#cognition vs behavior

[mbti-notes]

It says that Te dom are afraid to be weak. But I've noticed a lot of xxFJ also express that fear. Especially ExFJs, they want to be capable and strong. One of my friend (ENFJ, male) say that they dislike feeling weak and feel shame if they didn't push themselves enough to solve a problem. What could explain that mindset that if FJs don't have Te-Fi? More importantly, is it possible ExFJ mistype themselves as ExTJ for that reason? Bc they see themselves as strong and confrontational?

As far as I can tell, the main problem is that you are oversimplifying. There are two aspects to this problem that often interfere with the type assessment process:

1) The tendency to stereotype and overemphasize superficial characteristics: This is usually a result of not understanding the distinction between cognition and behavior, which is the first major principle covered in the Function Theory Guide.

Two different types can exhibit the same behavior but for different underlying cognitive reasons. For example, there is a common stereotype that portrays ExTJs as leaders/managers due to dominant Te. Yet, in reality, ExFJs are equally likely to gravitate to leadership roles. How are you going to explain this in the absence of Te? Is Te equal to leadership or does Te have a monopoly on leadership? No and no.

"Leadership" is a behavior. A behavior can arise for many possible reasons. Te doms might gravitate to leadership due to a desire for order or control, whereas Fe doms might gravitate to leadership due to a desire to influence and improve group cohesion. The "leadership" behavior may look similar on the surface, but the cognitive reasons/motivations underneath it are vastly different, because Te and Fe are very different functions.

If you don't properly distinguish cognition from behavior, you won't have a deep enough understanding of WHY the behavior exists, and then it's very easy to be led astray by superficial stereotypes during type assessment.

2) Overlooking context and circumstance: This is usually a result of not understanding that human beings are motivated by a multitude of factors, and personality type is only one of them. Most human behavior is multifactorial. Before you try to attribute a behavior to a particular type/function, have you made sure that other external factors/causes have been properly accounted for?

Why is it that, compared to other types, ExTJs are more likely to have this quality of being "afraid to be weak"? It is directly attributable to inferior Fi. However, this doesn't mean there aren't other factors/causes behind it. Another factor that could be at play is general fear of vulnerability, which can afflict anyone of any type. Fear of vulnerability isn't mainly a matter of personality but of negative experiences that hampered ego development, though it might also negatively influence function expression. Most people operate at lower levels of ego development, so fear of vulnerability is a widespread issue, to varying degrees.

In the case of ExFJs, Fe not only encourages one to harmonize with prevailing social norms and customs, it also encourages one to actively maintain and enforce them whenever one observes behaviors that go against the norm. This is one reason why Fe doms can come across as strong-willed, confrontational, even meddling.

However, there can be many other reasons why they come across that way. For instance, ExFJs who have grown up in very harsh or hostile environments might constantly be faulted or shamed for "oversharing", "oversensitivity", or being "overemotional". When healthy dominant function development gets inhibited by powerful environmental factors, it can have a negative impact on how a person expresses all of their functions. People don't only use one function, so Fe isn't the only function to consider.

For example, since environmentally oppressed ExFJs can't really use Fe in a positive way to influence and improve the social environment, they have little choice but to use it in a negative way to conform with the very norms and customs that denigrate their natural Fe strengths. Instead of using Ti in a positive way to encourage healthy boundary setting and reasonable decision making, they have little choice but to use it in a negative way to obsess about "strength", "competence", "independence", or "intelligence", because that is the only means they know of avoiding shame and obtaining validation.

In short, can you tell the difference between natural function expression (positive) and compensatory function behavior (negative)? You won't be able to tell the difference until you understand the complex relationship between personality and environment.

As I wrote in the Function Theory Guide: "To really understand someone, you must contextualize their behavior, by examining all the different forces that might be motivating them." Human psychology is complicated, which means there's always more going on beneath the surface than you realize. If you think type assessment should be a simple process, you're likely to suffer a high error rate.

[omegaphilosophia]

The Ethics of Rationality

The ethics of rationality explores the moral dimensions of reasoning—how we ought to think, why we are obligated to be rational, and what responsibilities come with our reasoning abilities. It bridges epistemology, moral philosophy, and cognitive science by asking not just what is rational, but what is right about being rational.

1. Is Rationality a Moral Obligation?

One central question is whether individuals have a duty to be rational:

Epistemic responsibility suggests that we are morally accountable for our beliefs, especially when those beliefs affect others.

Believing things without evidence, or engaging in self-deception, can be viewed not just as cognitive failures, but as ethical wrongs—especially in areas like science, politics, and public discourse.

2. Rationality and Integrity

To act rationally often means to act consistently with one's beliefs, values, and reasons. This consistency is tied to:

Moral integrity: Acting out of principle and not merely impulse.

Autonomy: Respecting oneself as a reasoning agent. Failing to be rational can thus be seen as a betrayal of one’s moral character—like abandoning truth for convenience.

