#faulty cognitions

[cityofchapin]

New Year Old Me

I made a promise to myself that I would write more. At least try to write more. I had planned on spending winter break doing as much. I had also planned on cleaning. Neither of these things happened. 4 January 2025 and I’m sitting on my couch listening to “Somehow, Here We Are” by Faulty Cognitions, a newly acquired cassette tape. Instead, I spent the break watching movies and The O.C. (as well…

[bandcampsnoop]

10/1/23.

October is starting with a bang. Faulty Cognitions (San Antonio, Texas) are fronted by Chris Mason, the man behind Dirt Cult Records. This is old-fashioned, meat and potatoes, fist-pumping rock. Listen to "Las Cruces" - it immediately reminded me of the energy of bands like Soul Asylum, Titus Andronicus, Hüsker Dü and The Replacements.

This "demo" is being released by Dead Broke Rekerds (West Islip, New York).

[le-souriant]

Listen to it and much more on the #MusicMonday playlist.

@osornios

[thoughtswordsaction]

Faulty Cognitions Reelased New Single From The Upcoming LP

Photo courtesy of the band. Faulty Cognitions recently announced their debut album, Somehow, Here We Are (out April 12th on Cercle Social), and now they are back with a new single from the upcoming LP Introductions don’t get much more grand than this. Faulty Cognitions are a brand new quartet from San Antonio, TX, and they announce their arrival with a chiming, subtly melancholic guitar line –…

[deadbrokerek]

FAULTY COGNITIONS- “Demo” TAPE OUT NOW!! 💥🧠 San Antonio, Texas cooked socially conscious low-fi garage pop-punk excellence from Chris Mason (Dirt Cult Records, Shang-a-lang, Low Culture) & friends. Naturally, one of our favorite demos to drop this year. And it should be yours too. Limited to 30 short-run Transparent Cassette Tapes. Order now @ deadbrokedistro.com

[tyrannuspitch]

maybe it's weird, but through some combination of aging + styling + acting + my own poor facial recognition, loki show loki literally doesn't register as the same person to my eyes as 2011-2013 loki. like i can still think of him as loki in broad terms, like how comics loki is also loki, and it's clearly still the same actor, but still... i look at 2010s loki, even in deleted scenes and stills i've never seen before, and i go "hi loki :)". i look at current loki and i feel nothing.

[literaryvein-reblogs]

When your Character Jumps to Conclusions

Jumping to Conclusions - (JTC or inference-observation confusion) is a psychological phenomenon in which a person comes to an unwarranted decision—usually a negative assumption—without all of the information.

Ways of Jumping to Conclusions

Researchers identify 3 different types of jumping to conclusions:

Fortune telling: In this form of jumping to conclusions, you believe you know how a situation will resolve without enough information.

Labeling: When you label, you use preconceptions, fallacies, or overgeneralizations to make assumptions about a person or situation rather than relying on existing evidence.

Mind reading: This form of jumping to conclusions involves believing you understand how someone is thinking without supporting evidence.

Examples of Jumping to Conclusions at Work

There are many ways you may find yourself jumping to negative conclusions while decision-making in the workplace, including:

Being quick to judge someone’s performance: If someone turns in a project late or performs unsatisfactorily in a meeting, you may indulge in negative thoughts about their performance or commitment. However, without further investigating and talking to them and their coworkers, you’re relying on a snap judgment rather than an informed opinion. There are many other reasons they may be struggling with deadlines, such as family trouble or miscommunication about work expectations.

Making assumptions about a potential hire: In the hiring process, jumping to conclusions can create unfair advantages and disadvantages for applicants. A hiring manager may accidentally rely on preconceived notions about potential hires or the general population instead of focusing on the application materials and interview.

Using shortcuts to summarize a target demographic: When companies identify their target markets or analyze market research, they may jump to the wrong conclusion about the needs and desires of particular demographics and build their foundation on a faulty assumption. For example, you may assume all young people want more social media platforms.

