#but for real a lot of them are really strong critical thinkers and they actually talk in class and it’s just. :') a good group! | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

lovee-infected · 4 years

Note

hi! could i see your insights about ace? i saw a anon say from another blog that kinda has unrealistic expectations in a relationship and it kinda stuck with me. i mean in his ghost marriage he already knows the things he wants in a partner but he didn't show guilt about dumping his girlfriend, even. i think if you date him because he sees these quality in you and as the relationship last, he'll dump you if you get boring to him lol

I never thought that I'd say this but, wow, I'm impressed. I've been really curious about Ace since I get to see a variety of different content with different representations of his personality, so I decided to stick with his canon stories and lines. This analysis was so much fun to write and I'd assure you all that not only Ace but rather all of the first year characters are WAY more than they seem to be! Many just decide to ignore them and pass away, calling them good boys or precious stupid beanies at first.

Speaking of Ace, we've all seen how trending he's been recently. Many theories, thoughts and new arguments exist through the fandom as many want to get to know this boy better.

Theories like "Ace's betrayal theory" as well have been mentioned a lot lately, some agree and some disagree. While we aren't going to talk about that theory or any other theories in this analysis, I'd like to take time to talk about the reasons why those theories might seem appealing and accurate. In other words, we're going to talk about where they are coming from!

1) Ace is incredibly smart and brave

It's true that characters like Jade or Azul's remarkable genius often stands out as it's clearly visible through their presence in the game, from iconic decisions to stunning strategies. But what we need to realize is how characters like Ace can be just as inspiring while their true intelligence is often shallowed by extras and giving them much of a dumb picture in the game.

To begin with, let us note that Ace's brother himself was one of the considerably strong magicians in Heartslabyul's history and even his presence through the magicshift is still remarkable even though years has passed. As the second child of the family, Ace's change to achieve success is even higher than his brother's as he already has a role model he really looks up to, so in that point Ace isn't one to underestimate. But, let me point that his relationship with his brother also contains lots of jealousy and sometimes negativity. His brother was one to always trick Ace and he continues to do so even nowadays! Ace on the other hand doesn't enjoy being pissed off over and over even as he's used to it. Well, we can say that it's another reason for him to train his hardest and become a greater magician than his brother therefore he won't be the bully material of the Trappola household anymore.

Regardless of how effective his brother might've been on him, Ace himself has shown plenty of strong hints that reveal not only his high IQ but also EQ:

He can solve math problems in second, which is a rather important feature to note because the way you deal with math can directly effect the way you deal with life. Not saying that one has to be great at math to be great at something else but it's rather about the perspective and ability of logical thinking that it gives to one. I'd say that this effect is quite visible if you take a look at the way he speaks in serious situations; he's got much of an analytical brain. Let's not forget that Cater as well confirmed that he's much of a skill stealer, is pretty good at remembering things and is a quick thinker! These are go on to show how much of an underestimated genius he is.

Whenever something goes wrong, Ace would be the first one to notice it even if it's a silly matter. And it always begins with a seemingly childish argument, but ends incrucial matters that not a single soul had noticed before! Just take a look at chapter one, what would've happened if Ace hadn't spoken up? He was just one of the hundreds of students having to be severely punished under Riddle's strict rules and he surely wasn't the first one to go through this. Him taking the urge to fight Riddle sounded stupid and naïve at first, many even told him off because he was just acting like a pissed off child. But as he continued to argue and oppose toward Riddle's way as a leader, even Trey realized how he's been keeping his eye shut on all this problems for so long. The way Ace stood against Trey was iconic, he confidently defended his point not by his personal demands and feelings but with facts and logical comments on why Trey's way of threatening Riddle is wrong. He did the same thing again at he ghost marriage, just think of it! Not a single soul ever cared to tell the bride about true love but Ace was there, and he was the one and only to do this after more than 500 years of the bride's existence! This Ace, this serious and mature face of Ace is something that can surely fascinate anyone. His bravery, the way he puts all that strength through words, hisextremely logical point of view and his enthusiasm to solve the problems no matter how unimportant they seem to be is indeed appreciatble. Seriously though, what would've happened to Riddle is Ace wasn't there? When Ace firstly begun to oppose to him, everyone thought that is was just a childish argument. They had no idea how severe and destructive Riddle's temper issues were and how harmful they were down inside.

2) He's one of the dumbest characters in the whole game

You know what? He is dumb. Yes he's incredibly smart but this isn't going to change the fact that he is dumb as hell, so I'm never going to argue when someone's nagging on how much of an idiot he is. But most importantly, we need to know what's making him so dumb:

His presence through the stories has proved that Ace is eventually pretty good at detecting the main source of problems both on the mental and physical side. He was the first to realize Riddle's issues, Trey's huge mistake with Riddle, Ghost bride's unawareness and Epel's gloomy and sad aura in chapter 4. Ace's also one to easily tell whether what someone is doing is wrong or not, he can see through people and bring their mistakes to their attention. The problem is... he can't be quite the same with himself. That's what makes him awfully dumb.

Back in chapter one, he did have a point about Riddle's way of leadership being so unfair and messed up, but when he decided to challenge Riddle and even take his place as the dorm leader he was a total idiot who didn't how weak and unpractical his own magic was, he was being too dramatic. When he talked about his ex girlfriend, he just talked about how she held him back from doing what he wanted and was too uncool to spend time with, but he didn't mention a single thing about himself doing anything wrong in that relationship. He often fails to realize that he's got his own incompleteness and lacks just like anyone else, or prefers to put an blind eye to them most of the time (not all of the time)

Ace sets the perfect goals, but chooses the wrong path to achieve them. He needs to realize that just like everyone else, he can be sometimes wrong. He should take his time to get to know himself better; his abilities, his attitude, his faults and his mistakes and learn to be more patient and logical in order to achieve his goals. He's still young an inexperienced, by learning to put that brilliance of him into the perfect use he'd be able to become the great magician he wishes to be, and I'd say that in case that he continues to grow stronger and smarter, he'll have a high chance of being hesrtslabyul's next dorm leader!

3) He legit wants to be the "Ace"

This part's more of an attempt to do a name analyis and see how much it's been effective on Ace's personality. It actually makes a lot of snese since the word "Ace" itself has several meanings, and he used these different terms quite a few times in his personal stories. This point would also be explained in part (4) so for now, let's take a look at direct name definitions:

First of, remember what what an Ace is in a card game? "A playing card with a simple spot on it, ranked as the highest card in its suit" This goes on to tell us a lot, it's telling us what an Ace is. A loner yet the most powerful one of its own, just like how Ace wants to be.

Wanting to be an actuall Ace is definitely one of the things that sometimes makes Ace sound so jerky and he's aware of it! If you give it a closer look, you'll see that Ace doesn't really treat his friends like friends, especially with Deuce and Grim. He's often insulting or challenging them, and even during his birthday SSR when MC asked him about what he thinks of each of other first years (Who are basically his closest friends) he mainly criticized them and all, not a single word was said about things he likes about them and he didn't even call any of them his friend!

Well that's much of a jerky attitude to have toward people whom you spend almost all of your time with, especially your best of time.

He to play the role of the bad guy, the type to hang out with everyone without feeling any attached to them as even friends. Seems like our boy is trying to be a loner, a true Ace of cards and hearts. And he doesn't mind his friends calling him a bastard or jerk because of this. It's even confirmed that he's more of the popular guy type therefore he's mainly used to having people around!

On the other hand, he's trying his best to achieve success no matter what the obstacles are. It's true that he often messes up and fails, but we cannot say that he isn't trying. He almost lost his head for real during his SSR story where Riddle's favorite hedgehogs were lost because of Ace's impatience, but at last with the help of monsieur Rook and his own ability to imitate Rook's mole language skills Ace saved his neck one more time, and ended his story with a dramatic "Of course, I always Ace it!"

4) Ace does care, but pretends that he does not

In contrast to the fact that he wants to sound tricky,manipulative and mean, or how he's denying his friends' true worth to him like stated in part (3), Ace is probably one of the most caring and supportive characters in the game. Not saying that he's just as bright as someone like Kalim, but his way of seeing through people and wishing them to be better, wealthier and happier than they already are is surely something. This fact is often ignored because, well...everyone's too busy calling him either dumb or sus/ jk!

Just imagine having a friend or at least, a classmate you know like Ace. How's he supposed to be? He'd realize it when someone's bullying/bothering/ or intentionally harming you, and he isn't going to be silent about it. If you see that you're permanently sad, angry, rude or loud then again he'd speak up, he isn't going to just pull up with anyone's unhealthy habit like nothing's happened. He's got much of a big brain as well so you should expect him to say a bunch of helpful and meaningful stuff when he's using that brain, mainly in serious situations. He may not be a permanently mutual to have around, but when the troubles arrive, know that having Ace around is always an advantage.

To top it off, he's even shown sympathy toward people whom he seemed to like the least at first like Riddle; he wishes Riddle to be happier, to smile more, to be more open about his emotions with other students. At some point he even admits that he looks up to him, he used to overestimate his powers and challenged Riddle, but during the ghost marriage he said that he knows how powerful and strong Riddle is, therefore he should work his hardest to study and train to become strong just like him! He already seems to be more cheerful and bright when MC is talking to him, but when it comes to Grim and Deuce...it gets quite complicated. What we see the most is often Ace insulting them or saying that he's going to kick their asses, but they're also his closest friends all though he refuses to admit to it.

Just wait for Deuce or Grim to get in a serious danger or pain, and see how much of a protective one Ace can be! He isn't going to remain silent when one is in danger, but he's surely going to deny all that effort and affection he gave into action afterwards. When Ace can feel this cautious and understanding toward Riddle, someone who isn't even a friend of his then imagine how supportive and caring he would be toward his close friends like Deuce, MC and Grim!

In his ghost marriage as well, his words and the way he spoke of the meaning of true love left everyone, even Crowley, impressed (Crowley even said that he's fallen in love with this side of Ace's personality), but refused to admit that he was speaking of his true feelings after the ceremony. Someone like Grim is too bold to recognize how much of a different person Ace can be inside, so he claimed that Ace was just rambling nonsense without thinking of what he was saying back then, and Ace agreed with him! This is a continuation to part (3) where we talked about how he wants to be a loner, he doesn't want anyone to see how caring and sometimes, emotional he can be inside! Poor boy is quite shy showing his true feelings we can tell~

5) Ace can be quite tricky and manipulative

This part will also explain some of the main reasons behind famous theories like "Ace's betrayal theory", and I wanted to have a certain part to talk about this point specifically because it's been quite trending through the whole fandom, and many are wondering why theorizers are considering his betrayal a possibility, so here we go!

As said, one of the main factors the makes Ace seem suspicious would be his incredible intelligence. The fact that he can actually be that smart all the time but isn't openly showing his talents and abilities can be quite questionable, more details regarding his intelligence and most likely high IQ and EQ were discussed in part (1)!

Enough with intelligence, let's focus on his personality! This is mainly what this part is talking about, his trickiness. Just like his father and older brother, Ace is pretty good with magic tricks. Small and fun tricks are a convenient yet easy ways to inspire others and Ace doesn't mind showing the crowd what he's got up in sleeve when possible. But the thing is...this isn't just about fancy tricks.

This ability can be expanded into any other field such as mental terms and enable him to indirectly control and play with one's mind. That's more of a possibility though! He hasn't yet shown any signs of being any manipulative but, well, we can't say that it's beyond his abilities. Ace himself can be quite sarcastic and mean at the time, he doesn't seem to mind slightly tricking his friends either. Nothing about him seems to be serious, but the possibilities remain still.

The way he learnt those tricks as well is mentionable; no one ever teached himm any of those tricks, he learnt them through being repeatedly tricked, and learning to copy and redo what he saw. Both Rook and Cater so far have confirmed that Ace's ability to learn so quickly and learn and redo techniques just by watching them is fantastic.

His genius and ability to learn and memorize everything that he needs to learn pretty fast, along side his tricky and sometimes personality can make Ace quite dangerous. If someone like him decides to choose such a remarkable talent for evil purposes, that's surely going to be bad news. That's much and less of what makes Ace's betrayal theory make sense although there're still fans who find it quite questionable. I'm not a supporter of this theory myself as I hadn't seen any signs of Ace having any bad intentions so far, but I do get where the theorizers are coming from and that makes sense. Ace has been trying to put on much of a mean and lowkey evil face on through the story and no one can really say what's exactly going on in that brain. We'll that about this uncertainty in part (7)!

6) His past relationship was...uh

For now, Ace is the only character who is confirmed to have experience in love and relationships, and this was a rather effective factor since many have been talking about Ace's past relationship afterwards. The thing is...Ace did talk about how his girlfriend held him back from having fun and living the life he wanted to live. Well there's actually a lot we should say about this one so I'm not gonna rush to the end, let's think about all of the aspects of this situation logically:

First of, the relationship itself. I'd say that it was a wrong attempt for them to date each other in the first place because obviously, Ace and his girlfriend weren't made for each other. They were total opposites in interests and they couldn't even have fun together. If Ace chose to go on a wild roller coater ride, the girl would've freaked out and when she chose a small, childish ride that she liked Ace instead didn't enjoy it at all. It's surely an issue when you and your partner can't even watch a movie which both of you can enjoy together since their tastes were totally different, just jow was this relationship going to last? Ace wasn't happy, and if he was going to do what made him happy the girl in return would've been sad. They were two different people of two different points, dating at this point was nothing but a mistake.

On the other hand, Ace as well is guilty. First off, she shouldn't have dated the girl in the first place if he was aware of how different her tastes were. Second, from what he said he never showed any signs of dissatisfaction when he had to give up on what he liked to listen to what the girl friend liked. The girl friend obviously told him that she was scared of a horror movie, but Ace just kept his mouth shut and felt awfully annoyed as he watched a romance movie with her while he didn't like it at all. If he'd at least told her girlfriend about this, she wouldn't have felt as injured and cheated when Ace broke up with her. Ace shouldn't have bottled it up, he deserved to enjoy the relationship just as much as the girl did. He shouldn't have expected things to get any better if he wasn't going to solve anything about it in the first place. If he'd talked about his personal desires and favorites as well, and had his uncomfortableness with most of the girl's choices discussed before hand, there could've been a chance of them coming into a conclusion and even not breaking up! The girl could've tried to be braver for him, and Ace could've agreed to be softer because of her. There would've been a HUGE difference if they'd talked about it logically.

Also, keep this in mind that the girl had no idea about Ace's uncomfortableness which was low key naïve of her (It's not cool when you don't even realize that your boyfriend doesn't like something) but this also made him awfully unprepared for a break up! Ace should've st least talked about his feelings and how he was unable to continue that relationship with her instead of just dropping her out of nowhere. That would've also decreased the chance of having to deal with the girl's friends after wards!

Finally, let's say that this relationship was wrong in too many aspects. They weren't each other's type, and we can't really blame Ace for dropping someone whom he couldn't be happy with. The main of being in a relationship is spending time with someone whom you can enjoy your time with. He as well was guilty because he can't just drop the girl like he just didn't care and had gotten tired of her while he had his own reasons for dropping her, he should've let the girl know that it wasn't necessarily her fault, it was about Ace not being able to relate to her tastes and habits.

Also, let's be honest. Not much is expected when a 15 year old is dating. Being in a relationship is an awfully sensitive and important choice and someone like Ace hasn't reached that level of maturity to be ready to date someone, let alone doing it at his 15s! Honestly... they should've learnt a lot before dating each other because it isn't a silly thing. Dating like this is nothing but playing around for a while for fun, it's a childish game of spending some time together until they break up.

For now, Ace is finds love quite silly and meaningless so we can clearly see that his past relationship has pissed him off. Well Ace needs to realize that his relationship with his ex wasn't a serious one, so it's normal for it to seem unimportant and silly. He needs to learn a lot without dating someone again, such as knowing how crucial it is to make sure that his hobbies would match his partners, to make sure tjat they get along, and simply, he needs to find his own type! Not all people are made for each other, and he isn't supposed to fall for anyone with any possible personality that pops up on his way.

Also, I'd say that he still needs to focus on studying instead of dating. He needs to reach the required level of maturity to be ready to start a healthy and successful relationship again. Also, he might end up being totally different from what we've seen about him being in a relationship do far when he grows up! Idealistics do change a lot olin teenagehood.

7) We need to talk about our first years a lot more!!!

This point isn't just about him, but rather all of the first years! If I were to rate the most ignored and shallowed personalities of twst, the first years should've gone on the top of this list. Even when we're speaking of the mischaracterized characters of the game, many consider Ace and Deuce to be the least mischaracterized while they happen to be the most mischaracterized as no one evencares to see through them and feel like we aren't mischaracterizing them just because we're ignoring them! Come on guys, Ace's design and personality is a lot more complicated and harder to read than characters like Vil and even Leona!

Out of all first years Sebek was the only one to get some proper shout outs so far but why isn't anyone talking about Ace and Deuce the way they deserve to be talked about? Their presence through the game is even more important than the dorm leaders as they are the closest characters to MC, and their personality design is just incredible, no just because of how perfectly detailed it is, but also because of giving them this unpredictability and incompleteness which totally matches their age!

Studies have shown that judging one's personality based on how they're doing at the age of 16 or younger is prettyhard and impossible, and it's a totally serious fact. At the age of 16, human's personality is under severe effects and changes until reaching it's final-developed shape. That's accurate toward almost all of the first years except Jack since he seems to have more of a mature personality.

NRC's first years are really complicated, especially a character like Ace. That why I said that we can't yet tell if he's a good guy or not, because at this level of life he can choose to be anything. He can be good, he can be bad, he can be neutral. That's why he's showing too much of opposite actions at the moment. One second he's being the biggest idiot in the whole world, the other second he's planning like a 50 year old genius. One second he's being protective over his friends, the other second he sighs and tells MC how annoying they are.

