#psychological assessments and evaluations | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

fozmeadows · 2 years

Text

tools not rules: the importance of critical thinking

More than once, I’ve talked about the negative implications of Evangelical/purity culture logic being uncritically replicated in fandom spaces and left-wing discourse, and have also referenced specific examples of logical overlap this produces re, in particular, the policing of sexuality. What I don’t think I’ve done before is explain how this happens: how even a well-intentioned person who’s trying to unlearn the toxic systems they grew up with can end up replicating those systems. Even if you didn’t grow up specifically in an Evangelical/purity context, if your home, school, work and/or other social environments have never encouraged or taught you to think critically, then it’s easy to fall into similar traps - so here, hopefully, is a quick explainer on how that works, and (hopefully) how to avoid it in the future.

Put simply: within Evangelism, purity culture and other strict, hierarchical social contexts, an enormous value is placed on rules, and specifically hard rules. There might be a little wiggle-room in some instances, but overwhelmingly, the rules are fixed: once you get taught that something is bad, you’re expected never to question it. Understanding the rules is secondary to obeying them, and oftentimes, asking for a more thorough explanation - no matter how innocently, even if all you’re trying to do is learn - is framed as challenging those rules, and therefore cast as disobedience. And where obedience is a virtue, disobedience is a sin. If someone breaks the rules, it doesn’t matter why they did it, only that they did. Their explanations or justifications don’t matter, and nor does the context: a rule is a rule, and rulebreakers are Bad.

In this kind of environment, therefore, you absorb three main lessons: one, to obey a rule from the moment you learn it; two, that it’s more important to follow the rules than to understand them; and three, that enforcing the rules means castigating anyone who breaks them. And these lessons go deep: they’re hard to unlearn, especially when you grow up with them through your formative years, because the consequences of breaking them - or even being seen to break them - can be socially catastrophic.

But outside these sorts of strict environments - and, honestly, even within them - that much rigidity isn’t healthy. Life is frequently far more complex and nuanced than hard rules really allow for, particularly when it comes to human psychology and behaviour - and this is where critical thinking comes in. Critical thinking allows us to evaluate the world around us on an ongoing basis: to weigh the merits of different positions; to challenge established rules if we feel they no longer serve us; to decide which new ones to institute in their place; to acknowledge that sometimes, there are no easy answers; to show the working behind our positions, and to assess the logic with which other arguments are presented to us. Critical thinking is how we graduate from a simplistic, black-and-white view of morality to a more nuanced perception of the world - but this is a very hard lesson to learn if, instead of critical thinking, we’re taught instead to put our faith in rules alone.

So: what does it actually look like, when rule-based logic is applied in left-wing spaces? I’ll give you an example:

Sally is new to both social justice and fandom. She grew up in a household that punished her for asking questions, and where she was expected to unquestioningly follow specific hard rules. Now, though, Sally has started to learn a bit more about the world outside her immediate bubble, and is realising not only that the rules she grew up with were toxic, but that she’s absorbed a lot of biases she doesn’t want to have. Sally is keen to improve herself. She wants to be a good person! So Sally joins some internet communities and starts to read up on things. Sally is well-intentioned, but she’s also never learned how to evaluate information before, and she’s certainly never had to consider that two contrasting opinions could be equally valid - how could she have, when she wasn’t allowed to ask questions, and when she was always told there was a singular Right Answer to everything? Her whole framework for learning is to Look For The Rules And Follow Them, and now that she’s learned the old rules were Bad, that means she has to figure out what the Good Rules are.

Sally isn’t aware she’s thinking of it in these terms, but subconsciously, this is how she’s learned to think. So when Sally reads a post explaining how sex work and pornography are inherently misogynistic and demeaning to women, Sally doesn’t consider this as one side of an ongoing argument, but uncritically absorbs this information as a new Rule. She reads about how it’s always bad and appropriative for someone from one culture to wear clothes from another culture, and even though she’s not quite sure of all the ways in which it applies, this becomes a Rule, too. Whatever argument she encounters first that seems reasonable becomes a Rule, and once she has the Rules, there’s no need to challenge them or research them or flesh out her understanding, because that’s never been how Rules work - and because she’s grown up in a context where the foremost way to show that you’re aware of and obeying the Rules is to shame people for breaking them, even though she’s not well-versed in these subjects, Sally begins to weigh in on debates by harshly disagreeing with anyone who offers up counter-opinions. Sometimes her disagreements are couched in borrowed terms, parroting back the logic of the Rules she’s learned, but other times, they’re simply ad hominem attacks, because at home, breaking a Rule makes you a bad person, and as such, Sally has never learned to differentiate between attacking the idea and attacking the person.