3. Rationality and Others

The ethics of rationality is not just personal—it’s relational:

Deliberative ethics: In discourse or argument, we owe others clear reasoning and intellectual honesty.

Cognitive empathy: Understanding others’ perspectives fairly is a rational and ethical act. This is why fallacies, propaganda, and manipulation are not just illogical—they're unethical because they degrade trust and shared understanding.

4. Instrumental vs. Moral Rationality

Instrumental rationality: Reasoning efficiently toward goals (e.g., maximizing profit or survival).

Moral rationality: Asking whether the goals themselves are justifiable. Someone may be "perfectly rational" in a narrow, utilitarian sense but still act immorally if their aims are unjust. Ethical rationality calls for reflecting on our ends, not just our means.

5. Bias, Ignorance, and Willful Irrationality

Modern ethics must deal with cognitive biases and motivated reasoning—tendencies to think in self-serving or tribal ways. The ethics of rationality thus includes:

Critical thinking education: A moral good in society.

Intellectual humility: Recognizing limits in our knowledge.

Moral courage: Willingness to question one's own deeply held beliefs.

Summary

The ethics of rationality challenges us to treat thinking itself as a moral act. It asks:

Are we reasoning in good faith?

Are we being intellectually honest?

Are we using our minds to uphold truth, justice, and shared understanding?

Being rational is not just about making "smart" choices—it’s about honoring the deeper responsibility of being a moral agent in a complex world.

[xwiredearbuds2014x]

Noooo 😭

[teenagefeeling]

this is somewhat random but i find the relationship of empathy to social anxiety very fascinating and i also don't understand it at all

[willowsearth]

Why do smart people make dumb financial decisions? The psychology of risk reveals we’re wired to fear losses more than we value gains. Learn how this cognitive bias affects your choices—and how to stop it from sabotaging your success. #BehavioralScience #Psychology #Risk #DecisionMaking #EmotionalIntelligence

[customerchurn]

The Psychology Behind Customer Churn: What Drives Your Customers Away?

Introduction

Customer churn is not just a business issue; it’s a psychological one as well. Understanding the emotional and cognitive factors that influence why customers leave can help businesses design more effective retention strategies. In this article, we will explore the psychological triggers behind customer churn and how businesses can address them to keep customers loyal.

Psychological Triggers of Customer Churn

Perceived Value Decrease One of the most powerful psychological drivers of churn is the perceived decline in value. When customers feel they are no longer getting their money’s worth, they are more likely to leave. This perception can arise from price increases, diminished product quality, or a shift in service delivery. Psychological Impact: Customers may feel betrayed or undervalued when the product or service they’ve come to rely on no longer meets their expectations. This leads to frustration and dissatisfaction. Mitigation Strategy: Communicate openly with customers about any changes, such as price increases or changes to the product. Emphasize the added value and improvements that come with these changes. Offering incentives or discounts to loyal customers can also alleviate perceived value decreases.

Cognitive Dissonance Cognitive dissonance occurs when customers experience discomfort due to a mismatch between their expectations and actual experiences. This tension can lead customers to question their decision and, in turn, churn. Psychological Impact: When customers' expectations are not met, they may experience frustration and regret, leading to churn. Mitigation Strategy: Be transparent about what customers can expect and ensure that your product or service lives up to its promises. Regularly check in with customers to address any concerns or frustrations before they lead to dissatisfaction.

Emotional Disconnect Customers who feel emotionally disconnected from a brand are more likely to churn. Emotional loyalty plays a significant role in customer retention, and if customers feel unrecognized or unsupported, they may abandon the brand. Psychological Impact: A lack of emotional connection can make customers feel that their business is unimportant, resulting in disengagement and churn. Mitigation Strategy: Build stronger emotional bonds by engaging customers on a personal level. Personalized interactions, meaningful communications, and recognition of milestones (such as anniversaries or birthdays) can strengthen emotional connections and reduce churn.

FOMO (Fear of Missing Out) FOMO is a powerful psychological trigger that can drive churn. Customers may leave if they believe they are missing out on a better deal or a superior product elsewhere. Psychological Impact: When customers perceive that competitors are offering more attractive options, they may feel the need to switch, driven by the fear of missing out. Mitigation Strategy: Regularly communicate the unique value of your product or service. Showcase testimonials and success stories to reinforce the benefits of staying with your brand.

Conclusion

The psychology behind customer churn involves complex emotional and cognitive factors that influence customer decisions. By understanding these triggers—such as perceived value decrease, cognitive dissonance, emotional disconnect, and FOMO—businesses can implement strategies to address these psychological drivers and reduce churn. Building strong emotional connections, managing expectations, and offering personalized experiences are key to ensuring long-term customer loyalty.

[heartshapedhackjob]

One time my ex gave me a pocket knife and told me that as a woman I should never go anywhere without it which is so funny (not really) because he was the one abusing me the whole time .

[quitaddictionnow]

Dialectical Behavior Therapy vs Cognitive Behavioral Therapy

Dialectical Behavior Therapy (DBT) and Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT) are two prominent approaches in the field of psychotherapy, each with its unique features and benefits. Understanding the distinctions between these therapies can help individuals make informed decisions about their mental health treatment.