That's why Ace is hard to read, we can't tell what his true feelings are until he reaches the required mental stability to be judged as a mature and complete personality. 18 year olds like Vil have already reached that level of maturity and completeness, finding their unique magics as well is another sign of it. But our first years still need to learn and experience until they find their real selves, to see who they are.

This is one of the most adorable facts about their design because they really gave him this young and wild and incomplete nature to show that they're still young! This is quite incredible how careful Yana was to remember that they all needed some this childishness in their design, their designs are just as accurate and realistic as a real 16 year old's! They still need to learn, and that's why they're the closest ones to MC.

MC needs to learn and get to see more and more of this world, and so do the first years! They're just as unexperienced and new to this world, and they can relate to MC better than anyone else can!

So please, from now on, let's remember to talk about not only Ace, but also all of the first years more often. Ace and Deuce's designs especially are the most detailed and beautiful ones if you take time to know them better. Remember that after the 7 dorm leaders, Ace and Deuce's roles as the protagonist's closest allies are the most crucial in the game, so let's not just decide to ignore all these creative features and pass by them without thinking how much they can mean.

Woah, this one was quite harder to write than I'd expected! There are way too many things to say about him which made me have to summarize this into just this 7 parts for now. Ace is surely and odd yet interesting one to study, even more interesting than usually famous characters like Leona and Azul, which is partly because of how unpredictable he is!

#Twst #twisted wonderland #ace trappola #Ace trappola x reader #Character analysis #twst x reader

435 notes · View notes

murder-raven13 · 3 years

Text

My Haikyuu Ships pt. 1

A/N: I figured out the keep reading thing!!! Just took a month

This is a list of my Haikyuu ships. I’ll add an explanation for some if I have one. There is no rhyme or reason to the order of this list.

Warning(s): cursing, minor spoilers (manga & anime), not proofread, loooooong

Word Count: 1,786

Part 2 Part 3

Hinata x Kageyama

Kageyama struggles with communication and understanding others. Hinata, on the other hand, overcommunicates and has a knack for understanding people, even if he doesn’t realize that he does. Plus, Kageyama has struggled to find connections with people because of his zeal for volleyball. This on top of his trouble with communication made it hard for him to make friends. But Hinata matches Kageyama in his zeal and covers Kageyama’s communication weakness well, all while Kageyama gives Hinata a proper volleyball outlet and pushes him to constantly strive to be his best, so I think they’re neat together.

Hinata x Kenma

Again, Kenma is someone that’s not the best at communication, with a little dose of social anxiety on the side. He’s a lot softer than Kageyama and struggles with communication because he thinks too much (which is the opposite of Kageyama lol). Hinata makes him feel comfortable enough that he can communicate without overthinking himself into a hole. And Kenma, for Hinata, gives him a way to talk and an honest opinion when he needs it.

Atsumu x Suna

I will take not shit for ship. They are so cute together. During the match Inarizaki played against Karasuno, Atsumu and Suna bantered and, during the flashbacks, Suna and Atsumu were shown to have a pretty good relationship. Plus, Suna is a pretty laid back person and Atsumu is obviously the kind of person that would overwork himself to death or push forward without thinking of the consequences. Suna is a brutally honest person, but I feel like he struggles a bit with moving forward because it’s hard for him to feel motivated. So, Suna can keep Atsumu from going too far and Atsumu can help motivate Suna to move forward when he doesn’t feel like he can.

Kageyama x Tsukishima [as adults]

Honestly, I don’t even have a good reason for this. They would be dysfunctional because they suck at feelings. Tsukishima never actually says what he means because he’s high key scared of being vulnerable. And Kageyama sucks at communication (but, after Suga’s advice, he takes a much more direct approach to handling Tsukishima, which I feel is what Tsukishima would need in a relationship) and he also sucks at reading body language (particularly Tsukishima’s) which I feel would be something he would need to be with Tsukishima. But Tsukishima would force Kageyama to begin to think more critically in order to keep up with him and Kageyama would force Tsukishima to be more forthcoming with his emotions, even if just because Tsukishima would have to up his passion levels to keep up with Kageyama. So, if they could figure it out, I think they would be a very good couple. If they didn’t though, I feel they would be lowkey toxic.

Daichi x Suga

Can you watch Haikyuu and not ship these two??? Daichi is very calm, collected, and stable. And that’s a good balance with Suga, who’s an instigator, a meddler, and a worrier. They both care a lot and their very attentive, but they’re opposites in that Suga is a chaotic little monster with an angel face. So they would be a good balance when it came to a relationship. Plus, they would be the sappiest motherfuckers alive together, so, they’re kind of like a comfort, fluff ship.

Nishinoya x Asahi

This another one where I ship because they are opposites. Noya is extremely brazen and confident. Asahi is extremely the exact opposite; he’s shy and awkward and self-conscious. Noya, in canon, gets onto Asahi for being self-degrading and hypes him up when he feels Asahi needs it. And Asahi is someone Noya looks up to because he’s strong, even though he struggles, and someone he wants to see succeed. Asahi forces Noya to calm down and allows him to actually feel afraid. One of the reasons Noya understands Asahi so much is because he struggled with being scared when he was younger. So, I feel like Asahi can feel comfortable with Noya because he knows that Noya understands and, at the same time, knows that Noya managed to overcome his fear, which is probably really comforting. Overall, they’re fucking cute and I c a n n o t

Hinata x Tsukishima

They would be so cute, please. Tsukishima is so mean because he’s a big baby and Hinata straight up does not care. It’s also canon [from during the practice match with Seijoh] that Hinata doesn’t like seeing Tsukishima picked on or struggling [he legit offered himself in Tsukki’s place]. Hinata is a big ball of bright emotion and energy where Tsukishima is more clam and reserved, but Hinata has the ability to draw real emotion out of Tsukishima. They’re another two that would balance well. They’re relationship would be a lot of teasing and mocking, though [they have about 3 million inside jokes and Tsukishima revels in leaving people confused with them].

Kiyoko x Tanaka

Please, this man proposed the first time he saw her. And he legit stayed dedicated, but never overstepped Kiyoko’s boundaries. He never harassed her or did anything to make her feel uncomfortable. And Kiyoko was never mean to Tanaka, even when she rejected or ignored him. They had a stable relationship because Tanaka’s a goddamn gentlemen [can you tell I simp for this man?] and Kiyoko knows it. She fell in love with him over time because of how respectful and thoughtful Tanaka was. Plus, she’s seen firsthand, for years, the dedication and passion in Tanaka’s character, which is a good contrast to her colder, calmer personality. She gives Tanaka stability and Tanaka gives her passion and comfortability. The fact that this ship is canon gives me life.

Nishinoya and Tanaka

The level of chaos in this ship, oml. Two disasters. Absolute mess all the time. They love each other so much and they’re both like walking hype-men. Literally no insecurities in this relationship. They are the two most dedicated boys in existence. And they like to have fun, so they’re constantly challenging each other, which keeps their relationship fun and growing; it never really settles, no matter how long they’ve been together because they’re always finding something new to love about the other. They would go on adventures together. So cute.

Kuroo x Kenma

They’re childhood friends. It is law. Kuroo is so smart and so serious and so caring. He makes sure that Kenma isn’t neglecting himself for his games. And he made sure that Kenma got involved with the team so that he would have friends when Kuroo was gone. And Kenma lets Kuroo delve into his passions and gives him a safe place to relax and be goofy. Kenma is so aloof, but also really caring as well and he’s always paying attention, so he would know immediately when Kuroo was pushing himself too far and needed to let off steam [y’all remember that scene where he asked Kuroo if he wanted to level up (go play volleyball) after they lost a game because he couldn’t just sit and game knowing that Kuroo was upset over the loss? yeah that shit]. And Kuroo gives Kenma somewhere safe and secure where he can be himself without worrying about anything else.

Kuroo x Tsukishima

This is one of my favorite ships. They’re both ridiculously smart, so the conversations and witty sass between these two is literal gold-tier shit. Tsukishima never lets himself be goofy and I feel like, the longer that went on, the more it would wear on him mentally. Kuroo, on the other hand, knows the important of not being serious all the time. So, he would bring Tsukishima out of his shell and give him a safe space to be a dorky as he wanted. And Kuroo could talk all the Chemistry and science he wanted and Tsukishima would be able to keep up with him. They would constantly be challenging each other intellectually and they would know so much random shit because of it. Definitely the couple that has trivia date nights just to see who’s smarter. They would be such a well-rounded couple because they would balance and push each not just intellectually, but in every aspect of their lives. I can see them being the couple where one has an exam and the other just brings them coffee or tea, gently mocking and praising them until they can find it in themselves to study and get everything done. The one that doesn’t have the exam or big project at work would do the house chores, quietly, though, so the other could focus on what they needed to do. They would know just when the other needed space and when they needed a distraction or comfort. They just...would know each other so well and I-

Bokuto x Akaashi

[Did you think I wasn’t going to do this one?] Bokuto and Akaashi are both passionate and dedicated. Akaashi is a lot more emotionally stable, but he’s also an extreme overthinker. Man overthinks everything. Bokuto, on the other hand, is an under thinker that functions almost purely on his emotions. So, overthinker + under thinker = the perfect amount of thinking. That combined with the fact that Akaashi is emotionally intelligent, but not emotionally expressive means that Bokuto, who is emotionally intelligent and extremely expressive, can help maintain the right amount of communication in their relationship.

Iwaizumi x Oikawa

I wasn’t kidding when I said this was law for childhood friends. I meant that shit. Oikawa is manipulative, calculating, and extremely driven. But he has no concept of his own limitations or elects to ignore them because he wants to improve. Oikawa is really insecure, too, because he’s constantly trying so hard, pushing himself further than he can go, and it’s still never been enough to make him the best. Because of his fangirls and his desire to be the best, Oikawa is constantly making himself seem perfect, which means hiding parts of his personality at times. And he’s the type of person that has control over his emotions because he’s pretty methodical when it comes to his goals; he’s willing to literally do whatever it takes to succeed at what he wants. Iwaizumi, on the other hand, has known him long enough that Oikawa can literally not be perfect with him. Oikawa has to be real around Iwaizumi, who knows and acknowledges his true personality in its entirety, even going as far as to point out Oikawa’s flaws constantly, to remind Oikawa that he knows him and stays anyway. They make damn good outlets for each other and they know each better than anyone else, which means that they are, quite literally, each other’s safe space.

I have more ships, of course, but this post is already long as shit, so I’ll post those in a part 2

32 notes · View notes

13eyond13 · 3 years

Note

I'll try to keep it short because you're very kind but I'm becoming annoying... I actually like Soichiro. It's his morals I cannot stand. In fact, in line with his, I like Matsuda's and even Light's variations more, even with all the darkness they entail, because they're more critical. I adore L and find him relatable, but I'm not so sure if I'd like him as a person in real life, and yet I again like his morals more than Soichiro's. I still think Soichiro is generally a better person than any of the others. I still dislike his morals the most. When I say at the opposite end of Soichiro in the moral spectrum is where Near stands I'm not talking just about my personal liking, but as I interpret their views on morality. Maybe there's some detail of the manga I'm forgetting (I truly have to reread it), but Soichiro didn't seem very critical about... anything, while Near states something like "even if god came and told me this is good and this is bad and this is The Truth I'd still consider and come to my own conclusion". I like that. I care less about someone getting a moral with what I may consider a degree of grey if they do that. I myself have very strong morals that nonetheless have degrees of grey; strong doesn't mean pure. My grey and someone else's grey might be very different. But I've developed them, not accepted them blindly. Near of course, Mello, L, and even Light and Matsuda do this, but Soichiro generally doesn't. And I dislike that greatly. In fact, I think I'd find him kind in real life, and likeable, but I'd not really like him because I can't really bring myself to like someone like that even when they're kind and compassionate and good. I'm already talking more than I intended but I'll try to point out what bothers me of his attitude.

Soichiro is very very anti Kira, but he's working for a government with the death penalty and he doesn't seem to consider that even for a moment. For him, that the government does it is justifiable but monstrous if a person does it. He doesn't really have a justification, it's just like that because it's as it is. He's very against L's methods, buy L uses people who were going to die anyway at the very moment he uses them either way because of the death penalty, because of the government. From a government pov, if the government were to do what L does, it'd be something terrible. From an individual pov? Not so much. It's ugly, but it's beyond himself whether that people die or not, and his decisions are easily justifiable from an individual pov: they're going to die irrevocably, that very day at that very time, and he is using what he can to solve a very complicated case that is taking many lives, and he even might use the moral support of "I'm giving the prisoners the chance of choosing, with the potential reward of lifelong imprisonment instead of death". And again, while a government doing that is terrible, it's not as terrible for a person. L is a private detective, an individual. People can be fallible. Governments shouldn't. What L does might be justifiable, if ugly, for a person, but it would be unforgivable for the government to do. But the government lies on L and it's L who takes the slander of the rest of the Task Force. And that's what Soichiro doesn't see, and that's what bugs me. Soichiro sides with the government and the laws no matter what, no matter if they're terrible and are actually the cause if indirectly of the terrible things L is able to do (I'd have to reread to be completely comfortable affirming this, but Soichiro's attitude towards the government reminds me a bit of Mikami and Misa to some extent).

Soichiro hates Kira, and hates and criticises L's methods and his ruthlessness, but doesn't even consider for one moment the problem is not L. The problem is not the 24 yo boy/man, the problem is his government, that has the dead penalty and actually let's a private detective carry on with the investigation and do as he pleases (and I'm not even taking into consideration how L's upbringing and the lowkey if fun exploitation he was subrmited to have most probably influenced if not determined the way he acts in these cases, because while it's intriguing it'd feel like justifying L out of pity, and either way Soichiro doesn't know that; but I mention this because L's entire past at Wammy's, like the other children's, is another very terrible move from governments and adults in responsibility positions). The problem is Interpol, the governments in general, blatantly saying L is ruthless but not even setting rules when working with him. And I think it would actually have been very easy to stop L doing those things. Just change the rules of the game, tell him beforehand there are a few things he can't do. It's a game after all. Of course L would still exploit the moral and legal vacuums of the rules as he pleased, as one does when playing anything, but the government wouldn't have given him totally free way.

I'm not sure if I'm explaining myself very well. Years ago in a class I talked about the difference between personal vengeance and the death penalty. I feel this is similar. A person is fallible. A government should be able to stand over licit murder. L manipulating people to prove a point is ugly. A government doing that or letting someone free way to do whatever is terrible. L does whatever, and as an individual is not so horrible as it is that the governments internationally actually let him do whatever even knowing beforehand without setting rules. Soichiro sees this and it doesn't even cross his mind for a moment to criticise the government he's working with. Also, he considers his morals the best, which makes sense in a first person pov (why support x morals if you don't think they're the best? I'm not critisising this), but he's very... imposing about them, while as I say not being precisely the most critical thinker. That Soichiro is like this, morally (I'm not even talking about the policeman aspect though that's so often talked about in the fandom), makes a lot of sense to how Light ends up being Kira, and with how Matsuda thinks and acts. And I find that very intriguing, but I can't stand Soichiro's simplistic morals and his better-than-you attitude even though he's a generally good person. That's why I dislike his morals the most (of course you don't have to agree!). I don't stand by Near's morals either, but I like his "god could come and tell me and still I'd doubt" attitude. It's what makes gods mad in basically every mythology, but I love that kind of thought process. I'm very much like that too.

I'm so sorry this is so long. I tried to cut, but I got the impression it'd make it even less clear or more difficult to understand. Or maybe the lack of clarity lies precisely on how repetitive and long this is. I'd like to think English not being my first language has to do with this, but honestly the problem is most probably just me. I hope I made the point understandable enough, though. And thanks for your patience. I really liked that post of Near someone sent as an opinion and how you replied! Very interesting takes on both ends.

Hi again! You have some very thought-provoking points about it all, and don't worry, your English is excellent.

I loved Near's stance about these things as well, and that's something that really bothered me when growing up about some authority figures and institutions being really totalitarian and silencing of doubts or stances they deemed too negative or incorrect to voice aloud. I value having freedom of choice and the ability to think critically about everything immensely. Maybe it's because I went to a very strict and sheltering and weird little school as a child that tried very hard to indoctrinate me with a specific worldview, and always shamed and silenced anyone who disagreed or questioned them or felt like an outsider or wanted to have a different point of view. I remember relating the most to Matsuda on the task force when I first watched the show as a teen, because he was always speaking up with his devil's advocate questions or confusions. The way Soichiro and the others usually yell and scold and shame him for this bothered me a lot, because I wanted them to discuss things openly so I could see all the different sides of the arguments more clearly. Actually, I think this is a pretty culturally similar thing between Japan and Canada (where I am from). There's a strong emphasis on doing what's best for the entire group instead of just yourself, and being too controversial or outspoken or individualistic about certain things is often taboo and frowned upon as a big social faux pas. It's possibly quite a bit stronger pressure toward obedience and conformity and politeness in Japan in certain ways as well, but I don't know for sure as I haven't lived there myself.

I think Soichiro had a bit of nuance and flexibility with his morals and his stances in various instances throughout the plot, and to me he seemingly tries hard to see things from other angles during complicated moments in what must be one of the most difficult situations he could possibly face as both a police chief and a parent. But it's true he never seemed to doubt that upholding the laws already in place and the way his government punishes the convicted were the "correct" ways society should function. I think this series would be a really interesting one to discuss in a class that talks about stuff like justice and the death penalty and law and ethics and such for how many of these things it touches on in an entertaining and thought-provoking way!