How to Stop Jumping to Conclusions at Work

Here’s how to avoid jumping to conclusions in the workplace:

Identify your sources of information. To stop jumping to conclusions, you first need to identify where you’re getting your information. The aim is to gather information from various reliable sources; if you rely on your own experience or cognitive biases, you’re at risk of extrapolation from limited, subjective sources.

Gather all the facts. Identify all the possible sources of information, and work to consult each one. For example, if you’re concerned about the performance of a particular employee, consider consulting their coworkers, their boss, and the employee themselves before you make any assumptions about why they’re struggling.

Consult trusted coworkers or resources. In addition to gathering information on your own, consult trusted mentors or guides to ensure you’re accessing all crucial sources of information. In the case of a big business proposal or wide-reaching decision, present your findings for review before moving forward.

Many people jump to conclusions in their thinking patterns because they fail to realize they’re missing all the facts, or they have overconfidence in their analytical abilities.

Jumping to conclusions can also result from preconceived notions, prejudices, or unconscious bias rather than real-time information.

Jumping to conclusions can have significant negative consequences in every area of your life, including in the workplace.

Source ⚜ More: Notes & References ⚜ Writing Resources PDFs

[just-antithings]

I need many people to realize a strong contribution to the purity discourse in media we see among young people is due to radfems & gender criticals poisoning the water supply on sites like this one (tumblr) or other social media since 2014

Seeing teens and young 20-somethings using "porn addicted", "porn-brained", "degenerate", all unironically, those are words you find in alt-right & anti-LGBTQ+ message boards.

It wasn't JUST GCs alone, but many people have been around to see them influence a generation of kids with arguments you see today like

“X in fiction causes abuse"

“x is fetishization"

"Unless you've personally gone through trauma you shouldn't write about it"

“If you HAVE gone through trauma, you can't sexually explore it"

"If you like abuse in fiction you're an abuser in real life”

Hearing kids call random (usually queer!) shippers in fandom "groomers" and "pedophiles" for ships that have been established in fandom for decades, or because of a "power imbalance" between adult characters isn't a coincidence. Hmm, I wonder what other groups use those words?

It's not solely kids alone, it is a combination of:

Online radicalization and disinformation

No spaces for kids

No internet safety/literacy

Steeping censorship in activist language,

lack of education (If you don't know red flags you can't avoid them)

COVID did NOT help

This is why ignoring it will never help, because while thankfully some people grow out of it, it usually happens to people who had some support system or breakthrough in cognitive dissonance. There are plenty of people who are becoming adults and who keep infantilizing themselves

“My brain isn't done until I'm 25, you're all predators" and they're talking to a 30 y/o

That argument is literally being used by UK government officials to block access to gender-affirming healthcare. Infantilizing adults only serves the purpose of stripping agency and rights

They're not being safe. They're not gaining skills. They're participating in a fear-fueled climate of faulty medical misinformation, keeping themselves in a perpetual childish-victim state no matter how old they get and nothing about this is healthy

How do you think a person goes through this world when they've been wholly convinced that you can tell someone is safe because they like "safe" or “wholesome" things, & people who make them uncomfortable via hobbies or interests (not IRL actions) are probably actual criminals?

[call-me-insane-but-wth]

Something that I've come to realize from interacting with the mzds Fandom and the #canon jiang cheng tag is that a lot of avid jc defenders and apologists don't even like Mdzs. Even, no, especially BECAUSE the story is straightforward and told plainly with not much room for interpretation.

The mmc was brought back to life and faced evidence of slander and appropriation of his work and name. Shrugs it off as 'history being told by the victors'. Discovers the real reason behind his death. Falls in love with an old colleague.

That's it. That's the bare bones of mdzs.

Wherefore do all of these think pieces come from? That sides with the *antagonists* of the story? The very same ppl who slandered and appropriated the mmc's name and work?

There's a lot of condenscion and pretentiousness being tossed about, couched in variations of "*I* know how to be objective and separate fiction from reality!1!!" But do you, though?

Because the reality is that the fiction you've consumed is not only telling, but SHOWING you who/which characters were in the wrong and how. Although you may not like the main character, mdzs IS 3rd person omniscient. The bias that jc stans are so bitter and venomous about is simply... Canonical unbiased 3rd person omniscient exposition.