What is Dialectical Behavior Therapy (DBT)?

Dialectical Behavior Therapy, often abbreviated as DBT, is a type of cognitive-behavioral therapy that emphasizes the psychosocial aspects of treatment. Developed by Dr. Marsha Linehan in the late 1980s, DBT was originally designed to treat individuals with borderline personality disorder (BPD).

However, it has since been adapted to address various other mental health conditions, including mood disorders, eating disorders, and substance abuse.

Key Components of DBT:

DBT incorporates a combination of individual therapy, group skills training, phone coaching, and therapist consultation teams. One of the central components of DBT is its focus on teaching individuals coping skills to manage intense emotions, improve interpersonal relationships, and enhance overall quality of life. These skills are often categorized into four main modules:

Mindfulness: DBT teaches individuals to become more aware of their thoughts, emotions, and sensations in the present moment without judgment.

Distress Tolerance: This module focuses on helping individuals tolerate distressing situations without resorting to harmful behaviors.

Emotion Regulation: DBT equips individuals with strategies to identify and regulate their emotions effectively.

Interpersonal Effectiveness: The interpersonal effectiveness module teaches skills for navigating relationships, setting boundaries, and communicating assertively.

What is Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT)?

Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, or CBT, is a widely used therapeutic approach that targets the connections between thoughts, feelings, and behaviors. Developed by Dr. Aaron Beck in the 1960s, CBT is based on the premise that our thoughts influence our emotions and actions, and by changing maladaptive thought patterns, individuals can alleviate psychological distress.

Key Components of CBT:

CBT is typically structured and goal-oriented, focusing on identifying and challenging negative thought patterns and replacing them with more adaptive beliefs. Some essential techniques used in CBT include:

Cognitive Restructuring: It involves identifying and challenging irrational or negative thoughts and replacing them with more realistic and positive ones.

Behavioral Activation: CBT often includes behavioral experiments and homework assignments to help individuals gradually confront and overcome their fears or avoidance behaviors.

Exposure Therapy: For individuals with anxiety disorders or phobias, exposure therapy is commonly used to help them confront and habituate to feared stimuli or situations.

Skills Training: Similar to DBT, CBT may involve teaching individuals coping skills such as relaxation techniques, problem-solving strategies, and communication skills.

Continue reading here: CBT vs DBT

Remember, mental health is a journey, and seeking help is a powerful act of self-care.

Connect with our team at (888) 564–4780 or fill out the form; If your loved one is abusing dangerous drugs, consulting with a family therapist can help the family system heal. Contact a drug and addiction treatment facilities without risk and discuss your recovery alternatives.

[mbti-notes]

Anon wrote: hello! so, for the longest while, i was convinced that i was an infp. but, very recently, i realised that the struggles that i was going through, the problems that were coming up repeatedly, seemed to be more indicative of ne-te loop. i didn't actually get very far with the function development guide once I'd determined myself to be an infp btw. life kinda got in the way.

anyway, this realisation prompted me to delve back into your type theory guide. for the past week or so, I've been going through it in detail with a clear mind, considering every single type as a possibility and rejecting them one by one according to the evidence I'm typing up. I'm still about midway through the inf functions in the proper procedure that I'm following, but i've skimmed that entire post and others, because there's a couple of questions that's been bugging me throughout.

I've more or less narrowed myself down to an xnfp, although like i said, I'm still open to considering other types as well. what I'm mostly stuck with is the following:

1. how is an enfp's ne-te loop going to look in contrast to an infp's te grip?

2. how is an infp's fi-si loop going to look in contrast to an enfp's si grip?

i understand that, of course, every person is a unique example of their type. but I've been stuck with these two points, since i couldn't find anything on your blog related to how a specific tert function's loop looks in tandem with the type's corresponding dom function. like, i know what te-loop looks like, but i don't know how it would work with ne dom. i suspect where i might have gone wrong with typing myself (if i was mistaken, like i said, i am still going through the theory guide intensively), was misidentifying si grip as fi-si loop.

if you do have any past posts that I've missed, I'd appreciate you redirecting me to them. and i hope my doubt is clear, and that you'll be able to help me out. thank you!

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

As far as I can tell, there are several issues to address:

1) Overemphasis on how functions "look": This usually means you're too focused on outward behavior (superficial) and not really understanding how functions operate inside the mind (fundamentals). Until you are able to draw a proper distinction between cognition and behavior (which is the first major principle that I teach in the Function Theory guide), your focus will likely be misplaced on the what and then missing the why. Asking "what does my Te look like?" won't get you as far as asking "WHY do I use Te in this way?" Basically, you're not going deep enough.