#soichiro #near #matsuda #ask #anon #p

19 notes · View notes

spookyc · 4 years

Note

hi!! if you feel like it, could you talk more about angie’s relationships with tenko and kiyo? i’m super invested in this main trio now hahah

Hello! Sorry for the late response but yeah I'd love to talk more about Angie's relationship with the group. So, in chapter 1 and most of 2, Angie is just kinda off doing her own thing as Angie does, she's social with the others but not enough to be close with any of them, which has a lot to do with her real ultimate talent. I'd also say that in this au, a lot of her attitude is more put on than in the canon, not to say that she isn't an energetic free spirit, but here it's more so a coping mechanism to deal with the trauma she's gone through as an assassin. Actually the whole Atua stuff is also more of a coping mechanism than anything in this au and is basically an out for her to not feel guilty for taking people's lives, but I won't get too into that, this post is about Angie's relationships after all, not Angie herself. (Though if that is something you'd like to see feel free to send an ask, probably not immediately though as I'm still working on her backstory).

Anyway, basically the point is that Angie isn't really too familiar with anyone except for Maki since they sorta kinda grew up with each other. And well, it's not really a good kind of familar in the case of Maki. So for chapter 1, Angie just roams around talking to people if she feels like it, but not to the point where she's getting friendly with anyone. After chapter 1 though, Maki starts spreading the "rumors" that Angie is an assassin. Initially, Angie doesn't really mind as she doesn't think anyone will take Maki seriously.

But with the support of Kiibo and Miu, as well as Maki's unrelenting spirit, people start to take her more seriously. It's here that Angie starts to become less sociable, and this is also about the time that Tenko asks Kiyo to quell the rumors. Of course the very next day, the second body is discovered and everyone points towards Angie. She laughs it off publicly, but deep down she doesn't actually know how she'll defend herself. Kiyo and Tenko investigate together and in the trial they defend Angie's title and prove that she wasn't the killer.

Angie breathes a sigh of relief, grateful she got out of this unscathed, until Maki proposes that Kiyo prove his claim. With pressure from the students he relents and the students find out that Angie is an assassin. This results in an uproar, which Angie escapes from thanks to the chaos, but not before she hears Tenko and Kiyo defending her against the angry mob. It is here that Angie gains a respect for both Kiyo and Tenko, and she wishes to pay them back for defending her during and after the trial. So the next day when Kiyo and Tenko are alone she thanks them for defending her.

She makes a joke about being a bodyguard for them to repay them but Tenko brings up that she was just talking to Kiyo about doing some training every night and that she would be welcome to join if she so wished. Angie agrees and this officially begins the three's relationship. So for Angie and Kiyo's relationship, I would compare it to that of Maki and Shuichi's at least on the very surface level. What I mean is that, Maki and Shuichi think pretty similarly in the canon, they are both pretty logical thinkers for the most part, they're both practical and skeptical and I think that's why they work, because they mesh pretty well. Kiyo and Angie are very similar in this aspect, since they are both logical thinkers as well as skeptics.

However, the fun of their relationship mainly comes from how different their personalities are. Because you have Angie, the free spirit, who's energetic and eccentric and then you have Kiyo, who's withdrawn, calm, closed off and very mellow most of the time. This provides for fun interactions between the two, like I totally imagine that Angie jokes and messes with him all the time and half the time he doesn't get it and the other half of the time he rolls his eyes. In a playful way though, and even if he acts like he's too serious for that kinda stuff, Angie is one of the few people to consistently make him laugh. Angie has fun with it too, she loves getting on his nerves like any good friend does but she finds the most enjoyment out of just making him laugh.

Also due to Kiyo's knack for reading people and his general observant nature, Angie always comes to him for advice for her problems or whenever she needs to articulate her thoughts on something. Kiyo is a great listener and even if he doesn't realize it, he's really good at coming up with solutions to difficult problems, at least ones that have little to do with emotional matters. There's a lot of trust in their relationship, as Kiyo trusts Angie enough to be vulnerable with her and Angie trusts Kiyo enough to share her more personal thoughts with him. Essentially, Angie brings out Kiyo's vulnerable side and Kiyo showcases Angie's logical mind and intellectual side.

As for Tenko and Angie, well, they are one of the two ships in this au. These two being the main one of the two. So, even before Angie starting hanging out with Tenko, she was drawn to her. Not just because she thought Tenko was pretty, but also because she admired her kind heart and warm smile. A part of her wanted to get to know her better then, but she knew she couldn't compromise her identity, so she fought her urges.

But after chapter 2 her identity got thrown out the window so now she had the chance to pursue her heart. It's just too bad that Tenko is a hopeless idiot and can't take a hint. But after chapter 3, Tenko finally recognizes Angie's feelings and she reciprocates them and the two become a couple. They go strong until chapter 5, which unfortunately is when Angie dies. Now, about their relationship itself.

So, I think Tenko and Angie work really well just because of how much they compliment each other. Because when you analyze their characters, you'll realize that they are direct foils of each other. Tenko is completely on the side of faith throughout the game and in both the trials she takes place in, she chooses the side of belief. Angie is the direct opposite, she is instead completely on the side of logic throughout the game and is always on the logic side of the debates throughout the game. So, I think the two would really balance each other out.

Angie could teach Tenko to think things through more critically to avoid hurt feelings and wrong answers and Tenko could teach Angie that sometimes believing in people can be the way to the right answer. And not just that, I also believe their personalities would balance each other out as well. Angie could help Tenko to be more confident about herself and Tenko could see through Angie's act and help her towards learning to just be herself and not have to shield herself behind a fake smile all the time. And these two are about the most lovey-dovey you could get, like they're always getting gifts for each other, they stargaze every couple of nights, Angie loves to cuddle, they give each kisses goodnight every night, shit like that. As for Kiyo he's fully supportive but his aro/ace self just does not get it and he often rolls his eyes at it but he's fine with it as long as they're happy.

But yeah! That's essentially how Angie fits in with these three, love that you guys are getting invested because I've been wanting to infodump about these guys for a while so if yall wanna ask me anything else about my au feel free to do so. Thanks for the ask!

#danganronpa #danganronpa v3 #talentswap au #angie yonaga #korekiyo shinguji #tenko chabashira #maki harukawa #kiibo #miu iruma #tenko x angie

11 notes · View notes

blowingbells · 4 years

Text

Tritype 548

The 845 is the somewhat introverted, intelligent, headstrong, detached, hyper introspective problem solver with strategic thinking and emotional astuteness.

*Darkest tritype-458, 854, 584 (particularly when 4 or 5 are in charge)

Also if you are still considering 548 (or 845): she said this is the the most intense type, particularly if sexual. Intuitive, knowledgeable and direct. This is the type that really craves knowing what makes people tick and builds what she calls mental or internal maps that are quite astute as to what makes people do what they do. This tends to be the darkest of the tritypes because of the intensity of the 3 types (particularly if 4 or 5 is in charge). David said there is a propensity toward the grotesque, anatomical or intensely esoteric. This is the "true scholar" and the life mission is to disseminate what information is found. The blind spot is this has 3 types that can be prone to arrogance and the attachment to the internal map of what they've found can make them blind to new information as it comes in. So there will be a tendency to become fixed in their worldview or ideas particularly about people and not take in new information. So while the map is quite extraordinary that they've painted they may miss a whole region and thus not have the full picture. This is also the most cynical and the tendency to be so overly opinionated can make people turn off to their wisdom. She said when 8 is in charge there is a bit more compassion, and with an integrated 5 or 4 in charge you get a gifted spiritual teacher (Russ Hudson for example) An intensely original archetype with a passion to explore and to find the hidden meaning in all things.

874 and 854 are very similar and can be difficult to distinguish as 8 has access to both 7 and 5. What is helpful is to look at the differences between 7 and 5. The most critical aspect engagement. The 7 engages and brings a positive outlook to the 84_. The 5 is more internal and brings more introversion and reserve. The 874 is more outgoing and spontaneous. it is the difference between facts vs activities.

‎854 and 862 share the self-possessed confidence with solution mastery. The 854 is the artsy and intellectual 8 -- with a secret self-consciousness. The 862 is the champion rescuer, protector with a great need to help-- more duty.

the 468 is a true challenger and truth teller. The 4 may be shy but this Tritype is very intense and reactive--quick to speak their mind. The 485 is the true intellectual that has strong opinions about their feelings and thoughts but less reactivity. Sexual instinct with 4 dominant makes both tritypes more intense. The 468, however, is more dutiful and feisty whereas the 458 is one of the tritypes that lives in their head researching and following their own muse.

‎846 vs 845. These two tritypes are very different. Both take charge and seek solutions. The 846 is one of the most confrontational tritypes. The other is the 836. The 6 amplifies the 8 need for loyalty and trust. The 845 is more introverted and introspective. The 854 has 5 as a line of connection as well as in the tritype and makes this 8 more scholarly and focused on depth.

(4)-5-8 - The Power-Seeking 4 4-(5)-8 - The Reactive 5 4-5-(8) - The Withdrawn 8

Impenetrable inner world. They are complex individuals, but they are more characterized by the way they tend to push everyone away from them.

5-8-4: Most Intense Five. Needs creativity. Can be moody and melancholy.

458 is the most tough-minded and opinionated 4.

458 - Knowledgeable and direct 4. Most analytical 4. Craves knowing what makes people tick. Stronger Opinions.

845: Intuitive and knowledgeable 8. Most withdrawn 8, specially if introverted, 9 wing and/or sp.

The 458 is an active archetype...just more withdrawn...not passive like the librarian... more the expert as they gather knowledge but have a very definite point of view like the 478 and 468.

five with an eight fix: least intellectual, though perhaps the most mentally intense. unsettled by occasional fits of temper, sudden outbursts. affixed to notions of power; attitude of resigned realist. quietly guarded and insistent, may put others ill at ease.

eight with a four fix: the moody, loner eight. distinct outsider quality; as if on a highly personal mission. tendency to feel exempt from conventional rules and circumstances.

The 458 is more openly emotional and expressive. The 548 is more mental and reserved...like the difference between 4 and 5. Both are intuitive thinkers and tend to be introverted. They are intellectuals that take action when they feel strongly about something. Others are always surprised when the 8 appears as this tritype appears quiet.

A couple of distinctions...The 458 is more emotionally expressive than the 548. The content can be very different. The 458 is more inclined to talk about their feelings about a subject of interest whereas the 548 will be more reserved and speak about tinteresting facts about a subject. The energy of the 458 is focused on the analysis of their feelings first whereas the 548 is focused on the analysis of the information first.

Social increases the need to have the critical information needed to be interesting to others-- to be wise and in the know. Sp increases the focus on the the basics... the resources one must expend to have the information.What will the cost be? All 6 variations of the 458 will avoid being ignorant and speak up for what they believe in. For example, in contrast, the sp548 will be far more reluctant to speak than the sx845 but both fear being inadequate, incompetent and powerless.

The 4-5-8 is the most direct and blunt of all the tritypes, with the exception of perhaps 3-5-8

seeing your place as in the shadows is exactly how the 458 describes themselves. The 458, 468 and 478 are all truth tellers in their own way. The 468 is the one that is hyper reactive and still seeks a fair authority. The 458 and 478 are their own authorities.

the 548 tritype is the 5 most likely to appear 4-ish.

I think that 458 tritype could be mis-typed as 5, but this is much less likely than a 548 being mis-typed as a 4. It is double reactivity and resultant emotional intensity/volatility of having 4 and 8 together that clashes with the 5, even when 5 is core.

out of 458/459/451 I'd guess that both 459 and 451 would seem more 5-like (or, more accurately, be more likely to be mis-typed as 5) than 458.

The 485 is an intensely original archetype with a passion to explore and find the hidden meaning in all things.

The 845 is more introverted intuition with the attention going inward. It can be darker and is more cynical.

(EIDB 548 tritype discussion thread: The Enneagram Institute Discussion Board - 5 4 8 Tritype ):

[Intense, especially with sx first. Independent, dark, cynical. Most eccentric, creative 5 that tends to swing between detachment and emotionality. Most 4ish 5, especially with four wing. Tough-minded, analytical 4 that is staunchly individualistic. Withdrawn, sensitive, creative 8. "Scholar" archetype if I remember correctly. Wants to know what makes people tick.

Actually, I think this 5 would be more fantasy oriented than information oriented. This would be the dreamy 5.

What I was criticising was the implication that the unique view a 5-4-8 creates is a monolithic system which doesn't change or adjust due to presumably stasis or narcissism or an inability to take criticism. Dynamism, flux and big intellectual shifts are much more likely. While a 5-4-8 is likely to be an intellectual narcissist, I think any criticism that they are unable to change or adjust their view is the opposite of the case because there is an intense self-criticism as well. Change and flux are constant.

first, because 5-4-8's are unlikely to think in systems (which you've now agreed with), and second, because of their sensitivity to inconsistency, constant self-criticism and tendency to change positions. I think there is an element of truth in the description though, in that 5-4-8's can be wilfully perverse and too arrogant to accept criticism from others. But they are likely to outwardly repudiate that criticism, and then later modify their views accordingly rather than stubbornly retain their original position.

My experience of this type is of course my only experience of any kind, so hard to be 'objective'. But here goes. I find it a complex, contradictory and often perplexing type to be. The 3 numbers pull against each other, and there is no social element(3, 6, or 9) to smooth the way. This is exacerbated if you have SO as your last stacking. Although all generalisations are suspect (including this one), it is particularly hard to generalise about this tritype. This tritype seems peculiarly subject to flux, and thus can vary greatly, or have many different real selves. However, dark, eccentric, creative, cynical, sensitive, scholarly are not wide of the mark (although tend to create a caricature if taken too seriously). It's true that we tend to be intensely interested in the psychology of other people, if only because we are at an utter loss to figure out ourselves much of the time. In a way, we are natural scholars but too scholarly, polymathic and restless for universities these days, which reward the careerist specialist. 5-4-8's are subject to rapid oscillations of emotion and thought, equally capable of preternatural strength and weakness of mind at any given moment. One minute an angel, the next a cruel tyrant. A lot of love and a lot of hate. Exquisitely sensitive but all too capable of cruelty and callousness to others. One wants to know, in a totalizing and essential fashion, know poetically but know precisely as well, but never quite gets there.

We are paradox-mongers, live in metaphor, and are always trying to find new ways to say and see things (and hence are often pretentious) - i.e. iconoclasts - but can be as pedantic, systematic and anally analytical as anyone - i.e. using our 5-ness to beat others at their own games when they have underestimated us as loose, kooky or not with it. 5-4-8's have a predisposition to religion and philosophy, especially pessimistic and melancholic strains, but a commensurate disappointment with the lack of answers that satisfy us and a concomitant melancholy.

I would caution against such a romanticized view of this tritype as it may defeat the value of knowing one’s type. I would disagree with a lot of the first things you said about this combination – “many real selves” and “subject to flux”. I find a kind of coherency in that here you’ve got two reactive types (4,8) two rejection (5,8) two withdrawn (4,5) and three very independent, very resistant to anything that originates outside itself, and not particularly concerned with objectivity, consistency, or interested in being accessible in any way. The greatest fluctuation I feel is between feeling incredibly hard and strong to being very self-conscious and inept. Strong and Vulnerable are my two modes, brought out when I feel I am unable to make that leap across the fragments of words and space between myself and someone I have an interest in.

I believe Nietzsche and Gurdjieff were of this tritype, though G may have had 7 instead of 5, but Katherine Fauvre very much agreed with me when I said there was something “Hermetic” about this tri-type. There is a kind of de-construction of present systems and a reconstruction into something that subverts previously-held notions. I like to think of myself as an “ontological terrorist”. Nietzsche is a beautiful illustration of what I see as the gift of this tritype – of staring past the fragility in the conceptions humans, as living and rational beings, hope to cling to and look into something “under”, to poke around in [blocked due to guideline #4 violation], and reveal the beauty within it. Hades operates under a kind of 854 archetypal pattern. There’s the destructive power and energy to produce an impact of 8, along with the “ground-up” construction and innovation of 5 with the creativity and will to rebirth of 4. Of course, that’s only there in the best examples of this tritype, a call the rest of us can only hope to live up to.

There are of course coherent factors - otherwise there wouldn't be a category. However, I still feel that the concept of change over time is very important to 548. I guess this is what I mean by different selves - the many different selves over one's life (which is also true of everyone). That is, think of Heraclitus's saw - you cannot step into the same river twice. Not just because the river has changed, but because you are - that minute to minute one's self is mutating, adapting, contradicting itself. This does not necessarily have to defeat the concept of a core coherent self, but certainly challenges it.

I disagree with your point that 548s are not particularly concerned with objectivity, consistency, or interested in being accessible in any way. While these three values are pretty hard to attain, and difficult to define, they are pretty important to me, at least some of the time - and especially in any discrete intellectual task I want to complete.

I think our tritype is especially gifted with calling it’s fundamental beliefs into constant question. You’ve got 4’s emphasis on self-creation and thus change, the 5’s emphasis on clear perception, innovation, curiosity, and the 8 that confronts and challenges. There is always a readiness to undermine ourselves with an aim at change, but shows us what crap each construct we hold at every stage of growth really is and there is always the correct suspicion that whatever construct we hold in the present is simply a construction.]

5-4-8: more reactive and temperamental, such Fives find it harder to control their emotions than other tritypes. They are basically sensitive, reclusive and ingenious, occasionally indulging in (romantic) day-dreams and fantasies, but once in a while their fierce, visceral side reveals itself explosively and gets to surprise people who don’t know them well. These Fives are usually selfish and whimsical, considering themselves entitled to special treatment which they will sometimes claim aggressively. They are prone to mood swings and rage outbursts. typical subtypes: sexual, self-preserving, 5w4 similar tritypes: 5-8-4, 4-5-8 flavours: innovative, temperamental, egocentric and intense

5-8-4: original, rebellious, temperamental and highly individualistic and independent, these Fives are can be extremely self-focused and mostly unconcerned with other people’s feelings and wants. They are often inspired and have great vision which they strive to turn into reality – they have a practical side which helps them. Although brilliant and resourceful, others may find it hard to deal with their self-important, narcissistic behavior and their oversensitivity to frustration – their violent reactions can be scary.

typical subtypes: sexual, 5w4, 5w6 (counterphobic wing)

similar tritypes: 5-4-8, 8-5-4

flavours: resourceful, defiant, visionary and reactive

69 notes · View notes

bettertheworld · 4 years

Text

How and why fear scares people into eating meat.