In the final analysis, doesn't this/that mean that to you, the *author's* morality and her narrative no longer hold any value? After all, the author herself was the one to say that her mmc was morally good and righteous. So if you're calling the authors cognition of right and wrong into question, what on earth did you like about this work in the first place?

Don't like, don't read is an age old tenet of Fandom for a reason.

I had the pleasure of conversing with someone who considers that the consensual dubcon play between two consenting adults (lwj and wwx, incense chapter) to justify coercing the mmc into bowing his knees in reconciliation with his former shidi and wanna be patron (😅). Bc that was a moral failing worth punishment, I suppose.

Another post I saw that had me going ??? Was a post in which the op admitted to their own bias, but in summary, considered Wwx to be faulty simply because his 'idealism' was unrealistic and un-pragmatic, and hadn't amounted to a quantifiable sum.

Hey, forget the dissonance of admitting that the obvious plot of classism, scapegoating, disenfranchisment, and exploitation being lost on you, but to scorn a failed attempt at living up to ones principles... Isn't that also another way of allying oneself with the antagonists?

After all, scorning the 'short sightedness of rebellious peasants/immature youth' is straight out of a sneering gentry's playbook/lexicon.

So the onus isn't being put on the arbitrary and unjust laws of the setting of the world, but on the characters who dared to hope, to resist, but fail?

The narrative committed the horrible crime of being idealistic, so let's put on a sash with printed blocky letters of 'I'm being objective and realistic!' And critique a mc for daring to resist, fail, and not have the temerity to stay dead in a setting that has ghosts, supernatural animals, reincarnation, flying swords, and spells?

I feel like wwx would've been better received by this Western audience if he wasn't so... complex. I hate to say it, but I'd bet my last dollar that much of the disdain and dislike towards Wwx as a protagonist is that he (mdzs) challenges ppl's latent sexism. Ironically, from the canon jc tags, jc stans are the ones to attribute feminizing factors to Jc in an effort to leverage their defense.

[utopians]

I don't want to be that guy but that's not pseudoscience? The prefrontal cortex isn't fully developed until around the mid to late twenties bc the synaptic connections between neurons in that part of the brain are the last to develop. Source: https:// doi.org /10.1038/ s41386-021-01137-9

I think there might be a miscommunication happening here -- the pseudoscience isn't the assertion that synaptic development continues into adulthood, it's the assertion that synaptic development defines adulthood.

I have now read this whole article and the only assertion that it makes that's relevant to this discussion is that synaptic development continues "into the 3rd decade of life". this doesn't -- at least in my opinion -- give any meaningful credence to the idea that the brain isn't fully 'mature' until this point, bc this idea relies on the assumption that 'maturity' is a static biochemical state that the brain organically reaches and not a complex interplay of life experience, societal conceptions of 'maturity' and 'adulthood', and individual variations in development/cognition in addition to the broader process of brain development. additionally, 'brain development' is far more complicated than just the synapses of the prefrontal cortex finishing development, and is a process that continues throughout one's life.

CONTINUED below the cut bc I don't want to annihilate everyone's dash with this but I have a lot more to say

continuing the previous thought: if we're measuring maturity strictly by brain development, then things get extremely dicey, because the brain continues changing beyond your twenties and throughout adulthood! consider this study, which finds that the age of peak performance for different cognitive abilities varies widely, with some peaking around 20 and others closer to 50. the brain doesn't reach a state of 'maturity' in its cognitive functions at age 25 that it then maintains consistently through adulthood, it's far more complicated than that.

essentially, while synapses in the prefrontal cortex keep developing into your 20s (curious as to where you got 'mid to late twenties' from as well; the study only references 'the third decade of life', which could mean anything from 20 to 30), the idea that this development means anything particularly concrete about maturity or adulthood is based on (imo) a faulty and oversimplified understanding of both the brain and what 'maturity' actually means in the context of society. if your conception of 'maturity' asserts that adulthood begins in the late twenties, this conception may be due for a serious reevaluation.

and the reason I'm concerned about all this isn't because I'm a pedant -- it's because this matters in our current political climate. conservative politicians in the UK are currently trying to raise the legal age at which one can transition to 25 based on exactly this faulty conception of maturity, which argues that trans people can't make 'adult' decisions about their own bodies until this point. this is wildly infantilizing and patronizing, and I imagine I don't have to explain why it's a problem, but to elaborate: adulthood and maturity aren't apolitical concepts, and the assertion that adults don't have the right to bodily autonomy because they have been deemed medically incompetent by a truly arbitrary metric is an act of political violence.