2) Not accounting for Function Dynamics: Newbies often get stuck on viewing functions in isolation, which exacerbates problem #1 above. Once your learning becomes more advanced, you'll understand that functions are dynamic and intertwined. For instance, tertiary loop and inferior grip are very different because the function interactions that produce them are very different:

- Tertiary loop arises due to a unique relationship to i) dominant dysfunction, specifically dominant immaturity, and ii) auxiliary underdevelopment, specifically auxiliary resistance. Thus, evidence of tertiary loop must also include evidence of those two issues, which I have already included in the guide under the dominant and auxiliary function sections. These three parts must fit together properly.

- Inferior grip arises due to dominant dysfunction, specifically dominant extremes that create a troubling imbalance. One reason people find themselves in dominant extremes is because they're trying to force the function to work in unsuitable ways/situations, which causes escalating problems with stress, to the point of not being able to cope and adapt well. Thus, evidence of inferior grip must include i) evidence of dominant extremes, and ii) eventual loss of healthy dominant functioning, information which is already included in the inferior function section of the guide.

3) Not accounting for Type Dynamics: Type dynamics refers to the theory of the functional stack, of how the whole is more than just the sum of its parts. Each of the four functional stack positions serves a unique and specific purpose in your psychology with regard to what the ego needs and wants, which is briefly explained in the beginning of each stack position section, as well as the type dynamics section of the Type Dev guide.

For example, the proper purpose of the tertiary function is to complement and temper the auxiliary function. However, tertiary loop means that this healthy dynamic is altered and the tertiary function is being misused for a different and more nefarious purpose of propping up a failing dominant function.

This goes back to point #1 above of not grasping the "WHY" - what is the purpose of each function in the mind? It's very important to ask yourself WHY you are using the function in that particular way, in relation to the other functions. To what end or to what purpose is the behavior meant to serve?

.

It looks like all the information you need is already included in the study guides, so perhaps you have only been picking out some superficial points about the "look" of functions and ignoring the more important theoretical concepts that would help you understand WHY functions look a particular way. The problem with not reading the guide all the way through to full understanding before you start doing the hard work of analyzing yourself is that you won't see the bigger picture of how all the parts are meant to fit together.

Psychology is complicated, so function theory isn't exactly easy to learn. There are many levels of comprehension and you're still at the beginner level. It's certainly not a crime to be a beginner, since we all have to start somewhere. However, don't sabotage yourself with poor learning methods such as disorderly/unfocused reading, taking shortcuts, or thinking that the "gist" equals complete knowledge - these are common learning obstacles for NPs.

[hug-your-face]

Insight today while washing the lettuce and thinking of my friend who doesn't want to vote.

They are an otherwise intelligent, responsible, generous person, who appears to be socially conscious. They have worked hard and long for their position in their profession. They express concern for the planet. They get twitchy if you use too many paper towels.

But they don’t want to vote for Biden for reasons, and quote "doesn't like the whole system where the parties take turns swinging things back and forth" unquote.

I have been dumbstruck at their attitude for about two months now. I've been thrashing back and forth trying to reconcile this person I love with their attitude:

If you care abt the planet enough to conserve paper towels, don’t you care enough to stop a Repub administration from raping the land?

If you don’t like how things can swing back and forth, don't you want an administration that's going to work to shore up, rather than dismantle, more lasting democratic systems of governance?

If you understand the value of the long game, why are you only satisfied with instant results from a single election rather than viewing that election as a single move in an ongoing process?

The insight came to me as I used an extra set of paper towels to dry my lettuce:

These people are not motivated by outcomes. They are motivated by how their choices make them FEEL.

Not how the outcomes of their choices will make them feel. But how the action associated with their choices makes them feel.

In terms of outcomes for the environment, saving paper towels doesn't do shit compared to pushing for restrictions on oil companies. But using half a paper towel is an instant dopamine hit: "Ahhh, I am caring for Mother Earth. I care. I am a good person. Ahh yes that's the stuff."

This model fits for voting too. We know that The Only Votes That Count Are Those Cast. We know that Dems Go Where The Votes Are Not Where The Votes Aren't. We know that voting in every election, every time, in numbers, is a very low-effort way to contribute to moving the Overton window farther left.

But in the moment, for people who are motivated by how their action associated with their choice makes them feel... the absolute best move for their dopamine supply is to abstain: "I am NOT supporting an old fart; I am NOT supporting genocide; I am Challenging The System; I am a good person. Ahh yes, that's the stuff."

At the time, when I challenged my friend on their position, they held up their hands and said "look, I'm not saying I have any answers, I'm just saying I don’t like how the system works."

They didn't like how participating in the system made them FEEL in the moment.

For those of us who think this is madness, hey, we aren't off the hook entirely. We are basing our choices and actions off of outcomes, true. But there's probably a feeling/dopamine component in there too. "I am holding my nose and voting Blue; I am doing my part to actually affect the future even if I hate some things abt my choice; I am a good person. Ahh yes, that's the stuff."

So maybe the difference isn't in the motivation (my feelings and self-image) but in what motivates us (my action vs the outcome of my action).