Did you ever wonder why you ate what you ate as a child? Do you wonder why you continue to eat what you eat? Or are you simply on autopilot because you don’t think it matters all that much and you basically have it all figured out? Or do you feel powerless, and confused with the amount of fake news out there about food and you’re not sure where the hell to find real information? The answer does not lie in marketing, it lies in scientific research; geeks required.

Quick disclaimer - I’ve been through University and have a Bachelor of Science with a minor in Psychology and am trained as a Paramedic and for all of the years I’ve been out of school, I’ve become a geeky Paramedic thereby educating myself with regard to emergency medicine and the causes of our main killers.

What I find to be most useful with regard to school is how I am able to read research and make sense of it. Giving credit to where credit is due is not as easy as it seems - this is why ‘that guy’ or ‘my friend’s friend’ literally knows nothing, and anyone who refers to life rules from those sources, does not know as much as a person who refers to scientific journals.

Now with regard to food, I’ll be able to help you digest some of what’s out there and help you critically think for yourself. I won’t do it for you, but I’ll help you do it yourself, so bring your critical thinking, and bring your skepticism, I welcome it.

“Everything in moderation”, we’ve been told, except moderation has never been shown to be effective, i.e. reversing certain illnesses the way a specific diet has. Can you guess which diet has cured a the most common killers in today’s society? If you were able to guess, do enjoy this write-up, if not here’s a hint - it contains no animal products and I encourage you to open your mind and do some research after reading this. If this challenges you to your core and are offended, you are probably upset that your feelings and actions are in direct conflict, but that’s okay - real information will fix that.

On the topic of real news, here’s a few gems; butter from dairy in your coffee is never healthy, eggs are never part of the healthiest diet possible, and bacon is the quickest way for you to cause cancer and heart attacks in yourself. Eggs are the most concentrated glom of cholesterol you can eat on the planet and most people are born lactose-intolerant because we’re not cows, we’re people, so why would it ever be a good idea to challenge the body in such a way that it actually doesn’t want to be? In later write-ups, I’ll discuss the ‘Lac-operon’.

One thing you’ll need to do is always consider the source of research. Just because Dr. Oz or some “Doctor” or “professional” goes on TV blabbing out the benefits, of X, Y and Z or saying “the relationship isn’t strong enough to prove anything”, you have to ask yourself, who has done the research on the topic and who paid for the research to be done?

Rich people paying for research have a reason for doing research, it’s always about money, and they always get what they want in some way, shape or form due to the flexibility of statistical analysis. Rich people with money who have gone out of their way to pay for research, are also most likely to be taking advantage of nearly everyone downhill - kind of the way Trump does business. The sick-minded narcissistic ways the meat and dairy industries are run, if admitted by everyone would shudder in disbelief. The veil that has been pulled down before all of our eyes is real, and needs to be lifted.

The problem with foods is that as the research comes out, then another paper comes out to deny the ‘realness’ of the original - now who do you believe? This is especially true when it comes to foods containing cholesterol - animals products. You might wonder why animal products contain cholesterol? Because their cell walls contain cholesterol, just like ours do. Why do companies want to exploit this? Animals do not have rights the way humans do, so if companies can get away with exploiting animals and make a bunch of money doing so, and people are dumb enough to support this because they need huge amount of protein (because they don’t know how little they actually need), then my friend, you are indeed a sucker supporting Trump-like meat and dairy businessmen.

Cholesterol is needed by the human body to have strong cell walls and it’s made inside our own bodies, it’s never required to be eaten because your body makes all it needs. When people eat cholesterol, consider the fact that it is a solid at room temperature and has a melting point of 148 degrees Celsius. That means until you get to that temperature, it’s a solid - this is why it gets stuck in your arteries, and remaining in your arteries until it’s pushed into the walls or is broken down; if you’re smart enough to stop eating cholesterol.

Our bodies make what it needs, you never need to eat cholesterol, so saying certain foods have ‘good’ and ‘bad’ cholesterol is like saying cyanide, sometimes is ‘good’ or ‘bad’. We all know that ALL CYANIDE IS BAD CYANIDE, but we don’t all know that ALL CHOLESTEROL IS BAD CHOLESTEROL. We know all cyanide is bad cyanide because the effects of cyanide poisoning are very quick and easy to notice, but the effects of cholesterol-poisoning have a delayed onset - so long that many of us could never piece it altogether, and we call the manifestations of this poisoning ‘heart attacks’.

Do you know there are strong correlations between certain types of foods and certain illnesses? Do you know you can avoid the major killers in today’s society by avoiding the bad foods? It’s difficult to say what’s ‘good’ and what’s ‘bad’ because both of those denotations are subjective, but when it comes to cancer, heart attacks, strokes, the science is clear, animal products are killing you, slowly but surely - decreasing the years you get to live on this earth, and decreasing the quality of life that you live.

Wouldn’t it be wonderful, a life not fearing cancer, heart attacks, high blood cholesterol, and best of all, not fearing high blood pressure which is also called “the silent killer”? All too often you hear people say, “Yeah, my father died of a heart attack, so I will one day too”. While there is a wee bit of truth to this statement, the amount of greatly overestimated. Habits and traditions are what are subconsciously passed down to next generation, thereby the body tends to react similarly as time goes because you’re eating the same foods with roughly the same body.

But what is hugely undervalued is with a change of habits, i.e. change of food sources, comes great opportunity to change your destiny. Just because dad had a heart attack or had cancer, does not mean you’re going to have one or die from one. Even if we have cancer genetics, certain foods promote ‘cancer-genetics’ and others thwart these genes from producing cancer.

Once you remove the foods that are associated with hardening of the arteries, you don’t have to worry about hardening arteries anymore. Without hardening arteries and clogging them with cholesterol, your risk for a heart attack was just cut down to nearly to a huge degree. Food matters, food matters a lot.

There are many peer-reviewed scientific journals out there - pubmed being a great starting place, which discusses how plant-based whole foods diets are reversing diabetes and reversing clogged arteries associated with heart attacks? Did the meat-producers forget to tell you this?

If my memory serves me correctly, it was something like 84% of diabetic patients, within 20 weeks of a new whole foods plant-based diets were off their diabetic medications having fixed their insulin resistance. Diabetes is a problem of physical nature, if all or most of the sites where the sugar goes from your vasculature to your functional cells of your body are blocked with cholesterol and other fats, then you my friend are ‘diabetic’. When you clear those sites with a whole-foods, plant-based diet you have essentially cured yourself of diabetes. Animal-fats have higher boiling points than that of vegetable sources, this is why they’re problematic for us.

Similarly, this same vegan diet was proven to erode the cholesterol in the arteries, thereby cleaning up the arteries, and with regard to the heart, you’ve now decreased your likelihood of having a heart attack. The vegan diet works for both illnesses because both of these problems happen in the tubes of the body, the highway, the vasculature, arteries to be exact.

With diabetes, you remove the cholesterol and stuff that sticks to it, thereby allowing insulin to let sugar into the cells from the arteries, and with heart attacks, you allow blood to circulate through the coronary arteries more freely now that the plant-based whole foods diet has eroded away the cholesterol and other fat-soluble substances stuck into the walls thereby blocking the blood-flow.

This is where we discuss the problem with saying ‘everything in moderation’. Science can now say, with certainty that a plant-based whole foods diet will fix your arteries nearly all of the time, but no one can say that eating one piece of meat per day will allow the same progress to occur - so let’s critically think, is ‘everything in moderation’ even true? Who made this garbage up? My guess is probably some Doctor who was making allowances for him or herself!

We all love to hear good things about our bad habits, but you’ll never hear a teacher tell a student, “It’s ok that you don’t really try very often in my class, everything in moderation my dear.” So why do we give ourselves allowances based on our own wants when it comes to food? If you’re a scholar, if you’re a critical thinker, if you value your body, you need to begin asking yourselves the questions that matter; how much do I value my health - do I even care about myself, or the future? Or maybe you aren’t a scholar, thinker, or maybe you don’t care and that’s why you refuse to understand what science has proven. Again, if you take offence to this, you’re at war with yourself. Everything I write is based on science but I do not write the sources in.

When I discovered these facts, I went on a rampage, trying to help everyone, wasting my energy and burning bridges, but now I’m leaving it all out on the table for like-minded people to read. I assume we all are like-minded because everyone just wants the best for themselves and their loved ones. It might be shocking to be challenged, so I’ll do my best to maintain neutrality, but what you might discover by following me might change the course of your life and sometimes we need a little challenge, but not too much.

You can’t free an oppressor, or the oppressed with oppression itself, it must be with deliberate care and without imposing ones beliefs, it must be with information, not by force. While I could use the platform to shred fools who base their decisions not on science but tradition, instead I’m going to empower you and not make you feel stupid for being duped - because we all have been duped by the meat and dairy industry. I want to continue to critically think, and beg for you to do the same.

Did you think you had free will when you were developing your eating habits and family traditions? Did you think you chose your food yourself with a sense of ownership? Or did you just want to fit in with the rest of your family? Did you not want to disappoint your parents by not finishing food prepared for you? Did you want to be guilty of letting an animal die for you, and you denying eating it forcing your parents to throw it out and waste its life? Did you want to avoid being called and feeling ungrateful? Was trying to be a good boy or girl causing you to compromise your thoughts and feelings? Did you love zoos but ask yourself, why am I eating this animal? And why don’t we have pet cows? Why do we think dogs are cute and cows not? So many children have thoughts that are repressed and never entertained by true critical thought, this is a crime of parenting.

Now circulating all over the internet are videos of cows playing fetch with fitness balls, just like dogs fetch a tennis ball. Imagine you could watch the video without thinking that because you eat meat, that you’ll completely disregard the emotions you’re feeling of how cute the cow is, so that it won’t be hard to eat your next beef-oriented meal?

Conversely, imagine you are healthy, strong, full of energy and vegan person who can fully enjoy videos of cute animals because you don’t see them as food, you see them as sentient beings capable of feelings, social structure, language and emotion. This is just one way people differ because of food choices.

This is how people are split when it comes to cute animal videos. No self-proclaimed animal lover wants me to bring up this comparison because for me to even suggest eating a dog is the same as eating a cow, the omnivore will become so enraged that they won’t be able to focus on the conversation and they’ll begin hating on this argument before I finish the thought - likely because they’ve repressed the thought in their own mind. I think eating all animals is completely wrong and completely necessary, but is eating a cow any different than eating a dog? Not in the slightest, but facts don’t change belief systems - they polarize the crowd

Why are some people not able to accept this logic? It’s because of a little thing called Carnism. A viral belief system where some foods and animals should be looked at as food, while other animals can be considered cute and not-to-be eaten. To one, a cow might be considered cuter than a dog, and a dog might be considered cuter than a cow to some, but to the alien coming from a different planet, they would not be able to see why which is cuter because they have not been affected by carnism itself. If a cow and a dog are both animals, then they are both food or neither are food. Why does one get preferential treatment in today’s society? Carnism is to blame for why. Carnism is with a simple google search, a basic idea that meat is there for us to eat, and if we’re not eating it, we could be because we’ve conquered the world, so it’s now there for the taking; aside other important points.

Who does carnism affect? Everyone who thinks they need meat and everyone who despises the idea of people who think they need meat to survive? Who started carnism? When science got interested in food, we made some inaccurate discoveries and statements, and we’ve sort of run with that. A 200 year-old science paper by Liebig which has been debunked plays a small role, but companies who saw the profit in exploiting animal protein are the true perpetrators of this.

How do they do it? Marketing. Marketing is a genius tool that highlights the good, and ignores the bad. Marketing is telling you what you want to hear about something that has no part in offering what you’re being told it offers. Marketing also tells you that if you wear the same sunglasses as Jason Statham, that you’ll be as desirable as Jason Statham. Clearly you’ve been affected by marketing because if you put on the same sunnies as him, you’re not going to resemble Jason Statham because you are not Jason Statham, and have a different bone structure than him. As a result, the sunglasses will have a different effect on you, and more than likely you just wasted $600. Buying what other people wear won’t make you look like them, but your feelings tell you otherwise - welcome to the level of marketing - your feels. And also, he’s 5′8, sorry if you thought he was 6′1.

Feeling a certain way about something is what determines our beliefs then our actions. When people feel that they need meat, they defend their ‘right’ to eat it, instead of listening to the ways you can get everything meat offers, and be so much more healthier. Try questioning an omnivore as to why they eat meat and then prepare yourself for heaping pile of shit excuses, and subjective garbage because none it’s true or valuable.

Humans have needs for amino acids, not meat. We need some fats and are pretty damn happy with certain types of carbohydrates. When it comes down to it, we need a fuel source, and a machine to move us that turns energy into movement, we’ll call this tool our muscles, we need muscles.

Since muscles move us, we need to fuel them. What are the ways we can do do? Plants and or animal products. If we think that we need to eat cow’s muscles for energy, we should know that this is completely false. Let’s discuss why this is not optimal.

For us to use muscles for energy, we have to eat that muscle, break it down, store it, then mobilize it for energy, and this process takes time and energy and you can refer to it as a slow process. On the other hand, if we eat carbohydrates, these sources are quickly accepted by the body and are ready to be used for energy extremely quickly by comparison.

If you’ve seen The Gamechangers movie, there is a study that uses beet juice and proves that you’re going to be able to cycle longer if working out after drinking beet juice vs not drinking it at all. This is because you’re providing a high-octane fuel source vs using meat which contains much less high-octane fuel to the point we’ll just call it low-octane fuel source. In addition using protein for energy requires you to be in starvation mode and you’re deciding to break down your body because there is no high-octane fuel around, this is not optimal - this sounds a lot like chronic fatigue. Using meat for energy is not optimal, not even close.

How does beet juice then offer us the chance to have stronger, better muscles? The juice offers energy that your muscles use quickly and readily. From my time at the University of Guelph where I completed my undergrad, I took a Cardiorespiratory Physiology Lab course, and I sure am glad that I did. I learned that whatever system you challenge, you will have gains in. So, if I provide my leg muscles with energy thereby allowing them to cycle, and I challenge my leg muscles with exercise just beyond what it comfortably, there will be growth - you will change the physical structure of individual cells. This means that the next time you challenge these muscles in the same way, the work that was 10% beyond your comfort zone, next time is 9% beyond your comfort zone, which means you have experienced 1% growth.

How did this growth happen? You fed your body what it needed for growth to occur. Did you need meat for this growth to happen? No, you needed essential amino acids. Amino acids that are made by plants. All amino acids are made by plants, and so many plant sources contain every single amino acid. As long as you’re challenging your body beyond it’s comfort zone and you’re feeding it the building blocks it requires for growth, growth will happen. Animals are not required, amino acids are, amino acids that can all be provided by plants.

The difference between vegans and omnivores is that vegans say, “No, it’s not ok for us to exploit animals for any reason”, but omnivores don’t want to discuss this matter because they feel that meat is required, so they do not fully allow themselves to empathize with what they’re eating, if they did, an omnivore would not be able to eat the cow, pig or chicken.

If it comes down to taste; what a greedy reason it is to kill a sentient being taste is? If it comes down to nutritional needs, saying you need animals to be healthy is a lot like thinking you need to only breathe oxygen from Nepal, because only Nepalese oxygen provides me with what I need. False! If we’re eating food and getting enough amino acids from a plant-based whole foods diet, is it in any way deficient compared to amino acids from animals? The answer is no, and additionally, you’re not priming yourself for cancer, heart disease, diabetes, other cardiovascular disorders.

Just a few thoughts maybe we should revisit. Were you given a choice between eating meat and not eating meat? When you were 5 years old and could conceptualize that you’re eating another life, did your parents sit you down and ask you how you felt about it or even talk to you about it? Did they even bother to tell you that you’re eating a sentient being capable of thought and having feelings? Do you think your parents had a clue about what they were feeding you beyond whatever food guide was popular at the time? Did you know that food guides are based on financial relationships and not what’s actually best for your body (until recent history in Canada)? Does this information enrage you the way it did to me? Do you know what government subsidies are? Does it make sense that you can find burgers at fast food joints for super cheap which contained the life of an animal, but can never find a ridiculously cheap head of broccoli? In fact, have you ever seen a cheap salad at McDonald’s? No, and you never will, because there are no government subsidies for lettuce or anything that goes in a salad. The government is in bed with whoever pays them the most money, and due to the fear that people have regarding becoming protein-deficient, 98% of people are afraid to turn their back on meat and dairy. I did this is 2014 and to this day, it’s been the best choice of my life.

The interesting fact is in the 1950s and 1960s, the FDA artificially increased the amount of protein ‘needed’ to sell more dairy and meat. Especially after Babe Ruth died of throat cancer due to smoking. At the time ‘Doctors’ were claiming cigarettes weren’t bad for you or cancer-causing, the relationship ‘wasn’t strong enough’. The baseball community should all be vegan for this reason alone.

If we’re human, always been and always will be human, then out there somewhere is a perfect diet for us, but what if we’re too afraid to eat the healthiest diet for us because of scare tactics used by the meat and dairy industry? Wouldn’t that be sad, maybe even criminal? I think so, but you only have yourself to blame once someone informs you or you read this.

I want to discuss the process of cooking food, but I want to get into that next time, the idea of what’s on the label, vs what’s on your plate after you cooked the carcinogens into it, and the vitamins out of it.