I highly recommend this slate article: it goes into this topic in a lot more depth than I do, and features commentary from a lot of neuroscientists who know a lot more about this than me.

[bluukive]

question, as someone who isn't hypersexual:

is there any way to like... "cure" it? I don't think it's the appropriate term though. "deal with it"? like getting to a point where it isn't so debilitating?

I hope it's clear what I'm asking and that I don't mean to be rude I'm just curious 🙏

I get what ur trying to say ! I guess it's different for every person. Some people might be like this due to a constant influx of hormones e.g. dopamine, serotonin, without actually having any past trauma. Whereas in my case, it's a result of being exposed to sex wayy too early and my shitty ex. So the root cause of the issue needs to be addressed in different ways.

My best guess is cognitive behavioural therapy, which helps change 'faulty' ways of thinking or take certain SSRIS aka antidepressants which reduce sex drive. Unfortunately for me, I don't have access to these and I don't have the dedication to condition myself into making sex and self pleasure a bad thing so that i stop constantly thinking about it or whatever else I do rip 😼

[lemontasiafanfiction]

Iron Will Chapter 1

The lab smelled like antiseptic and burnt circuits. The hum of machines filled the silence, steady and monotonous, only occasionally interrupted by the clinking of glass or the soft scratch of a stylus against a tablet. The overhead lights were bright but clinical, casting a cold glow over stainless steel countertops and half-assembled tech. The room was designed for precision, for science. For control. And yet, Bruce Banner had never felt like he had less of it.

Across the lab, Peter Parker sat on the edge of a metal examination table, bare feet dangling just above the floor. He was still, eerily so, shoulders hunched, head slightly tilted forward as if waiting. Watching. His dark curls were longer now, unkempt, the once-boyish fluff now tangled and heavy. His skin was pale, unnaturally so, a sickly contrast to the deep bruises that lingered along his wrists where restraints had once been. They hadn’t needed those in weeks, but Tony hadn’t removed the cuffs from the lab. Just in case.

Tony stood a few feet away, arms crossed, weight shifted onto one foot, his usual air of casual arrogance more forced than usual. “You know, Pete, if I had a nickel for every time I had to drag some half-dead, traumatized superhero back from the edge, I could fund NASA. Again.”

Nothing.

Peter’s gaze didn’t flicker. Didn’t react. His lips remained parted just slightly, as if mid-breath, as if caught between functions. The way he held himself—rigid, but not tense—reminded Bruce of an animal that had spent too long in a cage. Conditioned, watching, waiting for a command.

Tony sighed, rolling his eyes. “C’mon, kid. Give me something. An eye-roll? A sarcastic quip? Maybe a dramatic, soul-crushing monologue about your suffering? I’ve seen you in action. I know you’re dramatic.”

Peter blinked. Slowly. Mechanically. It was like watching a faulty animatronic, movement just a little too deliberate, a little too off. Bruce adjusted his glasses and made another note on his tablet, trying to ignore the way the data flashing across the screen made his stomach twist. Still no autonomic response to external stimuli. Still no sign of cognitive reformation. Still—

Still no Peter.

“Maybe if you stopped talking,” Bruce murmured, rubbing at his temple, “you wouldn’t remind him why he doesn’t want to interact with you.”

Tony scoffed. “Oh, so I’m the problem? Not the months of psychological torture? Not the Hydra brainwashing? No, no, clearly it’s me. My bad.”

Bruce barely glanced up. “You don’t help.”

A snort. “I always help.”