I don't have an answer to the question at this time and this post is already long enough. But I'll think on it. And I invite you to do so as well:

For these people (who seem to be a sizable part of the population), how to outweigh the choice where their action preserves their self-image, doesn't cost them dopamine for having to take a "bad" action, and maybe even gives them a happy boost for "not being part of a flawed system?"

For these people, how to help them connect more to the outcome?

Off the cuff, I can't think of any means other than cognitive-behavioral therapy. :/

EDIT: Apparently there's a term for this and it's called Emotivism -- ethics isn't abt effects but abt feelings.

[ratranine]

There is a sort of cognitive dissonance between Baizhu and Qiqi's dynamic as shown in game vs. the way it's described in one of Qiqi's character stories. In scenes that feature both we often see Baizhu doting on Qiqi like a parent would, while Baizhu is described as being unable to say "I love you (the most)" to Qiqi with any sencerity. And tbh that is just typical asian dad behavior but there is definitely more to it than that. Like, the likely intended explanation is that Baizhu is approaching the situation (situation being that Qiqi is buffering from being unable to complete a task) with a very clinical mind, he knows Qiqi needs help but doesn't realize that it is an expression of love that is the important part and not really the words themselves. Like entering a password. Whether or not Baizhu truly does or doesn't care about her is up for interpretation, though the character story is an example of Baizhu failing to meet Qiqi's emotional needs, not from any lack of trying however (yay dysfonctional family dynamics).

There isn't a canonical explanation for why Baizhu is like that, I think. Any further reading into Baizhu's character from here on out is mostly headcanon and probably not intended by the writers. It's kinda funny how much of the more convoluted aspects of Baizhu and Qiqi's dynamics could be rationalized by his backstory though. Like, he's an orphan, for one. It isn't clear how young he was when his parents died, and he was taken in as an apprentice pretty soon after. But like, how would that affect how he approaches familial relationships? He would've been taken in by his master in a similar way to how Qiqi was taken in by him, except Baizhu has sworn of any apprentices with the whole "this contract will end with me" thing. Does he still try to apply the dynamic he and his master had with Qiqi? If his parents died early enough then he wouldn't have a functional frame of reference for what fatherhood should look like, it's possible his own master was a father figure to him, but how would he know that? How would he tell if his master was acting as a father or just as a mentor? Circling back to having sworn off taking on apprentices, Baizhu was definitely not planning on raising a child at all ever. How many mixed feelings would he have about having a child shoved into his care? Does he feel like he's bound to her by duty and research? He is already used to the role of caretaker, being a literal doctor and all. Wouldn't it be fucked up if he feels guilty about being unable to express genuine affection when Qiqi needs it but still flounder at figuring out a way to do so truthfully considering he himself has not spoken to his own parents since before the plague killed them and his master most probably wouldn't have outwardly expressed familial love like that? When prompted on random for Baizhu to make a declaration as weighty as "I love you" wouldn't it be sad if the only way for him to say it out loud is to detach the words of any meaning? Is it possible he tries to make it up to Qiqi by absolutely spoiling her whenever he can because he hopes Qiqi will understand that he cares for her through his actions rather than words?

[literaryvein-reblogs]

Writing Notes: Empathy

Empathy - understanding a person from their frame of reference rather than one’s own, or vicariously experiencing that person’s feelings, perceptions, and thoughts. Empathy does not, of itself, entail motivation to be of assistance, although it may turn into sympathy or personal distress, which may result in action.

The term ‘empathy’ comes from the German word Einfuhlung, which means “projecting into” (Ganczarek, Hünefeldt, & Belardinelli, 2018) and may explain why empathy is considered the ability to place yourself in someone else’s shoes.

Part of the difficulty defining empathy is that it comprises multiple components.

For example, Hoffman (1987) argued that empathy in children develops across 4 different stages and that each stage lays down the foundation for the next:

Global empathy or ‘emotion contagion,’ where one person’s emotion evokes the same emotional reaction in another person (or the observer).

Attention to others’ feelings, where the observer is aware of another person’s feelings but doesn’t mirror them.

Prosocial actions, where the observer is aware of another person’s feelings and behaves in a way to comfort the other person.

Empathy for another’s life condition, where the observer feels empathy toward someone else’s broader life situation, rather than their immediate situation right at this instance.

Fletcher-Watson and Bird (2020) provide an excellent overview of the challenges associated with defining and studying empathy. They argue that empathy results from a 4-step process:

Step 1: Noticing/observing someone’s emotional state

Step 2: Correctly interpreting that emotional state

Step 3: ‘Feeling’ the same emotion

Step 4: Responding to the emotion

Empathy is not achieved if any of these 4 steps fail.

This multi-component conception of empathy is echoed across other research. For example, Decety and Cowell (2014) also posit that empathy arises from multiple processes interacting with each other. These processes are:

Emotional: The ability to share someone else’s feelings

Motivational: The need to respond to someone else’s feelings

Cognitive: The ability to take someone else’s viewpoint

Empathy vs. Sympathy & Compassion

The 3 terms are often confused with each other, because they are often used when referring to someone else’s feelings. For example, in response to a friend’s bad news, do you feel empathy, sympathy, or compassion? The terms are used in similar contexts, but they refer to different behaviors.