Ask yourself, what is the meat and dairy industry doing for you, aside from providing you with a much-less-than-healthy source of calories? They’re providing you with cancer, cardiovascular disease, double-standards, an emotional haze and basically, you work for them while they make you sick - this sounds a lot like the exploitation of you, the consumer. You think it’s time to wake up yet?

1 note · View note

ill-be-istj-if-no-one-else-is · 4 years

Text

I received a question longer than 8 parts that I’m going to post here (it was off anon, so I’m not revealing the identity of the question asker). I’m not going to answer it because my FAQ very clearly sets an 8 question limit and also as you will see it didn’t actually provide a lot of useful information despite the length. I am however going to talk through some of the issues, specifically relating to unnecessary information. Needless to say this will be a very long post hence the read more link.

Before I begin I want to give the origins of the 8 question limit:

-it’s an arbitrary number. felt it was generous and iirc I did go back and look at some past questions to see what was on the longer but still reasonable side

-I did it mainly because copying and pasting each individual question is tedious and also there is a limit to how much I’d like to read and also some people see ‘no more than 8 parts’ and instead of interpreting this as “I should edit myself as thoughtfully as possible” say “I should expand whatever I have to say to 8 parts long, even if it really is only 6 parts worth of material” so 8 was a number I could live with.

-I have yet to find an 8+ part question that couldn’t have been edited to a much shorter question while still keeping the same amount, case in point:

I'm asking for outside help because I've been on a hamster wheel for years where I believe I found my type get happy for a couple hours/days, find all the "signs" of me being that type all along and then...wake up not believing it. Or I see/read something that type is supposed to do/think like that doesn't fit me at al, or see someone I'd like to be like that it's another type and start digging again. I desperately need to arrive at a final typing because it's driving me crazy, I can't quit 1/9

Any preamble that amounts to “could you please type me” can be summarized to “could you please type me?”, a 5 -word phrase. This might however be the preamble that hits the most of my “oh I do not want to engage with this” buttons though:

Long and pleading which makes me kind of uncomfortable, like I do not know you and I don’t handle pleading and begging well anyway

Overinvestment in figuring out their type when often it’s times like this when taking an extended break from MBTI would likely be the best thing for you and indeed your overemphasis in getting an answer rather than learning about yourself might be what’s making it so hard to type

Also when someone says they’ve been trying and trying for years I get nervous because there is a very real chance they’re going to say a lot of stuff that is consciously or unconsciously pulled directly from MBTI descriptions and it’s going to be absolutely useless to work with.

[I should note for this and the rest of my criticism: I have, obviously a whole lot of preferences and dislikes and expecting you to cater to all of them would be completely ridiculous. Had this been an 8-part question I would have answered it, even if that answer might have been “I can’t tell”. As is, however, I’m hoping this might serve as some insight into how to make your question as good as possible which as a bonus will make me more likely to spend lots of time on it because I will be impressed and delighted by your effort.]

When interested in something I gotta find out how it works, or how it’s made. I find that as interesting as the thing itself. I see the way different elements can influence each other in arriving at a certain outcome, and I make decisions according to it. I trust my own reading of what’s probably going on. I trust patterns, things are often connected, not a coincidence. I usually judge fast and hard. I can change my mind very quickly if new facts comes in, but I’m very rarely neutral or 2/9

Some examples would be nice. I mean maybe this person is intuitive and maybe a thinker, although that first preamble didn’t sound very thinker to me, but also everything here is purely in the realm of subjectivity. Obviously we’re going to be subjective about ourselves, but a big part of why I want examples is that it forces people to not say stuff that sounds like it’s ripped directly from a type description.

or uncertain about things/people.I don’t like to make promises because of independence and not wanting to promise what I can’t deliver. I dedicate so much time to my personal hobbies I forget my chores. I tend to get obsessed in finding an answer to something until I get so dizzy/overwhelmed I’m forced to step back (typing myself in different theories is the best example). Hate to see people passing on wrong information and therefore misleading others. I gotta step up and correct them. 3/9

This is fine, I’d still like clearer and more specific examples but it’s fine; the one criticism is when someone starts taking about how they approach MBTI as an example in typing them it’s like PLEASE DO A HOBBY THAT ISN’T ABOUT NAVEL-GAZING, IT WILL IRONICALLY BE MORE HELPFUL.

I have very high standards, specially towards myself. My pride is heavily tied to being great at the things I care about, or am expected to perform. Really can’t stand biased judgements and behaviour by others, and police it in myself too. Truth is my #1 value. I have a natural thirst for and ease at handling a lot of data about whatever I’m interested in. One of biggest pet peeves is resistance to facts. I’m highly observant of things and people around me, there’s so much information I get 4/9

Okay this sounds kind of like a repeat/rephrasing of a lot of the information in the first two actual content parts (talking about interests, thirst for knowledge, judgement), and editing that down probably could have saved you an ask space thus getting you your answer. If you find yourself running long, go back and see if you are repeating yourself. I do this a lot! When I make blog posts here I don’t care, because this is my place and I do what I want, but I have a tendency to ramble in emails too and I always do a second pass if it’s longer than a paragraph to make sure all the information in there is helpful in making the point I need to make and isn’t repetitive (unless my point is DON’T FORGET THIS FOR THE LOVE OF GOD in which case some thoughtful repetition is often good).

advice, or cried in front of others myself so I can’t relate.I’m very open minded when it comes to physical differences, cultures, orientations etc. But I have a Strong sense of wrong and right that when crossed leads to indignation and promptly “cancealing” people, cutting them off my life. I felt very uneasy when I realized that things I felt a connection to (favorite color, number, animal, flower) lost their meaning to me. Logically I know it’s not a big deal, but it felt like I lost 6/9

so I think we lost a question here (I got 9 questions, but the last question said 10/10) which is another reason to keep it short – fewer opportunities for tumblr to eat it. Although, had two questions been eaten by Tumblr I would have probably answered this, but that’s probably not a gamble you want to make. Anyway this is emphasizing the strong judgements again, and a little emphasis is actually fine – it helps me know what is really important to you – but again, if you’re running long that should be a thing to cut, after the unnecessary preamble.

something. .I need to express my thoughts/opinions, but my feelings are private.I have a huge fear of failure that holds me back. I’m terrified of finding out I suck at what I’d love to do, so I keep that as a fantasy and don’t try it out, to not kill the possibility. I have self sabotaged to keep myself in “safe” spaces but I have realized the reason I’ve been so restless is because I have to honor my ambitions which have always been big and bold. Mistakes and deficiencies jump out at me 7/9

The information here is mostly fine (although again with the expressing and strong feelings), but it’s also again without examples. There have been precious few examples here, and that’s really difficult to type from – again, I’m not saying it’s easy or even fully possible to be objective about yourself, but sometimes people say “I have a thirst for knowledge” and it means they are pursuing a PhD in philosophy, and sometimes it means they are someone who thinks that reading Wikipedia pages is a personality. [brief aside on that – I don’t want to say reading Wikipedia pages is bad. It’s not. I do it. Yesterday I was interested in how African prints were made and I looked up the Wikipedia page on them, which after a few clicks into related subjects brought me to a page about the androgynous water deity Olukun who originated in Yoruba faith traditions, and it was super interesting. But like…this is just a thing most generally curious people do and not a particularly unique or special indicator that you are smart, which is how it often seems to be intended.] Anyway my point is: examples, examples, examples. If you give specific examples I will be so much happier and more excited to type you because I actually feel like I can say something meaningful.

like neon, I can make very precise and detailed of anything’s quality in seconds. I have little patience with people that are not interested in improvement or resist positive change. Something that drives me nuts is lack of punctuality and money managing skills. I’m very annoyed by unrealistic people that ignore logic or constraints like resources. I’m equally impatient with people who only operate on what’s on the surface and is accepted as true: people who never question the common sense 8/9

Again there’s just…no examples. There’s also been a lot about what this person likes and doesn’t like about other people, and that would better be taken up by information (and examples!) about themself.

or status quo, that trust everything authorities” or the media tells them and never do their own research.I often don’t feel the need to actually do things to see if they’ll work, or try things out to see if I’ll like them. I’m pretty certain of things even before I experience them. I’m not inclined to be diplomatic and persuade. I convince by proving something with evidence, or making they see reason through logic argumentation, and point out possible consequences of choices. I compare 9/9

I’m always a little skeptical of people who think The Media is a monolith, just in general, but that’s neither here nor there. Also, here’s a reason why examples are useful – they provide context into the situation which addresses the very natural conflicts within people, vs. this: “I often don’t feel the need to actually do things to see if they’ll work, or try things out to see if I’ll like them. I’m pretty certain of things even before I experience them” coming from someone who just claimed they value truth above all. Like…this is at least in my opinion the opposite of what someone who values truth would say, because a person who values truth would check if things worked. Which isn’t to say this person is lying – but it means I’m going to have trouble because without, ironically enough, any evidence, which they say they like to use, I don’t know which of those conflicting statements is true or even if they are truly in conflict and just situationally dependent.

things/people a lot naturally because the similarities (and disparities) between them jump out. It’s hard for me to be really surprised at things, or at a person’s character.I’m impatient with learning and doing things that involve many steps/processes. I want to learn everything fast and am just now learning to grow discipline to stick to things in the long run if I don’t see quick progress. I find half baked concepts and theories very annoying, I don't like much ambivalence or vagueness 10/10

I don’t like much ambivalence or vagueness either, but here we are. Also, saying that you tend not to stick with things in the long run and are just developing the ability to do so if you don’t see quick progress does kind of make me have questions about you desperately trying to figure out your MBTI type for years as claimed before. Less is more because it gives you fewer opportunities to contradict yourself.

Anyway, the takeaway: keep your preamble short (seriously - almost every time someone goes over the 8-part limit it’s at least partially because they talked about their MBTI typing journey for 1-2 asks when a single well-phrased sentence would be far more useful), keep your examples concrete and specific, focus on yourself more than what you think of others, and read what you wrote before sending it to me.

#mbti #long post

5 notes · View notes

harlanrwiley89 · 5 years

Text

Yes, the Open Office Is Terrible — But It Doesn’t Have to Be (Ep. 358 Rebroadcast)

Feeling stressed from working in a noisy open office? Tell your boss that working from home increases worker productivity by 13 percent! (Photo: MaxPixel)

It began as a post-war dream for a more collaborative and egalitarian workplace. It has evolved into a nightmare of noise and discomfort. Can the open office be saved, or should we all just be working from home?

Listen and subscribe to our podcast at Apple Podcasts, Stitcher, or elsewhere. Below is a transcript of the episode, edited for readability. For more information on the people and ideas in the episode, see the links at the bottom of this post.

* * *

Hey, are you at work right now? And do you work in an office? Have you ever worked in an office? If you have, there’s a good chance it was an open office, at least to some degree. The open office design has been around for decades, in a variety of forms. If you’re a cynic, you might think an open office is all about cramming the maximum number of employees into the minimum amount of real estate. But you could also imagine that an open office produces better interaction and more collaboration. Wouldn’t it be nice to know if this were true? That’s what these people wanted to learn.

Ethan BERNSTEIN: I’m Ethan Bernstein, I’m an associate professor of business administration at the Harvard Business School.

Stephen TURBAN: My name is Stephen Turban. I am a recent graduate of Harvard College and I currently work for a global management consultancy.

Turban has since moved on from his consulting job. Anyway, he and Bernstein had just co-authored a paper called “The Impact of the Open Workspace on Human Collaboration.”

TURBAN: I don’t think I realized how much anger there was against open offices until the research was published and I was contacted by a number of friends and colleagues about their open offices and their deep, deep emotional scarring.

BERNSTEIN: There’s certainly a population of people out there who hate — I think that’s perhaps even not strong enough—

DUBNER: Not strong enough, agreed. But proceed please.

BERNSTEIN: People find it impossible to get work done. They find it demoralizing.

TURBAN: Also the lack of privacy, and the feeling that they’re being watched by others.

BERNSTEIN: Privacy tends to give us license to be more experimental, to potentially find opportunities for continuous improvement, to avoid distractions that might take us away from the focus we have on our work.

TURBAN: Ethan is really, I would say, the king of privacy.

BERNSTEIN: My research over time has been about the increasingly transparent workplace and its impact on human behavior and therefore performance. Over time, I’ve gotten asked the question, “What about the open office? How does it impact the way in which people work and collaborate?” I haven’t had an empirical answer.

In search of an empirical answer, Bernstein and Turban began a study of two Fortune 500 companies that were converting from cubicles to open offices. Sure, the downsides of an open office are obvious: the lack of privacy; having to overhear everything your coworkers say. But what if the downsides are offset by a grand flowering of collaboration and communication and idea-generation? What if the open office is in fact a brilliant concept that we’ve all been falsely maligning?

* * *

The office is such a quintessential emblem of modern society that it may seem it’s been around forever. But of course it hasn’t.

Nikil SAVAL: The economy of the United States was based on farming and it was based on manufacturing. The office was almost an afterthought.

That’s Nikil Saval, the author of a book called Cubed: A Secret History of the Workplace.

SAVAL: People thought, “Well, offices are essentially paperwork factories. So we should just sort of array them in an assembly-line sort of formation.”

This meant a big room filled with long rows of desks and, scattered on the periphery, private offices for the managers. This factory model, which got its start in the late 19th century, came to be known as the American plan. And it was standard office form for decades, at least in the U.S. But then, in the middle of the twentieth century, in Germany:

SAVAL: There were two brothers, the Schnelle brothers, who began to wonder about the nature of the American plan. There was a sense that this was arbitrary, and there was no real reason to lay out an office in this way.

In 1958, Wolfgang and Eberhard Schnelle created the Quickborner consulting group with the idea of bringing some intentionality to modern office design.

SAVAL: And one of the ideas that came to them was that an office is not like a factory, it’s actually a different kind of workplace. And it requires its own sort of system. Maybe there isn’t a reason to have desks in rows. Maybe there isn’t a reason for people to have private offices at all, if essentially the office is not about producing things but it’s about producing ideas and about producing communication among different people. And so over time they pioneered a concept that they called the burolandschaft, or “office landscape.” And it was essentially the first truly open plan office.

The idea was to create an office that was more collaborative and more egalitarian.

SAVAL: It looks extremely chaotic. You’d just have desks in clusters and they just seem to be arranged in a pretty haphazard form. But, in fact, there was rigorous planning around it in a way that would facilitate communication and the flow of people and ideas. And it eventually made its way to England and the United States, and it was considered an incredible breakthrough.

A breakthrough perhaps — but the earliest open offices drew complaints similar to the ones we hear today. Lots of complaints.

SAVAL: By not instituting a barrier between people, by not having doors, by not having any way of controlling the way sound traveled in the office, it stopped facilitating the thing it was supposed to facilitate, which was communication, because it became harder to communicate in an office environment where phones were ringing off the hook, where you could hear typewriters across the room, and things like that. It wasn’t actually the utopian space that it promised to be. In fact, it was deeply debilitating in some ways for the kind of work that people wanted to do.

Meanwhile, there was an American named Robert Propst working for the Herman Miller furniture company, in Michigan.

SAVAL: He was not himself trained as a designer. He was sort of like a freelance thinker.

Propst was intrigued by the “office landscape” idea — its openness and egalitarian aspirations — but he also appreciated its practical shortcomings.

SAVAL: And he decided to turn to experts — to anthropologists, to social psychologists, to people of that nature.

After some research, Propst came to the conclusion that individuals are — well, they’re individuals. And they need more control over their workspace. He and the designer George Nelson came up with a new design in which each office worker would be surrounded by a suite of objects to help them work better. In 1964, Herman Miller debuted the “Action Office.”

SAVAL: There was a standing desk, a regular desk that you sat at, and a telephone booth.

Design critics loved the Action Office.

SAVAL: It looked incredible, but it was very expensive and very few managers wanted to spend this kind of money on their employees. So they went back to the drawing board and they tried to come up with something cheaper.

In 1968, Herman Miller released the Action Office 2.

SAVAL: And it was this three-walled space: these fabric-wrapped walls that were angled, and they were meant to enclose a suite of furniture. And it was meant to mitigate the kind of chaos that an open office plan might otherwise have.

You may know the Action Office 2 by its more generic name—

SAVAL: —which is the cubicle.

The cubicle promised a variety of advantages.

SAVAL: It’s meant to be very flexible, and it can form an impromptu conference room. And it was meant to divide up an open office plan in a way to mitigate the kind of chaos that an open office plan or an office landscape might otherwise have. And it was incredibly well-received. It was copied by a number of furniture companies. And soon it was spreading in offices everywhere.

But the cubicle could also be exploited.

SAVAL: It became a perfect tool for cramming more and more workers into less and less space very cheaply. The whole notion of what Propst was trying to do was to give a worker a space that they could control — was turned into the exact opposite. It was clear that his concept had become the most-loathed symbol of office life.

Indeed, the revolutionary, freedom-giving cubicle came to be seen as a sort of corporate version of solitary confinement. This left Robert Propst most unhappy.

SAVAL: And he blamed managers. He blamed people who were not enlightened, that created what he called barren, rat-hole-type environments.

Robert Propst, like the Schnelle brothers before him, had not quite succeeded in creating a vibrant and efficient open office. Their new environments introduced new problems: chaos in the first case, cubicles in the second. As with many problems that we humans try to correct — whether in office culture, or society at large — the correction turns out to be an overcorrection. Unintended consequences leap out, and humble us. And yet: in this case, the fact is that most offices today are still open offices. Why are we holding on to this concept if it makes so many people so unhappy?

TURBAN: If you’re looking purely at a cost per square foot, having an open office is cheaper.

BERNSTEIN: There are a lot of people, whether they’re managers or employees, who like the open office.