Iron Will - Chapter 1 - Lemontasia - Spider-Man - All Media Types [Archive of Our Own]

[sugar-and-pearls]

PLATONIC FOS PERSONALITY TYPES AND HOW THEY INTERACT WITH MINE

INFP X INTP

INTPs and INFPs have a shared love of freedom, exploration, and autonomy. INTPs prefer thinking over feeling so they may come across as overly blunt to INFPs, and INFPs may come across as overly-sensitive to INTPs. However, once they get to understand each other there’s usually a very strong bond and mutual appreciation. Both respect each other’s space to feel and think what they want and both have a creative energy that is inspiring to the other.

INFP X ESFP

These two types tend to click because they have a shared passion for authenticity and adventure. ESFPs can help break INFPs out of their shell and introduce them to a variety of exciting experiences. Their enthusiasm and fun-loving nature is often endearing to INFPs. In turn, INFPs can help ESFPs to tap into their emotions more fully and experience life with more depth and imagination. These types tend to bounce ideas and possibilities off each other well, with the ESFP wanting to immediately take action on ideas and the INFP going along for the ride and frequently enjoying the thrill!

INFP X ISTP

These types are very different in many ways, but they tend to click once they get a chance to understand each other. Both ISTPs and INFPs are extremely independent types; they don’t like to be pushed around by other people’s agendas or rules. They both have a fairly live-and-let-live perspective, unless (for INFPs) their values are violated in some way or (for ISTPs) they see someone impeding on their space or harming others with faulty logic. ISTPs can bring a little adventure and practicality into the INFP life and INFPs can bring some imagination and emotional affirmation to the ISTP. These types can clash because they literally share none of the same cognitive functions and they also have preferences in the opposite order (ISTPs are thinkers first/feelers last, INFPs are feelers first/thinkers last). But if these two types can take time to understand each other, their friendship or relationship can be a catalyst for a great deal of personal growth.

INFP X ISFP

ISFPs and INFPs tend to have a really strong and powerful connection almost immediately. They both are dominant introverted feeling types, so they naturally give each other space to be themselves. They are both idealistic and visionary, with ISFPs having a more down-to-earth, pragmatic bent while INFPs are more focused on imagination and conceptualization. Together they can broaden each other’s worlds and help each other to have more open-minded, balanced perspectives.

INFP X ENFP

ENFPs and INFPs tend to have really close, trusting bonds. Because these types share the same cognitive functions, they tend to innately “get” each other without as much trouble as many other type pairings. INFPs enjoy the fun-loving, enthusiastic nature of ENFPs. Adventurous ENFPs can help them get out of their heads and build up the courage to try new, spontaneous pursuits. ENFPs in turn appreciate the depth and gentleness of the INFP personality type.

INFP X INFJ

INFJs and INFPs share a mutual love of meaningful, deep conversation. These types tend to thrive as friends when they give each other space to be their authentic selves. While they share none of the same cognitive functions, because they share three preferences (Introversion, Intuition, Feeling) they tend to respect each other’s individual needs, empathize readily, and connect over ideas and possibilities.

INFP X ESTP

Opposites in many respects, ESTPs and INFPs can definitely help each other grow, but they will also push each other beyond their natural comfort-zones. This isn’t typically a “comfortable” relationship, but it can evolve into that if both types share mutual respect and have common values. ESTPs can help INFPs to experience the tangible world in a vivid and immersive way. INFPs can help ESTPs to understand a deeper more emotionally authentic side of themselves.

INFP X ENTJ

ENTJs and INFPs are very different at first glance, but these two types can really help each other grow. INFPs are often inspired by the big-picture, strategic, action-oriented nature of the ENTJ. ENTJs in turn find the warmth, authenticity, and imagination of the INFP intriguing. They can both help each other in contrasting ways. ENTJs can help INFPs bring their ideas to life and tap into their thinking side. They can also help them refine their ideas and create strategies for their realization. INFPs, in turn, can help ENTJs delve into their deeper feelings and values. They can also help them to see innovative alternatives and possibilities so they don’t get stuck in tunnel vision.

[brandwhorestarscream]

For your G1 ask thing, Springer & Mirage!