And of course, because Sally doesn’t understand the Rules in-depth, it’s harder to explain them to or debate with rulebreakers who’ve come armed with arguments she hasn’t heard before, which makes it easier and less frustrating to just insult them and point out that they ARE rulebreakers - especially if she doesn’t want to admit her confusion or the limitations of her knowledge. Most crucially of all, Sally doesn’t have a viable framework for admitting to fault or ignorance beyond a total groveling apology that doubles as a concession to having been Morally Bad, because that’s what it’s always meant to her to admit you broke a Rule. She has no template for saying, “huh, I hadn’t considered that,” or “I don’t know enough to contribute here,” or even “I was wrong; thanks for explaining!”

So instead, when challenged, Sally remains defensive: she feels guilty about the prospect of being Bad, because she absolutely doesn’t want to be a Bad Person, but she also doesn’t know how to conceptualise goodness outside of obedience. It makes her nervous and unsettled to think that strangers could think of her as a Bad Person when she’s following the Rules, and so she becomes even more aggressive when challenged to compensate, clinging all the more tightly to anyone who agrees with her, yet inevitably ending up hurt when it turns out this person or that who she thought agreed on What The Rules Were suddenly develops a different opinion, or asks a question, or does something else unsettling.

Pushed to this sort of breaking point, some people in Sally’s position go back to the fundamentalism they were raised with, not because they still agree with it, but because the lack of uniform agreement about What The Rules Are makes them feel constantly anxious and attacked, and at least before, they knew how to behave to ensure that everyone around them knew they were Good. Others turn to increasingly niche communities and social groups, constantly on paranoid alert for Deviance From The Rules. But other people eventually have the freeing realisation that the fixation on Rules and Goodness is what’s hurting them, not strangers with different opinions, and they steadily start to do what they wanted to do all along: become happier, kinder and better-informed people who can admit to human failings - including their own - without melting down about it.

THIS is what we mean when we talk about puritan logic being present in fandom and left-wing spaces: the refusal to engage with critical thinking while sticking doggedly to a single, fixed interpretation of How To Be Good. It’s not always about sexuality; it’s just that sexuality, and especially queerness, are topics we’re used to seeing conservatives talk about a certain way, and when those same rhetorical tricks show up in our fandom spaces, we know why they look familiar.

So: how do you break out of rule-based thinking? By being aware of it as a behavioural pattern. By making a conscious effort to accept that differing perspectives can sometimes have equal value, or that, even if a given argument isn’t completely sound, it might still contain a nugget of truth. By trying to be less reactive and more reflective when encountering positions different to your own. By accepting that not every argument is automatically tied to or indicative of a higher moral position: sometimes, we’re just talking about stuff! By remembering that you’re allowed to change your position, or challenge someone else’s, or ask for clarification. By understanding that having a moral code and personal principles isn’t at odds with asking questions, and that it’s possible - even desirable - to update your beliefs when you come to learn more than you did before.

This can be a scary and disquieting process to engage in, and it’s important to be aware of that, because one of the main appeals of rule-based thinking - if not the key appeal - is the comfort of moral certainty it engenders. If the rules are simple and clear, and following them is what makes you a good person, then it’s easy to know if you’re doing the right thing according to that system. It’s much, much harder and frequently more uncomfortable to be uncertain about things: to doubt, not only yourself, but the way you’ve been taught to think. And especially online, where we encounter so many more opinions and people than we might elsewhere, and where we can get dogpiled on by strangers or go viral without meaning to despite our best intentions? The prospect of being deemed Bad is genuinely terrifying. Of course we want to follow the Rules. But that’s the point of critical thinking: to try and understand that rules exist in the first place, not to be immutable and unchanging, but as tools to help us be better - and if a tool becomes defunct or broken, it only makes sense to repair it.