Bernstein admits that managers are primarily impressed by the cost savings of an open office. But some employees—

BERNSTEIN: Some employees like it because they have visions of it being more vibrant, more interactive. That fun, noisy, experiential place they’re hoping for once you take down the walls and make everyone able to see each other.

TURBAN: And there’s also been a big push around these collisions that have emerged in social sciences. How do you create these random interactions between people that spark creativity?

“Collision” is a term you hear a lot in office design and the design of public spaces generally. It’s the promise that unplanned encounters can lead to good things — between co-workers or neighbors, even strangers. Conversations that otherwise wouldn’t have happened; the exchange of ideas; unforeseen collaboration. Now, the office is plainly a different sort of space from the public square. The office is primarily concerned with productivity. We’d all like to be happy working in our offices, but is it maybe worth surrendering a bit of happiness — and privacy, and so on — for the sake of higher productivity? After all, that’s what we’re being paid for.

BERNSTEIN: If you want to have a certain kind of interaction that’s deep, productive in idea generation, or in something that requires us to have lots of “bandwidth” between each other, it’s nice to have that face-to-face interaction.

Ben WABER: Face-to-face conversations are so important.

That’s Ben Waber, he’s the C.E.O. of an organizational-analytics company called Humanyze.

WABER: What we do is use data about how people interact and collaborate at work. Think email, chat, meeting data, but now also sensor data about how people interact in the real world. And we use that to understand really what goes on inside companies.

Humanyze has developed sociometric I.D. badges, embedded with sensors, to capture these data.

WABER: We have by far the largest data set on workplace interaction in the world.

And what do the data say about face-to-face communication?

WABER: In all of our research, that has consistently been the most predictive factor of almost any organizational outcome you can think of: performance, job satisfaction, retention, you name it. People did evolve for millions of years to interact in a face-to-face way. We are very used to small changes in facial expression, small changes in tone of voice and that’s particularly important in work contexts where high levels of trust, especially as work gets more and more complex, and the things we build and make together are more and more complex. Really having that trust and being able to convey really rich information is critical.

Bernstein and Turban also believe in the value of face-to-face communication.

TURBAN: Nuanced communication around, “Here’s a proposal I have. Here is a thought I have about how this last meeting went.” That is a very rich and nuanced form of communication and most literature suggests that face-to-face communication is much better at that.

BERNSTEIN: Sociologists have suggested for a long time that propinquity breeds interaction — propinquity being co-location, being close to one another.

TURBAN: The closer two people are together, the more likely they are to interact, the more likely they are to get married, the more likely they are to work together.

BERNSTEIN: And interaction being, we will have a conversation, we will actually get some kind of collaboration done between the two of us.

TURBAN: You can look at slouching shoulders, you can see what is their facial expression, and that conveys a lot of information that is really hard to convey, no matter how good you are at emojis — and let me tell you, I am pretty good at emojis.

Okay, so face-to-face communication is important, at least for some purposes and on some dimensions. And an open office is designed to facilitate more face-to-face communication. So … does it work? That was the central question of Bernstein and Turban’s study.

DUBNER: In your study, there are two companies that were transitioning to open offices. First of all, can you reveal the identity of one or both of those companies?

BERNSTEIN: I can’t. In order to do this study, we had to agree to a level of confidentiality. I will say that we had a choice of sites to study and we chose the two that we thought would be most representative of the kind of work we were interested in, which is white-collar work in professional settings, Fortune 500 companies.

DUBNER: Can you give us some detail that helps us envision the kind of office and what the activities are?

BERNSTEIN: If you work in a global headquarters amongst a series of functions like H.R. or finance or legal or sales or marketing, this would describe your work setting.

DUBNER: And can you describe, for the two companies that you studied, they moved to open offices — what was their configuration beforehand?

BERNSTEIN: Everyone was in cubicles. And then they moved to an open space that basically mimicked that, but just without the cubicle walls.

TURBAN: Those barriers went down, so you could see if John was sitting next to Sally before, and there was a wall between them, that John could see Sally and Sally could see John, and that was the big difference between the original and the office afterwards.

DUBNER: So, tell us about the experiment. I want to know all kinds of things, like how many people were involved? Did they opt in or not? Was it randomized? How the data were gathered, and so on.

TURBAN: In the first study, we had 52 participants; in our second, we had 100 participants, and we wanted to measure communication before and after the move.

BERNSTEIN: We started with the most simple empirical puzzle we could start with, which was simply how much interaction takes place between the individuals before and after. We wanted to purely see if this hypothesis of a vibrant open office were true.

TURBAN: So before the move, we gave each of the participants sociometric badges.

These are the badges we mentioned earlier, from Humanyze.

BERNSTEIN: So they contain several sensors. One is a microphone. One is an I.R. sensor to show whether or not they’re facing another badge. They have an accelerometer to show movement and they have a Bluetooth sensor to show location.

TURBAN: So you can get a data point which looks like: “John spoke with Sally for 25 minutes at 2 p.m.” But you don’t know anything about what the content of the conversation is.

BERNSTEIN: A number of previous studies that have used the sociometric badges have shown that we are very aware of them for the first, say, few minutes that we have them on, and after that we sort of forget they’re there.

DUBNER: You write that the microphone is only registering that people talk and not recording or monitoring what they say. Do you think the employees who wore them believe that? I mean if I think there’s a one percent chance that my firm is monitoring or recording what I’m saying, I’m quite likely to say less, yes?

BERNSTEIN: Well, it’s actually kind of a funny question, because in this case we really weren’t. But look, we phrased the consent form as strongly as we could to ensure that they understood this was for research purposes, and if they hadn’t believed it, they probably would have opted out.

DUBNER: What are we to make of the fact that the data represents the people who opted in only? Because I’m just running through my head, if I were an employee and I’m told that there’s some kind of experiment going on with these smart people from Harvard Business School and, however much you tell me or don’t, I intuit some or I figure out some or I guess some. And we’re moving to an open office and I think, “Oh, man, I hate the open office, and therefore I definitely want to participate in this experiment so that I can sabotage it by behaving exactly the opposite of how I think they want me to behave.” Is that too skeptical or cynical?

BERNSTEIN: Boy, you sound like one of my reviewers in the peer review process.

DUBNER: Sorry.

BERNSTEIN: It is a valid concern. Let me tell you what we’ve tried to do to alleviate it. The first thing is we’ve compared the individuals who opted in to wearing the badge and those who did not to a series of demographics we got from the H.R. systems. And we don’t see systematic differences there.

TURBAN: It is always possible when you’re doing social science research that someone makes a guess, whether it’s accurate or not, about what this study is trying to understand, and then takes a personal stand and says, “I’m going to stand for what’s right, and what’s right is cubicles!” In that case, they would have to have done that for every day for two months. So it would have been a remarkable feat of endurance. We don’t think that that’s what happened, but the open office factions are real, so, definitely important to keep in mind.

In addition to all these data from the employees’ badges, the researchers could also measure each employee’s electronic communications — their emails and instant messages. Again, they were only measuring this communication, not examining the content.

BERNSTEIN: And so what we were able to do is compare individuals’ face-to-face and electronic communication before and after the move from cubicles to open spaces in these two environments.

Okay, so the Bernstein-Turban study looked at two Fortune 500 companies where employees had moved from cubicles to open offices. And they measured every input they could about how the employees’ communication changed — face-to-face and electronic communication. What do you think happened?

* * *

DUBNER: So, you’ve done the study, two firms over a period of time with a number of people to measure how their behavior changes, generally. Tell us what you found.

TURBAN: So, the study had two main conclusions.

BERNSTEIN: We found that when these individuals moved from closed cubicles into the open office, interaction decreased.

TURBAN: Face-to-face communication decreased by about 70 percent in both of our two studies. Conversely, that communication wasn’t entirely lost. Instead, the second result that we found was that communication actually increased virtually, so people emailed more, I.M.’ed more.

DUBNER: How much of that decrease was compensated by electronic?

TURBAN: We saw an increase of 20–50 percent of electronic communication. That means more emails, more I.M.’s. And depending on how you think about what an email is worth, maybe you could say that they made up for it. Is an email worth five minutes of conversation, is it two minutes?

BERNSTEIN: It’s a little bit hard to say, because an email and an interaction may not be comparable in item.

TURBAN: Even if we saw an increase in the amount of virtual communication, which totally made up for the face-to-face communication, what you probably saw was a loss in richness of communication — the net information that’s being conveyed was actually less.

DUBNER: What can you tell us about how the open space affected productivity and satisfaction?

BERNSTEIN: I’ll come out clean and say, we don’t have perfect data on performance, and we don’t have any data on satisfaction. We purposefully stayed away from satisfaction; we just wanted to look at the interaction of individuals. In one of our two studies, we have anecdotally some information where the organization felt that actually performance had declined as a result of this move.

I will say that, boy, if we think about this, there are probably lots of contexts that we can think of where more face-to-face interaction would be useful and lots of contexts in which we think more face-to-face interaction would not be useful. And that’s where I’d actually prefer to take the conversation about productivity. That, at the very least, to date managers of property, managers of organizations have not thought about this being a trade off. They’ve assumed cost and revenue go together. That may be true in some subset of environments, but in others that’s not going to be true.

DUBNER: What did the companies in your study do after you’d presented them with your findings?

BERNSTEIN: One of them has actually taken a step back from the open office. The other has attempted to make the open office work by adding more closed spaces to it.

Okay, so an empirical study of open offices finds that the primary benefit they are meant to confer — more face-to-face communication and the good things such communication can lead to — that it actually moves in the opposite direction! At least in the aggregate. To be fair, an open office is bound to be much better for certain tasks than others. And, more important, better for some people than for others. We’re not all the same. And some of us, I’m told — not me, but some of us — thrive in a potentially chattier office. But on balance, it would appear that being put out in the open leads most people to close themselves off a bit. Why? You can probably answer that question for yourself. But Turban and Bernstein have some thoughts too. Here’s one: maybe you don’t want to disturb other people:

TURBAN: So, when you’re in an open office, your voice carries. And I think people decide very reasonably to say, “Well I could speak with Tammy, who’s three desks away. But if I talk to Tammy, I’m going to disrupt Larry and Katherine, and so I will send her a quick message instead.”

Or maybe you compensate for the openness of the open office with behavior that sends a do-not-disturb signal.

BERNSTEIN: If everyone can see you, you want to signal to everyone that you are a hard worker, so you look intensely at your screen. Maybe you put on headphones to block the noise. Guess what? When we signal that, we also tend to signal, “And please don’t interrupt me from my work.” Which may very well have been part of what happened in our studies here.

And then there’s what Ethan Bernstein calls “the transparency paradox.”

BERNSTEIN: Very simply, the transparency paradox is the idea that increasingly transparent, open, observable workplaces can create less transparent employees.

For instance: let’s say you’ve been really productive all morning; now you want to take a break. You want to check your fantasy-football lineup; you want to look up some recipes for dinner. But you don’t want everyone in the office, especially your boss, to see what you’re doing. So: you do it anyway but you’re constantly looking over your shoulder in case you need to shut down the fantasy-football or recipe tabs.

BERNSTEIN: That has implications for productivity, because we spend time on it. We spend energy on it. We spend effort on it. We tend to believe these days that we get our best work done when we can be our authentic selves. Very few of us get up on a stage in front of a large audience, which is somewhat of how some people encounter the open office, and feel we can be our authentic selves.

Nicholas BLOOM: So, if I have an idea—

That’s the Stanford economist Nicholas Bloom.

BLOOM: —if I go discuss with my colleague or my manager in an open office, I’m terrified that other people would hear. They may pass judgment or rumors can go around.

Bloom has studied this realm for years:

BLOOM: I work a lot on firms and productivity, so what makes some firms more productive, more successful. What makes other firms less successful.

DUBNER: So let me ask you this: a recent paper found that a couple of Fortune 500 companies who switched from cubicles to an open office plan with the hopes of increasing employee collaboration, that in fact the openness led to less collaboration. So, knowing what you know about offices and people, does that surprise you?

BLOOM: Not really. There’s a huge problem with open offices in terms of collaboration. You have no privacy. Whereas if it’s in a slightly more closed environment it’s easier to discuss ideas, to bounce things around.

Or consider the ultimate closed environment: your own home.

BLOOM: One piece of research I did that connected very much to the open office was the benefits of working from home. So working from home has a terrible reputation amongst many people. The nickname “shirking from home.” So I decided to do a scientific study. So we got a large online travel agency to ask a division who wanted to work from home. And we then had them randomize employees by even or odd birthdays into working at home versus working in the office.

DUBNER: Now, this was a travel agency in China, correct?

BLOOM: Yes, so it’s Ctrip, which is China’s largest travel agency. It’s very much like Expedia in the U.S. And stunningly what came out was, one of the biggest driving factors is, it’s just much quieter working from home. They complained so often about the amount of noise and disruption going on in the office. They’re all in an open office and they tell us about people having boyfriend problems, there’s a cake in the breakout room. The World Cup sweepstake. I mean, the most amazing was the woman that told us about her cubicle neighbor who’d have endless conversations with her mum about medical problems, including horrible things like ingrown toenails and some kind of wart issue. I mean what could be more distracting than that? Not surprisingly, in that case, the open office was devastating for her productivity.

DUBNER: So, you find that overall, working from home raises what exactly? Is it productivity? Is it happiness?

BLOOM: So we found working from home raises productivity by 13 percent. Which is massive. That’s almost an extra day a week. So a), much more productive, massively more productive, way more than anyone predicted. And b), they seemed a lot happier; their attrition rates, so how frequently they quit. Part of this was they didn’t have the commute and all the uncertainty. And they didn’t have to take sick days off. But the other big driver is it’s just so much quieter at home.

DUBNER: You also do write, though, that one of the downsides of working from home was promotion became less likely. Yes?

BLOOM: Yes. We don’t know why, but one argument is “out of sight, out of mind.” They just get forgotten about. And another story would be that actually they need to develop skills of human capital and relationship capital, therefore you need to be in the office to get that, to be promoted. And then the third reason I heard, we talked to people working at home and they’d say, “I don’t want to be promoted, because in order to be promoted, I need to come in the office more so.” I’m happy where I am. It’s not worth it.

DUBNER: “I just want them to leave me alone.”

BLOOM: I mean, the most surprising thing from the Ctrip working-from-home experiment was after the end of the nine months, Ctrip was so happy. They were saving about $2,000 per employee working from home because they are more productive and they saved in office space. So they said, “Okay, everyone can now work from home.” And we discovered of the people in the experiment, about 50 percent of them who had been at home decided to come back into the office. And that seemed like an amazing decision because they’re now choosing to commute for something like 40 minutes each way a day. And also since they are less productive in the office and about half their pay was bonus pay, they’re getting paid less. All in all we calculated, their time and pay was kind of falling by 10 to 15 percent. But they were still coming in. And the reason they told us is it was lonely at home.

So people always joke the three great enemies of working from home is the fridge, the bed, and the television. And some people can handle that and others can’t. And you don’t really know until you have tried it. So what happens is people try it and some people love it and are very productive. Great, they just stick with it, and others try and they loathe it and they come back into the office.

The more you learn about the productivity and happiness of office workers in different settings, the more obvious it is that one key ingredient is often overlooked: choice. Some employees really might be better off at home; others might prefer the cubicle; and some might thrive in an open office. You also have to acknowledge that no one environment will be ideal for every task.

Janet POGUE McLAURIN: So if you stop and think about: how do we spend our time? About half of our time is spent in focus mode, which means that we’re working alone; a little over a quarter of our time is working with others in person; and about 20 percent is working with others virtually.

That’s Janet Pogue McLaurin, from the global design-and-architecture firm Gensler.

POGUE McLAURIN: I’m one of our global workplace practice area leaders.

Given the diversity of tasks required of the modern office worker—

POGUE McLAURIN: —you need the best environment for the task at hand. So, if you’re getting ready to go onto a conference call, instead of taking it at your desk, you may go into a conference room. When you finish that, you may go back to your desk to catch up on email. You may socialize around the café area or even take a walking meeting outside. We need to have all these other work settings at our disposal to be able to create a wonderful work experience.

That doesn’t sound so hard, does it? So how do you create that? Let’s start with the basics. Pogue McLaurin acknowledges that many open offices don’t address their key shortcoming.

POGUE McLAURIN: The biggest complaint that we see in open offices that don’t work is the noise. And how do you mitigate noise interruptions and distractions? And that can be noise as well as visual. Being able to design a space that zones the floor in smaller neighborhoods, that tries to get buffers between noisy activities. There’s architectural interventions we can also do, with ceilings and materials and white noise, that may be added to the space. And it’s not about creating too quiet an environment — that can be just as ineffective as a noisy environment. You really want to have enough buzz and energy, but just not hear every word.

You also want to account for what economists call heterogeneous preferences, and what normal people call individual choice.

POGUE McLAURIN: Choice is one of the key drivers of effective workspace, and we have found that the most innovative firms actually offer twice as much choice and exercise on that choice than non-innovative firms do. And choice is really around autonomy, about when and where to work. It could be as simple as having a choice of being able to do focus work in the morning or being able to work at home a day, or in another work setting in the office.

To that end, no two employees are exactly alike — and, more important, no two companies are alike either.

POGUE McLAURIN: I think some common mistakes that organizations do is they try to copy someone else’s design. So if you think it’s a cool idea of something that you saw on the west coast, let’s say it’s a tech firm, and you’re not even a tech firm, and you’re sitting here on the east coast and you try to just copy it verbatim, it doesn’t work. It’s got to reflect how your organization works and the purpose and brand and community that you’re a part of.

So oftentimes, companies would start to adopt what other organizations are doing and say, “Yes, that will save us space, so let’s adopt it,” but they’re missing out by not providing all these other spaces to balance. So they want the efficiency without creating all the other work settings that people need in order to be truly productive.