Subject 1188 - Codename: Springer

12-31-1987

Attending Psychologist: Dr. David Nelson

Today Subject 1188 expressed feelings of fear, anxiety, and depression. He expressed discomfort in his new hands, as well as pain in his knees, abdomen, and neck. He has refused food for three days now. He has not been observed to change his position to pace, stretch, or to urinate in 37 hours and... 12 minutes. All attempts to connect with Subject 1188 with rewards were unsuccessful.

Subject was removed from the Shelf for further processing on 11-18-1987, and has shown no improvement despite our best efforts. I reccomend a daily dose of 10 milligrams each of Supplement 28B and Supplement 41C, as well as 5 milligrams of Stimulant 5A. Subject 1188 does not have a history of violence, I do not foresee this posing a threat to his safety rating.

End report.

...

Subject 1283 - Codename: Mirage

02-17-1988

Attending Physician: Dr. Sabrina Diaz

Subject 1283 is 3 days out of surgery and is performing far below expectations. Cognitive function seems to be all but eradicated: Subject does not respond to questions nor physical, visual, or auditory stimuli. It is of my personal opinion that he does not know where he is or what has happened to him. He shows no signs of recognition when presented with photographs of himself, deceased family members, or previous acquaintances, nor does he react at all to this... "Floppy" he was once so fond of.

Subject is incredibly passive. Ste- he used to fight with all his strength to resist any form of work with needles: it took three grown men to hold him down enough to get into his veins without blowing them out! Now, he doesn't so much as twitch when we take samples.

Looking back over previous reports and photographic evidence of his brain, I think we can declare this one a fluke. He tested above average in pattern recognition and average in his age group for physical ability: he should have been ideal. It's possible he had a weaker mental constitution than previous subjects, or his brain stem's connection to the nervous system is faulty somehow.

I reccomend relocation to the Workshop for fine tuning, and if that is unsuccessful in garnering a response, send him to recycling.

End report.

[thestupidhelmet]

I was just saying if it aired on fox, or any cable network, would it have longer seasons (23 episodes) And is fox different now? I haven't watched regular tv in years.

Fox Entertainment got bought by Disney a few years back.

Shows on network and cable TV haven't been guaranteed a full 23-26 episode season for a long time (streaming changed this, I believe, although cable gave shows shorter seasons before the advent of streaming).

But had T9S been given 25 or 26 eps per season, we would've likely gotten a deeper show. But not necessarily a satisfying one because of the showrunners and head writer / their creative approach to the show.

I think this is a good place to discuss ways I think Jay's character could've been organically written and developed.

In T9S canon, Jay is the product of an emotionally toxic relationship. His father is likely unfaithful to his mother, which is likely the cause of their two divorces. His father has a child, Jay's older sister, with another woman -- either during the first divorce or being the cause of the first divorce. Three years later, Jay is born.

Kelso spent three years with Brooke and Betsy, but when? During Betsy's three years of life? If so, then Jay was conceived out of wedlock, and Jackie's pregnancy with him results in her reconciliation with and remarriage to Kelso (the Fez of it all is essentially irrelevant). Another possibility is he stayed with Brooke and Betsy three years during Jackie and Kelso's divorce, but I think the first option is more likely.

Jay's mother is a Jackie who grew into an adult from her T7S season-4 characterization. That Jackie is jealous, controlling, and also has poor enough self-esteem that she believes Kelso's false equivalency between her one kiss with Todd -- which she was tricked into -- to his months of having sex with at least two other girls and that she owes him a free pass to kiss another girl so that they're even.

This faulty logic Kelso spouts and Jackie accepts directly precedes their engagement in the T9S version of Jackie/Kelso canon.

Jay is raised by a mother who is superficial, vain, controlling, equates giving and receiving material gifts with love, has low self-esteem disguised by arrogance, and is hyper-fixated on her relationship with Kelso. This is a Jackie who was never challenged or inspired to become self-reflective, to change her ideas about how love is given and received, to realize that being controlling harms a relationship, to be self-sacrificing instead of acting entitled. This is a Jackie deprived of her life-changing relationship with Hyde (real!Hyde, not the few OOC eps and the fully OOC S8).

