieties of Tulpa Experiences:

76.5% of tulpamancers view their practice as psychological.

Both the above study and the one referenced in Jan Anpa's post are about the primarily psychological Western practice. As will be ALL research into tulpamancy. The Buddhist religious practices it shares an etymology with is completely irrelevant to this topic of studies into the disorder.

Tulpamancy is primarily seen as psychological plurality by most tulpamancers, and that's what these studies are about.

You're welcome to look into the above study further as it has a lot more information on tulpamancy. It's was written by Samuel Veissière, a psychiatry professor at McGill University in a book reviewed and published by the Oxford University Press.

Jananapa, if there's one thing that's clear from all of this, it's that despite being confident in your ignorance, you know absolutely nothing about systems, structural dissociation, plurality, tulpamancy or literally anything else discussed in your post.

Given your self-assured ignorance of systems, I wouldn't recommend people put any trust in your understanding of Autism or any of the other conditions you discuss on your blog.

If anyone wants to further educate themselves on endogenic systems, please see my Endogenic Syscourse Primer.

As always with these hate posts that end up being posted in pro-endo tags, it's only fair that I share my responses in anti-endo tags along with many other tags the initial post was made in.

If any anti-endos are bothered by this, please ask @jananpa to not post in our tags anymore. As long as anti-endos stay in their lane, I'll stay in mine. When anti-endos invade our spaces, my responses to those posts will continue to go straight to theirs. If we can't have safe spaces to exist, then you aren't allowed safe spaces to spread hate against us. (I will avoid DID/OSDD/traumagenic tags out of respect for non-anti-endos in those spaces. But you might want to ask that Jananpa stay out of those tags as well since I know you guys also tend to not care for singlets posting in those tags.)

77 notes · View notes