It’s worth noting that Janet Pogue McLaurin, a principal with a design-and-architecture firm, is arguing that the key to a successful office is: design and architecture. But it’s also worth noting that her firm has done a great deal of research in all different kinds of offices, all different kinds of companies, all over the world.

POGUE McLAURIN: We’ve done several studies in the U.S. and the U.K. But we’ve also done Latin America, Asia, Middle East and we’re just completing a study in Germany.

So: what’s her prognosis for the long-maligned open office?

POGUE McLAURIN: The open office is not dead. Oftentimes people say,“Which is better: private office or open plan?” We measured all types of individual work environments, and what we’ve found is that if you solve for design, noise, and access to people and resources, they perform equally, and one is essentially not better than the other. And the best open plan can be as effective as a private one. And that was a surprise. I love data when it tells you something unexpected.

So do we, Janet Pogue McLaurin. So do we.

* * *

Freakonomics Radio is produced by Stitcher and Dubner Productions. This episode was produced by Rebecca Lee Douglas. Our staff also includes Alison Craiglow, Greg Rippin, Harry Huggins, Zack Lapinski, Matt Hickey, Corinne Wallace, and Daphne Chen. We had help this week from Nellie Osborne. Our theme song is “Mr. Fortune,” by the Hitchhikers; all the other music was composed by Luis Guerra. You can subscribe to Freakonomics Radio on Apple Podcasts, Stitcher, or wherever you get your podcasts.

Here’s where you can learn more about the people and ideas in this episode:

SOURCES

Ethan Bernstein, Edward W. Conard Associate Professor of Business Administration at the Harvard Business School.

Nicholas Bloom, economist at Stanford University.

Janet Pogue McLaurin, principal at Gensler.

Nikil Saval, author and journalist.

Stephen Turban, development & innovation at the Office of the President, Fulbright University Vietnam.

Ben Waber, president and C.E.O. of Humanyze.

RESOURCES

“Does Working from Home Work? Evidence from a Chinese Experiment,” Nicholas Bloom, James Liang, John Roberts, Zhichun Jenny Ying (2013).

“The Impact of the Open Workspace on Human Collaboration,” Ethan Bernstein, Stephen Turban (2018).

The Office: A Facility Based on Change by Robert Propst (Herman Miller 1968).

Cubed: A Secret History of the Workplace by Nikil Saval (Anchor 2014).

EXTRA

“Are We in a Mattress-Store Bubble?” Freakonomics Radio (2016).

“Time to Take Back the Toilet,” Freakonomics Radio (2014).

The post Yes, the Open Office Is Terrible — But It Doesn’t Have to Be (Ep. 358 Rebroadcast) appeared first on Freakonomics.

from Dental Care Tips http://freakonomics.com/podcast/office-rebroadcast/

1 note · View note

dear-wormwoods · 6 years

Text

Reddie MBTI Analysis

Ten million years ago, @richiefuckfacetozier and I talked about Reddie’s MBTI types, and since we blew our own minds talking about it, she asked me to go more in depth with it in an actual post. WELL, here it finally is.

OKAY SO!! In our professional opinions… Eddie is an ISFJ and Richie is an ESTP. And, shockingly-but-not-shockingly ESTP and ISFJ are natural partners!

Eddie as ISFJ, the “Defender/Nurturer”:

ISFJs are true altruists and inherently kind. They want to be good and helpful, and they strive to see the good in others as well. The way they navigate the world and make their decisions is based on emotions and feelings, so they are always aware of and reflecting on their own emotions (even if they avoid expressing them), and are also very in tune with other people’s feelings. They live life primarily internally, but are also naturally social and good at making friends because of their innate understanding of human connection and natural empathy. Obviously, this is all true for Eddie, because he positions himself as a caretaker and a support system for the other Losers, and even for his mom (before he realizes she’s just manipulating him). He’s super introspective, but guarded when expressing his feelings, and can gauge the emotional responses of others very easily. He’s idealistic to the point of being naive because he’s so confident that people are inherently good, and he will do literally anything to help the people he loves.

On the flip-side, ISFJs tend to be too humble, take things too personally, and may repress their feelings because they don’t see their feelings or accomplishments as important compared to anyone else’s. They are loyal and dedicated, but can sometimes have trouble standing up for themselves or taking credit for the good that they do. As a result, people often try to take advantage of them or manipulate them because their natural kindness makes them seem like an easy target. If they’re subject to constant criticism instead of positive feedback, ISFJs become stressed and start thinking of all the ways they are wrong or things that could go wrong because of them, and they can end up feeling helpless. I feel like I don’t even need to get into how true this is for Eddie, who has dealt with manipulation his whole life and has been intentionally made to feel helpless. But even beyond the damage Sonia has done, Eddie is the type of person who will give away every part of himself before he’d ever dream of asking for anything in return out loud. So he needs someone who will appreciate and encourage him without being asked to.

ISFJs also like hands on, practical things and learn better this way, and tend to have naturally good spatial awareness! I love this because we all know Eddie is the Navigator and likes hands-on things like tinkering with bikes and cars… and he LOVES when Ben teaches him about the dam and stuff because he thrives when he’s learning how things work through application and doing it himself.

Richie as ESTP, the “Entrepreneur/Do-er”:

ESTPs love to be the center of attention and are naturally funny and charismatic. They are super energetic and action-oriented and literally cannot sit around idly. They live for the moment, so they are prone to risky behavior, and they believe rules were made to be broken and established institutions and systems were made to be changed or ignored. It goes without saying that Richie falls into all of those categories. He charms the shit out of everyone, keeps everyone laughing, and thrives off of being noticed and cheered on. He is also shit at keeping his mouth shut or following rules. But although ESTPs are high energy and constantly moving, they’re also very rational and perceptive. They’re super calm and collected in emergency or high stress situations, because the more chaotic things are the more they thrive. This is what makes Richie a natural leader, though his status as The Funny One distracts everyone from seeing him as the leader he is. Richie is a quick thinker and is great at A) keeping everyone else calm in high pressure moments, and B) thinking of creative but effective ways OUT of those situations.

On the flip-side, ESTPs can come off as insensitive, too blunt, and impatient. They kind of suck at connecting with others on an emotional level or expressing themselves, and they’re uncomfortable with emotional conflict. Richie definitely buries his real feelings underneath his gregarious charming exterior, and deflection is an art form for him. He can also be kind of a dick. But someone who is more deeply emotional will get him to open up, of course. ESTPs also lack personal structure and don’t always think of the consequences of their actions until they have to deal with the fallout afterward, but they DO notice small changes in thoughts and feelings in others, and other little things that often get overlooked - so even when he does fuck up, Richie will notice, realize why, and then put those ESTP problem solving skills to work in figuring out a solution.

Funnily enough, ESTPs often forget to take care of their own health and don’t always stop to consider their own safety. Of course this is true for Richie, who says himself that his behavior as a young kid was SO reckless that people often thought he was suicidal, and who has smoked since he was like ten. Lucky for Richie, Eddie can look out for his health and safety enough to make up for it.

Reddie as Partners:

ESTPs and ISFJs are natural partners and HERE’S WHY! First, ESTPs are energetic and like to bring people out of their comfort zones, and ISFJs naturally lean on rules and traditions for comfort and familiarity, so it’s hard for them to break out of an established dynamic or take risks. ISFJ Eddie NEEDS someone like Richie to encourage him to try new things and be less afraid of spontaneity and risk-taking. He also needs Richie to show him that the rules and dynamic he’s familiar with (ie: his mother) isn’t necessarily right just because it’s what he knows. Eddie wants freedom, and ESTP Richie provides, because ESTPs are nothing if not free.

Because ISFJs are super sensitive, they tend to mask strong feelings to avoid getting hurt, but internally they have a constant stream of strong emotions for people they love. This is almost obnoxiously true for Eddie, who spends so much time waxing poetic about Richie on the inside, but is very unwilling to vocalize that affection (and while displaying emotions is something ISFJs are known to struggle with, this is magnified in Eddie’s case due to his abusive upbringing). Luckily for ISFJ Eddie, ESTP Richie is blunt and physically affectionate, so even though he’s guarding his feelings, he’s still exposed to a lot of affirmation and attention. And once Richie gets through to Eddie, the subsequent flood of love and devotion from Eddie will force ESTP Richie to really dig down deep in his own feelings as well instead of staying safely on the surface.

Most importantly, ISFJs put EVERYTHING into their relationships because they want to make others happy. ISFJs will let their own needs and dreams be ignored in favor of supporting the other people in their life, and all they want in return is love and appreciation, but they won’t admit to it because they’re too altruistic. If ISFJs don’t GET praise or what they do goes completely unnoticed, their resentment just builds up until it explodes. So basically, ISFJ needs a partner who really appreciates them. But ISFJ is in luck! Because ESTPs are incredibly observant about the smallest changes or shifts in mood in their partners, and are all about praise and acknowledgement. So no matter how much ISFJ Eddie tries to hide his feelings and avoid asking for appreciation, ESTP Richie will be right there, noticing the ups and downs of Eddie’s mood without having to be told, and appreciating the shit out of him without being asked to. I like to think that this is the case even as kids - when Richie says things like ‘aw you know you love it, Eds’ he’s literally saying ‘I can tell you love it’ because he can read Eddie so well.

Physically, while ISFJs view sex as an extension of emotional intimacy and are the TRUE ride or die lovers, ESTPs are able to separate sex from love, so they can easily go from one encounter to the next with their charming personality. That’s why I think it would be difficult for Eddie to ever really move on physically from Richie or bond like that again with another man, because somewhere deep down he’d know it isn’t right for him. Richie, on the other hand, would find it easy to have a lot of meaningless sex because his feelings are shut off from it. It can be hard for ESTPs to be emotionally intimate, so in order to settle down, Richie would need someone who is able to bring that side out of him. ISFJ Eddie is perfect for that because ISFJs are so naturally in tune with their own feelings and the feelings of others, and put a lot of stock into emotional bonding. Eddie’s innate capacity for kindness and empathy would allow Richie to feel comfortable letting his emotional guard down.

ESTPs experience the most growth with someone who is more introspective, like the ISFJ, and ESTP can in turn help ISFJ because they’ll get them to loosen up and take more risks. Eddie and Richie balance each other out because Eddie encourages Richie to be more self-reflective and in touch with his true self underneath all the bravado and charm, and Richie encourages Eddie to put himself out there more and stand up for himself!

Bonus: Reddie as Parents!

As parents, ESTPs are fun-loving and playful. They’re already in tune with their own childish wonder, and so they encourage their kids to explore and learn through active play and hands on activities. ESTPs give their kids a ton of freedom, and are super fun, but have a harder time with emotional bonding. Richie would absolutely be the FUN DAD who does all the active, less emotional stuff and encourages his kids to take risks and do what they want, but he’d SUCK at the introspective, emotional labor of dealing with his kids’ feelings.

This is why, as an ISFJ, Eddie would be the perfect co-parent! ISFJs are naturally emotional and supportive, so Eddie could easily and gladly pick up the slack by catering to their kids’ feelings. He’d also be able to establish more structure and rules, because ISFJs feel safer with structure and ESTPs can’t stand it. ISFJs get stressed out if their kids misbehave or if they’re doing something potentially dangerous, and so ESTP Richie will be able to calm ISFJ Eddie down and get him to let go of the reigns a little bit more. Which is good, since Eddie would dread being like his mother, and it would be hard for him to reconcile that fear with his desire to protect his kids from being hurt (physically or emotionally). Also, Eddie does not deal so well with stress and chaos, but Richie (as mentioned earlier) is very good with that - so even in emergency situations, they’ve got that shit COVERED.

They TRULY TRULY TRULY balance each other out and would literally make the perfect parents together. Eddie would take care of the day to day things, the emotional support, tasks like rule setting, etc, and Richie would foster their kids’ creativity and curiosity and let them break the rules once in a while.

(I mostly used the 16personalities ISFJ and ESTP pages for this, and personalitypage’s ISFJ and ESTP pages as well.)

#eddie spaghet tea #reddie #eddie kaspbrak #richie tozier #it meta #meta #it novel #my meta #long post #mbti shit #mbti #stephen king's it #tozier tea

163 notes · View notes

red-wardens · 6 years

Text

Pros & Cons of Dating: Ronan Aeducan

asked in message by: @fanfoolishness (thank you! sorry for the delay!) OC Face Claim: Dev Patel.

-------------

[Aromantic. Asexual Male]

Cons:

Won’t ever approach you romantically first because he doesn’t have any real interest in romantic relationships. That being said he’s not strongly against them so if you’ve been friends a while and bring up the idea of more he’s likely to give it a try unless he suspects it will be too “high maintenance” for him.

Very lazy. Will not be motivated to go out places much so if you’re not a homebody it might be a challenge. He’s not against you going out though. If partying/clubbing/concerts/festivals/theme parks are your thing, he’ll give you a thumbs up from the couch and wish you a fun day/night.

A little spoiled. Ronan is not used to doing things like chores, cooking, or errands for himself and will want to hire people to do them even if it’s just cleaning people who come in once a month or so. Might have a private chef.

Is rather reserved about his affections, especially in public, but also somewhat in private. Not a very tactile guy at all so if you need a lot of physical affection I would not recommend.

Ronan likes to paint but rarely finishes anything he starts so if you were looking forward to seeing a WIP done, sorry. Also he often has paint on his hands and it might get on you.

Bottles up feelings. A lot. If he has issues with you or anyone else he keeps it to himself and is very good at avoiding personal talks. He’ll listen to your deep talk intently but will dodge questions that pry into his mind. Ronan is in general very hard to read behind his calm, laid-back demeanor and you might always have this sense that you don’t fully know him.

Pros:

Ronan’s....got money. He is smart with it but also likes to spoil his loved ones, especially you.

He’s very chill and accepting of you no matter who you are/what you’ve done/what you’re doing now. He’s very laissez-faire about the people he cares about and if you have some bad habits you haven’t kicked yet or just in general a disaster he wont hold it against you. Will not judge you for anything. Ronan will be very encouraging to help you recover though and is very slow to anger/annoyance. Even when he does get mad or frustrated he will always keep his cool.

An insane amount of patience. Won’t argue with you and will hear you out every-time no matter how loud and unreasonable you’re being.

He loves/is incredible with kids (see gif above) All his/your friends/sibling/cousins will be always asking you if your boyfriend will babysit for them. Because of his patience is really good with talking to them respectfully and specifically caters to their age. Won’t watch teenagers though, he draws the line at 12 because after that there’s just too much attitude.

He’s handsome and takes good care of himself. Very hygienic (smells nice, good taste in aftershave and cologne, keeps his hair and beard looking hot) and works out almost daily because “getting back in shape is a lot more of a hassle than maintaining it”.

A Fashion Icon (TM). Ronan dresses well and know how to help you get your style together if you ask. Won’t actually go out shopping with you though so you’ll have to bring the outfits to him or show him pictures.

Great photographer, definitely knows your best lighting/angles and will often be trying to snap a shot or two of whenever he has his camera in his hands.

Highly intelligent and observant. Doesn’t miss a thing and will always remember little details including what you say you like. Also highly analytical and a critical thinker so Ronan can help you figure out problems or give you suggestion if you need him to. (You might have to ask him a few times though since, again, very lazy. He’ll help but there will be a resigned sigh).

Misc./Up to You:

Ronan will almost always take the neutral stance on issues as to not cause any trouble. He’ll support you in what views you have and actions you take but make it clear they’re not his own. Any strong opinions he has he will keep to himself.

While he does for sure love kids, he really doesn’t want any of his own and won’t be talked into it. He’ll have the discussion whenever you want but it will just be talking in circles. The responsibility of always having a kid around, worrying about them, having to come home to them where there’s no breaks?- it’s just not his thing.

His sex drive is near to none so he won’t ever take the initiative there. He’s sex-neutral though so after being together for a certain amount of time, and you bring it up, he wouldn’t be against trying. He’s not a virgin but he’ll probably read up on it a bit first though and it won’t ever become a frequent thing (too much exertion, clean up is a hassle, etc).

Most times the relationship will feel more like a very close friendship than anything else (but he will be committed to you).

It’s easy to turn Ronan into your therapist/psychiatrist. (especially in Modern AU where one of his two Bachelor Degrees is in psychology). He’s a good listener and very insightful. Will be able to figure you out and that might put you off if you’re prepared for him to point out something you aren’t ready to deal with yet.

Physical: He’s 5 feet tall exactly. A bit on the harrier side body-wise. Has a man bun. Tattoos, quite a lot of them, and many piercings in his ears. (and Henna in Modern AU).

---------

*Other OC’s Pros/Cons of Dating* : [Kieran Tabris]

#answered asks #ronan aeducan #my aeducan #my oc #thanks for the message/ ask!#fanfoolishness #this got longer than expected #a lot longer #but thanks for helping me think more about him!

7 notes · View notes

betsynagler · 6 years

Text

Critical Thinking is Hard

I’m lucky: I grew up in a family where thinking was encouraged. My parents treated me and my brother like we were brilliant, which makes you want to be brilliant, and come up with your own ideas. They liked to talk about stuff, and, while they definitely treated us like kids, they also didn’t really shelter us too much. My mother was always ruining TV shows for me by pointing out the sexist moments in television, from reruns of The Brady Bunch and Star Trek, to Charlie’s Angels, Three’s Company and, well, it was the 70s and 80s, so pretty much all TV shows. But they still let us watch them, as well as R-rated movies which may not have been age-appropriate, and while they told us not to smoke pot, when we found out that they smoked pot, they gave us reasons for why it was okay for them and not us (since they “weren’t going to have any more children,” which seemed to make sense at the time). Another thing they did was encourage us to take responsibility for our own decisions from a fairly young age, which meant that you could stay up until 10 or 11 pm on a school night if you really wanted to, but it’d be your fault when you felt like shit all the next day. One can debate the pros and cons of this method of child-rearing (pro: de-mystifying drug use and other taboo behaviors to the degree that they actually start to seem uncool; encouraging kids to develop strong ethical compass and think through their actions; con: kids are even more weird compared to their peers, and precociously develop anxiety and guilt about their own actions). Nevertheless, it did start me on the road to learning the value of thinking for myself.