Rigid thinking teaches us to view the world through the lens of rules: to obey first and understand later. Critical thinking teaches us to use ideas, questions, contexts and other bits of information as analytic tools: to put understanding ahead of obedience. So if you want to break out of puritan thinking, whenever you encounter a new piece of information, ask yourself: are you absorbing it as a rule, or as a tool?

#critical thinking #logic #rhetoric #purity culture #fandom #evangelism #hierarchy #thinking

10K notes · View notes

nanowrimo · 4 months

Text

Smash Your Word Count Goals in 3 Easy Steps

from our sponsors at Freewrite

Here at Freewrite, we help writers reach peak productivity in order to meet word count goals and create their best work yet. That’s our reason for being.

Today, we’re going to share the three easy steps proven by science to help you reach your writing goals!

1) Set A Goal & Write It Down

The psychology of goal setting is pretty clear. It’s what NaNoWriMo is all about, right? Research has proven that people who set goals experience higher motivation and are more likely to feel accomplished.

However, the type of goal you set makes a big difference to your efforts. Make sure that your goals are (a) clear and specific, (b) realistic, and (c) measurable.

Being clear about your goal will help you hone in on what you’re trying to achieve and ignore distractions. Make sure to write it down, as well. Research by psychologist Gail Matthews has revealed that people who write down goals are 33% more successful than those who simply set a goal in their head.

Next, be realistic. This means being honest with yourself about what you can and can’t achieve based on your other life obligations. Setting goals that you can’t achieve will only lead to frustration and, ultimately, a lack of motivation.

And last, make sure each goal is measurable. “Write 1,000 words each day” is much easier to measure than “Finish this book.” Because we all know it’s difficult to measure a book being “done”!

Breaking these goals down into smaller, simpler steps will help, too. If your goal is to write 20,000 words during Camp NaNo, break that down into 5,000 words a week, and then figure out how many words you’ll have to write each day to reach those smaller goals.

2) Practice Freewriting

Freewriting is thinking. It’s as simple — and as difficult — as that.

While every writer is unique, and there is no one way to be a writer, there are similarities we all share as humans — especially humans in the modern world — that create common obstacles to doing the things we love — like reading, writing, and yes, thinking. There are the obvious external obstacles: social media, email, the internet. But there are sneaky internal obstacles, too — the main culprit being the inner critic.

As humans, we are judgmental. It’s in our DNA. Our brains are constantly assessing situations, imagining outcomes, and making decisions. It’s part of survival at a very basic level. However, that means that when we do anything, including writing, we tend to automatically assess our actions — judging our own words, tweaking and editing them as we go along. That constant evaluation not only hinders progress, it can also stop us from ever getting started. And if we do manage to sit down to write, that inner critic creates an unconscious anxiety that prevents us from experimenting and writing down our most innovative and creative — and weird! — ideas.

We’ve all heard the advice to “write now, edit later.” Or perhaps you’ve heard writers reference “the sloppy/crappy/messy first draft.” Those are just fun ways of referencing the writing method in which you separate the drafting process from the editing process. Or, what we call freewriting.

Many people haven’t written this freely since childhood, but there’s a reason this method is taught in MFA programs. Getting your thoughts down first and revising later increases productivity and yields better, more creative work because it allows you to give your brain fully to each task. It means that when you’re drafting, you’re drafting, and when you’re editing, you’re editing. There’s no context-switching or multitasking.

So, what if you gave yourself permission to write badly at first? And we don’t just mean cheesy or with glaring plot holes — we mean typos, missing words, character names replaced by big Xs because you couldn’t remember them in the moment.

The next time you draft, we challenge you to give it a try. Just let yourself go and give your thoughts and feelings over to the act of creating. Because that’s when the magic happens.

3) Track Your Stats

OK, you’ve set measurable goals, and you’ve started drafting. What’s next?

Track your efforts!

Here at Freewrite, we’ve created a tool to automatically track important writing stats, like word count, writing days, writing streak, and more! It’s called a Postbox Profile, and it gives you a unique URL that allows you to share your stats with writing friends.

Anyone with a Postbox account — that’s anyone who writes on a Freewrite OR uses our free in-browser drafting tool, Sprinter — can create a Postbox Profile and track their stats.