From the definitions provided above, empathy involves interpreting, understanding, feeling, and acting on other people’s feelings. Empathy is a multidimensional process and relies on affective, cognitive, behavioral, and moral components (Jeffrey, 2016). Remember, empathy is the ability to adopt someone else’s viewpoint or to put yourself into someone else’s shoes.

Sympathy is the feeling of pity for someone else’s misfortune or circumstances.

Compassion is the desire and act of wanting to alleviate someone else’s suffering. Compassion includes the affective components of empathy and sympathy, but it is accompanied by an action to change the circumstances of the person who is suffering (Sinclair et al., 2017). A compassionate act can also result in our suffering alongside the other person; this is referred to as co-suffering. Compassion is also linked to altruistic behavior (Jeffrey, 2016).

Sources: 1 2 ⚜ More: Notes & References ⚜ Writing Resources PDFs

[canichangemyblogname]

What in the cognitive-fucking-dissonance??? THEE woman who started the edgy “gay panic killing of a fictional gay man” joke movement is SHOCKED that she attracts and is attracted to homophobes?

You literally joked that if you were Tommy’s boyfriend (Buck), you’d shoot and kill the man for flirting with you. That is a hate crime. That is literally THEE definition of “gay panic.” You’re not the fantastical “wizard spells” blog; you’re the I use “it’s just a joke, bro”-as-a-shield blog.

Y’all literally have anons “keep tabs” on 911 fans who support ABC’s recent decision to add more queer representation into the show, sending y’all asks about what those fans are saying about the show and their favorite characters. And you’re SHOCKED to attract the same obsessive behavior? You’re SHOCKED that you attract toxicity? You’re SHOCKED that you attract other blogs that joke about homophobic violence?

Wizard spells, right? Oh, shit. Actually, it’s a joke about gay panic killing. But it’s still just a joke, right?

Wizard spells, right?

Actually— capital punishment. For the crime of *checks notes* going on a date with a man and cutting the date short. Didn’t know that death must be the legal consequence for not continuing a bad date.

Still just a joke, right?

Oh, look— I finally found the “Wizard spells,” among *checks notes* fantasizing about black and brown people murdering a white man, more guns, and… torture. Weird fantasies, man.

But still just a joke, right?

Wizard spells, right?

Well, I found “curses” and “voodoo” on this next list. Right alongside joking about death by firearm (again), death by execution/capital punishment (again), and—would you look at that—joking about death by AIDS. Joking about a gay character… dying of AIDS. Original.

How is THIS ^^^ is a step too far for y’all when it’s literally the EXACT same joke? This blog’s violent fantasies and this blog calling Tommy a predator is a step too far, but when you did the same, it wasn’t? Where do you think “edgy” jokes lead? Why do you think so many other blogs on here kept telling you that an “edgy joke” isn’t ever actually an “edgy joke”?

This is the culture you have created. You attract these personalities because you encourage their beliefs and behavior. But rather than own up to that and look critically at how your supposed “jokes” have created a toxic and hostile and truly obsessive and frightening culture, you’d rather ONCE AGAIN all call this a “ship war.”

There is no ship war. Shut up about the ship war.

There *are* fans who are posting genuinely homophobic and frightening things because they cannot stand that 911 has added another queer couple to the show, and then there are fans who support 911 ABC’s move to expand representation. There *are* fans obsessed with fan fiction fantasies, and then there are fans who simply support canon, on-screen queer representation.

This is so VERY obviously not a ship war. This isn’t “BoBs” vs “Bummys.” This is people who are unable to come to terms with the fact they’ve sold themselves a lie: shipping doesn’t do a damn bit of difference for representation and your obsession isn’t coming true— making it genuinely unsafe to be queer in online 911 spaces.

There is no ship war. “Engaging critically with the internet” means recognizing a pattern of behavior. There is no ship war, but there is a subset of the fandom who refuses to take accountability for what they have encouraged. *You* are the only ones excusing homophobia as “rage bait” and “edgy jokes,” and that’s ultimately the issue. The character is kinda irrelevant when the issue is how you and your followers have so frequently relied on real-world homophobic stereotypes to justify your hate and OOC characterization of a queer character.

911 fans who support the addition of another queer couple and who support Buck’s bi arc have been receiving harassment for months, with other blogs calling them predators, groomers, pedophiles, the n-word, the f-slur, several slurs for women and lesbians, being told to kill themselves, among other things. And you’ve been called—what?—homophobic, racist, sexist?

I know that buddie-stans have also been called out for calling black women “sassy,” for using the mammy trope in your writing, for hypersexualizing Eddie, for harassing the actresses who played previous LIs with misogynistic hate, for writing character-bashing that relies on misogyny, and for NEVER calling this out. Now we can add “vile homophobia” and “frightening violence” to the list.