Jay is raised by a father who is a self-entitled, selfish, narcissistic hypocrite who's a sex addict and lacks both self-control and common sense.

The Jay of T9S doesn't reflect who raised him or his tumultuous childhood. His character was created inorganically to fit an idea (i.e. a Kelso clone who finds true love with the show's protagonist).

An organically written Jay would (or could; several possibilities exist) be leery of romantic relationships because of his parents' toxic dynamic and potentially view sex as destructive (as Donna does in T7S but for different reasons).

Jackie probably is an overbearing mom while Kelso is a lax, relatively uninvolved father -- except to show up to his son's sports games, school plays, etc. so that he can take (unearned) credit and feed off his son's successes.

Jay would suffer from anxiety, be overwhelmed by his mother's warnings about infidelity and be unable to reconcile the cognitive dissonance between that messaging and her continuously forgiving his father for being unfaithful.

His parents would both push him to be popular at school but differently. Jackie would push him to make as many social connections as he can. Not friends but people he can potentially use for his own gain later in life. Kelso's own vanity would push Jay to prove the apple doesn't fall far from the tree, in order for Kelso to feel his own sexual attractiveness is validated and reconfirmed by his son's.

Jay would inherit his mother's propensity for enjoying material items because he'll have inherited her gifts equal love mentality. Unfortunately, he's unlikely to be self-aware enough to break out of this belief without help. But if he also inherits Jackie's insightfulness, he'd have the potential to grow and change with the right influences. He also might be more of a giver than a taker because he'd rebel against the selfishness he's experienced from both his parents.

Jay could very well be quite Hyde-like because of his upbringing, protecting his compassionate, vulnerable heart from being hurt the same as his parents hurt it. So he'd be withdrawn emotionally, also as a response to his parents' emotional disregulation. He'd be a loner without that one friend who shows him that his parents' world isn't the only one that exists. Nate might fit the bill, but Nate's also a (benign, more evolved) dude-bro, which Jay would not be.

Or if Jay is born without Jackie's insightfulness but Kelso's total lack of insight, he could grow up to be a narcissistic tyrant. No one would be able to get through to him because his wounding his too great and his emotional awareness is non-existent. He'd often become emotionally disregulated and even delusional like both his parents. This is not the road I'd go down as a writer. While it's a realistic possibility, it's also a very boring one.

[mbti-notes]

ive noticed each time sth tragic occurs to someone i reach out for these cosmic "explanations" (im not religious) like they must have done smth bad that's why smth happened to them but i realize that this is unfair to people and has an effect of blunting empathy to people who are experiencing hardship do you have any ideas why pple think like this i know it's irrational and i want to change this my first thought is maybe it's cognitive biases maybe self defensive Thanks for your

Yes, it is a cognitive bias, commonly called "just-world fallacy". The researcher who coined the term called it "a fundamental delusion". And, yes, one of its negative consequences is loss of empathy.

Why do people suffer this bias? It's complicated. Suffice it to say that it is indeed a defense mechanism: 1) a way to deny difficult realities, and 2) a way to avoid uncomfortable feelings and emotions that arise from witnessing suffering and victimization (such as guilt, shame, anger, disgust, or helplessness).

Reducing the world into simple dichotomies such as "deserving/undeserving" or "perpetrators/victims" grants people a feeling of understanding the world and, thereby, a false sense of control over it. Unfortunately, the fact is that when you oversimplify cause-and-effect, you're more likely to end up with faulty beliefs about the world. And when you oversimplify moral concepts, it makes you incapable of sound moral reasoning. Making bad moral judgments/decisions can lead you to make morally difficult situations even worse.

If you don't want to suffer from this cognitive bias, you must face up to how complicated the world really is. Although it can be a scary and difficult process, you have to: 1) work on your emotional intelligence so that you can process negative feelings properly rather than bury them behind defense mechanisms, and 2) work on your critical thinking skills so that you are better able to unravel complexities and arrive at truth through proper reasoning.