I didn’t really come into my own as a critical thinker until junior high, however, when I spent two years in a program for gifted students. First, isolation from my peers at a time when I was supposed to be learning the social skills of adulthood and the bullying that naturally flowed from that taught me to look for other people’s faults as a means of self-defense. That made me critical, if not necessarily thoughtful. But then I also had two years of Mr. Snyder teaching me social studies. Many of us in the gifted program had all of the same teachers for all of our academic subjects two years running. This meant that we got to know those teachers really well, and, in the case of Mr. Snyder, came to greatly admire and be shaped by his worldview. Mr. Snyder wasn’t an obvious candidate for intellectual guru to early adolescents. He wasn’t particularly handsome, and he’d had polio as a child and walked with a prominent limp. But he was funny and charismatic, gave terrific lectures that were like brilliant comedy monologues or TED talks, and knew how to make his students feel smart and special — in part because we had made it into his class, but still. We liked him so much that several of us would get to class early every day so that we could draw cartoons of him on the blackboard with clever word bubble-jokes, and he loved that. Too see him come into the room and look at our clever depictions of him and smile and make jokes right back at us, to feel appreciated for our intelligence and creativity, a sensation could be hard to come by as a suburban New Jersey youngster, was wonderful. The class was a mutual admiration society and a bit of a cult of personality that I think hugely affected all of us who took it.

I learned a lot there, as we studied political systems, geography and the history of the ancient world, among other things. We were assigned projects that were unlike anything you’d typically get in junior high or even high school, a combination of fun, self-driven exploration, and out-of-control amounts of work. We had to make a map of the world that included every single country, city, major mountain range and body of water, using color-coded overlays — something that I would have enjoyed, and sort of did, except that, since I was in 7th grade, I was terrible at judging how long it would take and left it until the last minute, and had to repeatedly re-letter the smudged plastic to make it readable in my 12-year-old handwriting. The following year, when we did separate units on Greece and Rome, we had to either fill in an entire outline that he provided with a paragraph or more on every subject, or do a handful of more creative projects designed to help us probe the topics in more interesting detail. After choosing to do the outline for Greece, thinking it would be easier, and ending up with several pounds of handwritten paper (I could not type) on everything from Sparta to Socrates to Doric columns that was probably 75+ pages long, Mr. Snyder had stared at the pile and admitted to me that he hadn’t really expected anyone to choose that option, that he’d made the outline so absurdly long to encourage people to do the creative projects. I probably got an A more because he didn’t want to read the whole damn thing than anything else, and on Rome, I did the projects, like going to a Roman-Catholic service and writing about it — which I did by interviewing my Catholic friend, Tara, instead of actually going to the service myself — or going to the Met to observe and then expound upon the differences one observed between the Greek and Roman statues — which I did after 15 minutes of taking furious notes on a Sunday when we arrived just as they were getting ready to close. Just because I loved Mr. Snyder didn’t mean that I, like any other kid, wasn’t always trying to get out of doing homework in any way I could.

The thing I learned and remember best, however, was not the facts, but the method. We had a class about political and economic systems — communism, socialism, capitalism, authoritarianism — and the first thing Mr. Snyder did was define these terms for us, explaining that they weren’t what we’d been told they were. Specifically, “communism,” the way it was looked at in the budding Reagan Era of the early 1980s, wasn’t actually communism at all. Real communism was an economic system that someone named Karl Marx had come up with, in which everyone owned everything, nobody was rich or poor or more powerful than anyone else, and that was, in fact, kind of the opposite of what the Soviet Union had become. This somewhat blew my mind. Here was the boogeyman that everyone talked about as the great evil threatening us with destruction — and remember, in the world of an American kid who had trouble sleeping at night because she obsessed with how we were one button push away from nuclear war, that meant genuine annihilation — and it wasn’t even what it really was. How was this possible? How was everything that we saw on TV and in the newspapers and at the movies just plain wrong? It turned out that, once you delved into it, the evolution of the term “communism” in the popular vernacular was an education in how concepts entered the public consciousness and then were propagated endlessly in the echo chamber of the media and society until they became something else entirely, usually in the service of some political or social end. Sound familiar? It wasn’t the same then as it is now that we have the Wild West known as the Internet, in some ways it was easier to get an entire culture to basically think one incorrect thing rather than many insane things, but the ability to miseducate a huge swath a people without their questioning it? Yes, that existed, and understanding that was a very big deal to me. It meant that you always had to look deeper than the surface of things to be sure you understood the reality, even when it came to what those things were called.

Why doesn’t everyone get taught to think this way? Well, like most things in life, it gets increasingly harder to learn as you get older. The more set in our ways we get, the tougher it becomes to look at ourselves critically (which is essential to critical thinking, because to truly get that you must dissect and assess the viability of ideas, you have to start with your own assumptions), much less change the way our brains function in terms of adopting new ways of doing anything that’s really embedded in there, much less ways of doing everything, which is kind what it means to change the way you think. Plus, it’s in the best interest of those in power to keep the bulk of the human race from doing it. It’s tough to build an army of people who don’t automatically follow orders, or have a religion made up of people who are always questioning the word of God, or build a movement if the followers are continually asking the leaders, “Is that really true?” And so we’ve arrived at this situation where we have so much information out there now to make sense out of, and the bulk of us without the tools to figure out how to do that — and many who reject those tools because they’re told education is just liberal elite brainwashing. Instead, you see a lot of people turn to a kind of twisted, easy version of “critical” “thinking” espoused on the fringes of the left and right, which disposes with the thinking part and instead just espouses wholesale rejection of anything dubbed “establishment” or “mainstream,” no matter how awful the alternative may be (and at this point we know: it’s pretty awful). Add to that the folks who skillfully exploit the overwhelm of information and lack of analytical skills to support their own greed, lust for power and desire to win at all cost, and you end up with an awesome new and different kind of embedded orthodoxy, that encourages us to silo ourselves within “our” (really their) belief systems, walled in with “alternative facts” and media that support them, and defending it all tooth and nail with false equivalencies that encourage us not to critique thoughtfully based on evidence, but to to pick apart every idea that doesn’t fit or even makes us uncomfortable (“Well, every politician lies” was one of the most egregious ones I heard used recently to defend the president).

And, when it comes right down to it, can you blame people? Thinking is exhausting, especially in this environment, and even human beings with the best intentions manage to ruin everything good anyway. Like, even though my parents didn’t make us believe their ideas, of course they still managed to inculcate in us their most mundane opinions. My father was particularly good at doing this, particularly when it came to eating (yup, Jews), like how fast food and chain restaurants should be avoided not based on nutrition but on lack of flavor (which I guess is why we still ate at White Castle), or how chocolate was really the only kind of acceptable dessert. It’s amazing that, no matter how far I’ve come as an adult, I still find it really hard to shake these ideas — like I saw a conversation on Facebook about how pie was superior to cake, and I just thought, Huh? But there aren’t any good chocolate pies. Another case in point: by the time I was a senior, Mr. Snyder had moved up to the high school, and was teaching an AP history class that I had the option to take. I decided to take economics instead, because I had never studied it, because one of my best friends was taking it, and, on some level I’m sure, to show that I didn’t need the wisdom of this idol of my 7th and 8th grade self, now that I was all of 16. I heard from people who took Snyder’s class that in his first opening monologue of the year he mocked those of his former students who had decided not to take his class — which I think might have just been me. That wasn’t really an appropriate thing for a teacher to do, especially since I was kind of doing what he’d taught us: to move on, do my own thinking and evaluate him critically. But as a human being, it’s hard to be a charismatic leader and just let that go — which is why the world has so many despots, and celebrities, and despotic celebrities. On other hand, my economics class was a terrible waste of time because it turned out that I didn’t like economics and the teacher was boring, so perhaps my premature rejection of Mr. Snyder and my 8th grade way of thinking, just to prove that I could do it, hadn’t been the best decision either. It’s hard not to wonder if I’d be just a slightly better, smarter person today if I’d accepted one more opportunity to take his class.

I’ll never know, but I guess the fact that I’m telling you this story means I haven’t given up on critical thinking. Maybe it’s because self-flagellating comes naturally to me, but these days, more than ever, I try to employ those skills as much as I can, even as it grows increasingly fucking hard. On top of all that media landscape stuff I mentioned a few paragraphs back, I also have this stupid menopause business I mentioned in my last blog post, which just amplifies all of the emotion that drives me as a human to err on the side of insanity, as if there weren’t already enough bad news, and bad “news,” out there driving a person in that direction. There are so many bad actors with so many tools that can be used to manipulate our fear and greed and lust into steamrolling our thinking these days, and all we have to fight back are these little broken piles of poop in our heads. And yet, we all do have them, aka brains, and so we have the ability to use them. And as one of those cynical-on-top-but-at-bottom-idealistic folks who believes we all also have the capacity to change, no matter how hard it might seem, until the day we die, I think we all have the ability to learn how to use them better. And yes, that means you, and your friends, and your kids, and even your cousins in Florida maybe, if we all just try a little harder.

I’m not sure what Mr. Snyder would say about me now, as I try to get people to think about stuff with this blog that almost nobody reads, but considering how many years he spent trying to teach adolescents about Platonic ideals, I’d imagine he’d approve. So in honor of him, and any teacher you’ve had who inspired you to think more, and more better, let’s advocate in 2019 not just for “our values,” but for the value of intelligent thought, even if we have to do it one mind at a time.

1 note · View note

foruneyti · 6 years

Note

Pt. I Greetings. This is all Foruneyti-centric but I hope it is helpful in general. —EA

Hithere! Thank you so much for sending me such a detailed report haha,it really helps me out! Because it was such a lot I will respond persection. I hope you don’t mind!

Pt.2 Somethings that I like in your writing: >Your dialogue. It iswonderful and truly witty at times, and it flows so naturally. It isa joy to read. I wish I could converse in real life the way Healerdoes in the story. So many writers resort to blatant awkwardness inconversation to move a relationship or friendship along; instead, youmake your characters clever and intelligent enough to get out ofunusual places in conversation. I appreciate that so, so much.I’m really glad that this is the case! I love writingdialogue and I’ve come a long way since I started writing (whenever Iread my older stories the dialogue is something that stands out to menegatively) so hearing from other people that it is witty and flowsnaturally is absolutely wonderful; thank you. Pt.3 >Your descriptions: in general, your descriptions are a goodbalance between “telling” and “showing”, which like yourdialogue make the story flow quite well. >Your originalcharacters. They are actually characters, unpredictable in some ways,not merely mouthpieces for ideas or story exposition (Kari of Yllgardis a great example here). Meeting them and getting to know thembetter feels worthwhile, rather than distracting.It’sa relief that those things are also going well! I really aim to givemy characters more layers so that they won’t be one-dimensional andboring, but with so many characters in the casts it’s hard to keep itbalanced and sometimes I even forget one or two exist hihi. Pt.4 >Perhaps first and foremost, I love that Healer is her ownperson, with useful skills and the ability to be simultaneouslycompassionate and an independent thinker. She does not brook abuse(of anoyone else or of herself) mildly; she is morally centred andstands up for her moral beliefs (I would like to add here that(Pt. 5) I think it would be appropriate for the deaths Loki hascaused to trouble her more than it does; I understand her reasons forforgiving Loki himself, but to some extent I would expect Healer’snatural compassion to extend to the many, many families Loki hasdestroyed). Though she is lonely at times, she is not just a hollowshell waiting for some other person to fill her with emotions andexperiences.This is also a big part of what I wanted! ThatHealer would be a character of her own, with feelings and thoughtsand memories of her own, and that without Loki she would still grow –though their growth is definitely amplified by one another. I wantedher to be independent so that their love and relationship could growand blossom healthily. As for the deaths Loki caused, it’s truethat I am kind of letting it fade to the background. I wanted tofocus more on the person Loki was becoming than the person he hadbeen, and since I believe he was not fully in control or didn’t havemuch of a choice during most of what happened back then I didn’t wantto make too big of a deal of it. Now that Healer has to grieve forher own she wouldn’t have the energy to grieve for the many livesthat were lost years and years ago.

Pt6 or 7? Somethings that I do not like in your writing (save the firstcomment, I am trying to be usefully critical here):>The sex. I amnot here for that; honestly I just think it is gross. It is nothingagainst your writing particularly; I just do not enjoy that sort ofthing in stories, ever. When I found Foruneyti, I was looking for aninteresting story that explored a Loki redemption arc in a believableway; many kudos to you for drawing me in despite the sex.Itotally understand! I personally enjoy sex as well as writing aboutit and so for me it is part of a healthy relationship, which is why Iadded it to the fic. You can expect more to come. I’m glad that youstill enjoyed the rest of the chapters though! Sometimesyou do strange things with grammar tenses. For instance, the lastsentence of the fifth chapter of the most recent instalment of “InHer Loving Memory” goes, “The man rose his sword, and sheclosed her eyes.”I am fairly confident that “rose” is anintransitive verb, and “raised” is what you should use whensomething is actually being done with a specific object. Pleaseunderstand that this little nitpicky sort of thing is an indirectcompliment; the rest of your writing (dialogue, descriptions, etc.)is so well-balanced that it is little things like this that throw meoff. Ah!I’m incredibly sorry for that. I can’t really use the excuse of notbeing a native English speaker anymore, but sometimes things likethat still slip. Things like raise and rise, lay and lie; but alsothings that even I think are super silly. I often type reigns insteadof reins, or mix up expressions. I check chapters three to sixtimes before uploading them and I still stuff like that when Ire-read it later. Feel free to point it all out on a chapter when yousee it, so I can immediately change it. Pt7 or 8? >Very occasionally you claim that something clever happensand then you drop the ball. The scene in chapter 14 is a goodexample. The passage goes:“…Should you try to introduce him tothe conversation? Ask him if he had ever experienced such battles?You listened intently to what they had to say, but every question youasked steered the conversation(Pt8 or 9?) in the direction you wanted to go. It was masterfullyexecuted manipulation, and neither of them noticed, until theopportunity came for which you had been waiting and you turned yourheard to the side, glancing at the prince from the corner of youreye. “How about you, then? Surely you must have great tales totell.” …That is abrupt and jarring, not masterfully manipulative.I think this is a more serious mistake where you should have changedthe scene so that it was appropriate(Pt9 or 10?) for the Healer to be so abrupt, or else thought through thescene more thoroughly to give Healer something truly clever to say.Another example would be when Healer tricks Yllva into confessing tothe murder. That seemed unrealistically stupid, even for a spoiledprincess of evil.Ihope you don’t mind that I will defend myself on this one. The lines’Youlistened intently to what they had to say, but every question youasked steered the conversation in the direction you wanted to go. Itwas masterfully executed manipulation, and neither of them noticed,untilthe opportunity came for which you had been waiting (…).” Aremeant to convey that time passed, that she has been conversing forquite some time, asking more and more questions that subtly got herto the point she wanted: a break or pause in the conversation thatallowed her to drag Loki into it. In that break or pause it wasappropriate to ask Loki about his tales without making it seem likeshe didn’t care about the other soldier’s stories. If I had to writeout all the stories the soldiers told, and all the questions Healerasked, it would have made the chapter far too long and far too slow.As for the part where she tricks Ylva, keep in mind that thegirl is not the smartest. She tried to murder Healer with poison sostrong it would no doubt cost quite a lot of money. That way it wouldbe traced back to her sooner or later, and with a devastated andenraged Loki (as well as Thor and all the other soldiers in thegroup) in that scenario she wouldn’t have benefited from it at all –and the consequences would have been dire. When she noticesHealer doesn’t die she gets more reckless and directly poisons herfood. She could have done it herself, in which case people (mainlyservants) would have seen her going to the kitchens where shedefinitely never comes, or, more likely: she had a servant do it forher. That means at least one servant knows its her, and so when thestaff would get questioned by the at that point merciless Loki itwould come out sooner or later as well. Either way: dumb. So,now that we’ve established that Ylva is not very bright, she is inthat moment set on defending herself however possible. When she heardHealer semi-accuse her of something she hadn’t done she had to denyit to try and save her hide – and she hadn’t really thought aboutthe words with which she chose to do so. In her panic she blurted outthe first that came to mind and so fell right into the trap. Ofcourse, it’s fanfiction, and so I’ve taken a few liberties on howrealistic things are, but in my opinion it makes for a far moreinteresting story than when the investigation starts and it takesthem two more chapters to just confirm what we already know: the girlhad truly tried to murder Healer. Ona final note, not concerning anything critical: I would just like toadd that as an addition to the Foruneyti universe “In Her LovingMemory” works incredibly well. What an emotionally powerfultale. (Lastpart) I read the scenes at the tree (Healer’s and Loki’s) and wasstruck by the aching sadness in both. I look forward to seeing whereyou go with that tale. May your writing (for Foruneyti and elsewhere)proceed excellently. Sincerely, EA

Thankyou so much! I really hoped it would, and emotionally powerful was(and is still) the goal. For it to affect your feelings is all Icould have wished for.

Again,thank you for leaving such extensive feedback. If you want to discuss anything I’ve said in this post just send in another ask, I really love talking about my work. For anyone elsereading this post: do you agree, disagree, or do you have somethingto add? Feel free to respond to this post or to send me an ask ofyour own! (anonymous if you want). The more opinions I get the easierit will be for me to see what things I will need to focus on more! ❤

#ask #long post #replies #responses #foruneyti #writing #thank you!#spoilers #spoiler #foruneyti spoiler #foruneyti spoilers #Anonymous #in her loving memory #healer #ylva

1 note · View note