It’s everyone else’s fault but your own, and yet y’all are the only ones attracting these blogs.

[technofeudalism]

lmao American liberals are the most transparent people on earth.

Joe Biden gets diagnosed with ass cancer

Leftists rightfully don't shed a tear, play world's smallest violin

Liberals lose their entire fucking minds about civility and the radical left

Gerry Connolly straight up drops dead from throat cancer the same week

Liberals couldn't give a single solitary fuck less and are saying identical things about him that people did about Joe Biden

now, why is this the case, you ask? it's pretty simple. liberals supported Joe Biden and Kamala Harris up until the very end. they insist to this day that he was the right pick and subsequently, so was Kamala Harris after he dropped out, even though the Biden White House itself didn't even believe that according to Jake Fapper's (not a typo) new book.

on the other hand, because committed ideological American liberals have no real principles and only operate off of vibes, they also love AOC and resent that she got locked out of a leadership role in the House.

therefore, the only option in this scenario is to paint themselves as on the "right side of history" in both instances, despite the fact that the two positions ("Joe Biden was a good man who did good things and a good president" vs. "Joe Biden, Nancy Pelosi and the rest of the historical DNC leadership including Barack Obama are directly responsible for the lack of a progressive wing in the party and have directly delivered us Donald Trump") are completely contradictory feelings to have. it's incomprehensible.

so if these particular ride-or-die libs clutch pearls over Gerry Connolly, they might risk coming off not as "left," which they depend upon to portray themselves to young people as actually in support of some kind of progressive/left-wing movement. in order to stay within the acceptable norms of the current societal moment, they furrow their brow over people like AOC getting blackballed while they're actually advocating against people like her and any kind of bold change or progressive reforms by supporting Joe Biden and the Democratic party's center of the road, corporatist obstructionism ("What?! So Trump is better?! You're doing purity testing infighting! Not every candidate can be perfect!")

but if they don't clutch pearls over Joe Biden (not even dead by the way), then they risk making a tacit admission that they were advocating for a genocidal freak all the way up until July despite knowing the nature of his character and then subsequently also making excuses and refusing to meaningfully pressure his handpicked genocide partner-in-crime until November and beyond.

conservatives are brutally honest about their world view because they are too angry, resentful and hateful to hold it in. liberals on the other hand will blast you with cognitive dissonance and completely detach themselves from any kind of material reality if it means that they can feel like they've done the "most right" without "causing too much of a disturbance." it's chicken shit cowardly behavior.

[monstersinthecosmos]

yknow we talk a lot about like, calling fandom fascism & censorship out for what it is, instead of couching it in words like anti/proship that make it sound sillier and less abusive than it actually is, and I think we also should confront the way social media preys on anger responses for engagement and how participating in toxic fandom behavior feeds right into that.

it's not rebellious to lead fandom dogpiles and drown yourself in the mire of drama, it's playing exactly into the outrage algorithm and participating directly into capitalism in a way that is so deeply unethical, not to mention so self-harming. This isn't a situation of no ethical consumption under capitalism -- this is not shopping for groceries at Walmart because it's all you can afford or using a cable provider that endorsed MAGA because it's the only one available your area -- this is something so very easy to boycott and to refuse to participate in.

i was just peeking at some fandom drama on twitter because I am susceptible to watching the circus act just like everyone else lmao, and it genuinely astounds me the way the most abusive and petty people come online and try to cosplay as leftists who are somehow doing all of this for a righteous cause. It's just so deeply cognitively dissonant. (put a pin in this and remember everything we've learned about accountability vs shame and how often people use shame to make themselves feel better when it's entirely unproductive to the issue they claim to care about yatta yatta.)

anyway that's my thought this afternoon--framing fandom drama into more real world contexts always sounds a little bit silly, but I think if you're a person with hobbies who uses the internet as a social space, we have to stop treating it like it's silly and can't harm you, can't influence you, can't hurt your feelings. i'm sure we all have close relationships and countless GOOD things we've gained from fandoming and it's ridiculous to propose that you can't also cause harm in equal measure, and we can't spend every day reading fic, talking to other fans and making friends, hanging out in discord, and then pretend it's not an important space for you.

stop letting capitalism ruin everything. fandom is inherently anarchistic and there's nothing more anarchistic than continuing to be kind to each other when they don't want you to be!

[criticalcrusherbot]

We've got a lot we could say about this, but we decided to address how these folks LOVE to come after the fans.

Shallow Criticism of the Fandom:

The statement about “cognitive dissonance” in Stolitz shippers is often used as a dismissive way of accusing fans of hypocrisy. However, this argument oversimplifies the complexities of fan engagement, especially in shows that feature morally ambiguous characters like Stolas. To assume that fans who support the Stolitz ship automatically ignore the character’s flaws is reductive. Fandoms are, at their core, about interpretation and engagement with narrative themes and character development. It’s not about denying the flaws of a character, but rather appreciating the story of their struggle, growth, and redemption.

In the case of Stolas, the character is depicted as deeply flawed. He has made mistakes—cheating on Stella, neglecting Octavia emotionally, and living in a world of privilege that he largely takes for granted. However, the show doesn’t hide these flaws, and many fans are drawn to Stolas precisely because of his imperfections. He’s not presented as a flawless hero or a straightforward villain. Instead, his arc is a slow exploration of self-awareness, accountability, and the search for meaning beyond superficial desires. Fans don’t “ignore” these flaws; they embrace them as part of his journey, understanding that flawed characters can still be lovable and worthy of growth.

Moreover, Helluva Boss is not about offering idealized or flawless characters—it’s about showcasing a variety of personalities and exploring the tension between people’s desires, their actions, and their consequences. Fans who enjoy the Stolitz ship often see it not as a glorification of privilege or toxic behavior, but as part of a broader narrative about flawed individuals working through their complicated feelings. For many, the emotional complexity and messiness of Stolas’s character make him more relatable, not less.

The assumption that fans of the ship must be overlooking the political context of Stolas's wealth also misses the mark. Yes, Stolas is an aristocratic figure in a world where wealth and power are deeply ingrained into the structure of society, but fans of Stolitz are generally more interested in the emotional dynamics between the characters than the surface-level politics of Stolas’s wealth. Helluva Boss is, after all, a show that combines humor, dark themes, and emotional storytelling. While the political context of wealth is present, it’s not always the primary focus of the narrative for viewers engaging with the relationships and character development.

Fandom Engagement and Narrative vs. Political Ideology

The argument that “eat the rich” shippers supporting Stolas is hypocritical also fails to recognize that fandoms rarely engage with shows through a purely political lens. Fans often connect with characters based on emotional resonance, personality, and their growth arcs, rather than idealizing them as representations of political ideologies. In shows like Helluva Boss, which blends humor, horror, and emotional drama, characters like Stolas are appealing because of their multi-faceted nature—they’re not just symbols of wealth, but characters who are dealing with internal conflicts and external struggles.

This approach is fairly common in fandoms. For example, many people who enjoy characters like Walter White in Breaking Bad aren’t doing so because they endorse his choices but because they’re captivated by his transformation and the moral questions his character raises. Similarly, Stolas’s flaws and his journey resonate with fans who appreciate how the show highlights the complexity of power, privilege, and personal growth. Stolas’s arc is an exploration of his own mistakes and his attempt at redemption, which makes his character relatable and emotionally compelling—even if, on the surface, he comes from a position of wealth.

Furthermore, it’s essential to recognize that many fans of Helluva Boss are aware of the complexities of privilege and wealth in the context of the show’s world. They’re not supporting Stolas because they condone his position in the societal hierarchy, but because they’re invested in his emotional journey. Fandoms often separate character analysis from political ideologies, enjoying the stories for their emotional resonance rather than fitting them into a rigid political box. To assume that a fan of Stolitz supports wealth or classism because they like the ship overlooks this nuanced engagement with the story.

The Appeal of Stolas’s Privilege Journey

One of the main appeals for “eat the rich” fans is watching Stolas slowly come to terms with his own privilege, but without the show forcing him into a preachy “woke” narrative. Stolas is not going to suddenly read a bunch of books on imp oppression overnight—he may get there eventually, but for now, he’s grappling with his privilege in a real and messy way. It’s not about him being lectured by another character, but about him experiencing firsthand how his position in society has shielded him from the struggles that others face.

This dynamic is engaging because it presents an opportunity for organic growth and learning, rather than a sermon about morality. Fans who appreciate Stolas’s arc aren’t looking for a perfect, all-knowing character—they’re looking for a character who is, in his own flawed way, trying to come to terms with his actions and the consequences of his privilege. It’s a relatable struggle, one that feels grounded and human, despite the fantastical setting. Watching Stolas go through this process without being immediately “woke” or sanctimonious is what makes his character interesting. It’s not about perfect morality—it’s about growth, learning, and grappling with uncomfortable truths.

Fandoms and the Appeal of Complex Characters

At the end of the day, the appeal of a character like Stolas in the Stolitz ship isn’t rooted in a rejection of social justice issues or an endorsement of wealth but in the complexity of his character and the way he evolves throughout the series. The fandom’s support for Stolas and his relationships is about understanding that people—both fictional and real—are multifaceted, and that redemption, emotional connection, and personal growth are possible even for deeply flawed individuals. By focusing on the emotional stakes of the character dynamics rather than superficial political concerns, fans are able to engage with the show on a deeper level, appreciating the storytelling and the characters for their emotional depth, not their ideological purity.

In short, the idea that Stolitz shippers are hypocritical or blind to the show's deeper themes is an oversimplified view of fandom culture. Fans can be critical of characters, recognize their flaws, and still appreciate them for the emotional complexity they bring to the story. And, like many fandoms, the support for a ship or character is often about the connection to the narrative and the characters’ development, not an endorsement of every action or belief they hold. This is a core aspect of how fans engage with shows and characters that are morally complex.