👉Don’t have a Freewrite yet? No problem! We have a FREE in-browser drafting experience called Sprinter that helps you shut down distractions and make progress — and gives you access to Postbox. Start writing today absolutely FREE at sprinter.getfreewrite.com.

👉Ready to grab your own Freewrite? Our entry-level device, Alpha, is $50 off this June only! Just use code STARTWITHALPHA at checkout.

#nanowrimo #writing #sponsored #ad #freewriting #writing goals #word count #Freewrite

265 notes · View notes

power-chords · 9 months

Text

Worth keeping in mind when encountering the terminally online types who think there is a such thing as “immoral” fictional content that should not be represented in art or even imagined in the privacy of one’s own mind, and that anyone who derives pleasure/value from such content should be designated either an active or latent predator: they’re hypocrites. This is why they have to tie themselves in such convoluted, arbitrary knots over what taboo subject matter is Good and Safe to create or enjoy, and under which specific, frequently contradictory conditions. Nothing is more consistently and predictably attractive to the human psyche than the Forbidden, so much so that there are whole genres of art (and not just erotic or pornographic art!) exploring these conventions.

"Kill the cop in your head" is an amusing refrain because not only is it the only solid ethical directive, it's the only sane and reasonable one. Human beings do not, by and large, have all that much conscious control over what imaginative material excites or intrigues them. Trying to impose order on a lawless realm is waging a war you're guaranteed to lose. We can only control what we do, which impulses or desires we choose to act upon; it ought to go without saying that there is no neat, clean, conveniently generalizable relationship between what we enjoy vicariously through fiction/fantasy and what we want to do to other people or have happen to us in the real world. It is both regressive and depressingly anti-humanist to assume you have any conclusive insight into what that relationship might be for any given individual, and that you can perform armchair risk assessments or psychological evaluations on strangers!

#I promise that any person claiming to not indulge impure fantasies of things they don't actually desire IRL is lying to you #the only variable is whether they shame others or themselves about it!

128 notes · View notes

techramonic · 3 months

Note

why is Eric Harris not a psychopath?

Hey, thanks for the great question!

Firstly, psychopathy is not an official diagnosis. According to the DSM-5, it is not an official mental health condition, though sometimes it can be used informally as a term to describe ASPD (Antisocial Personality disorder).

I don’t wanna armchair psychology this dude since firstly, that’s not my job and I am not a professional and second, he’s dead. No one can officially diagnose someone who is deceased. However, I do personally think Eric suffered from ASPD. Though ASPD has different subtypes and it's difficult to figure out which one affects him.

What I can say with the diagnosis that the FBI made for Eric is that although they have officially concluded Eric as a “psychopath”, the diagnosis they have made is rather a stretch. Sure, it’s convenient for the criminal justice system to have “psychopath” function as a label to classify him. Yet the thing with diagnosing a patient who is already deceased is that there is no psychiatric diagnosis where professionals could have further examined him and actually talked with him in person to discern which illnesses he suffered from. An official diagnosis requires a complete medical history, physical evaluation, and psychological evaluation via specifically developed consultation and assessment instruments, none of which he had undergone.

Furthermore, the diagnosis given to him was rather biased in the process. Completely relying on his journal, which Dr Dwayne Fuselier, the FBI agent and clinical psychologist who studied his journal for years and as well as other professionals who investigated the case, is quite unreliable. The things that you write in a journal are personal notes you jot down based on what you're feeling in the heat of the moment. Eric was not continuous with his journal entries and there were lapses where he skipped writing and then came back.

It's also to note that Eric knew the people would find his journal and most of his writings were quite extreme, almost as if he was making a caricature of himself, which he called REB. Practically created a persona that emphasizes a violent facade he wanted the people to know him as. Analyzing a mere piece of information that Eric purposefully wrote because he wanted the people to see him as that is completely different from treating him as a patient, because if they had then they would've known the underlying problems that affected him and the parts of him that he tries to hide.

A user named Alex Lee on Quora actually evaluated Eric’s case regarding his psychology and he has a very good analysis of him, which you should check out if you want more information.

#asks #eric harris #columbine 1999 #understandnotcondone

28 notes · View notes

nenelonomh · 3 months

Text

resolving conflict in relationships

what is conflict?

conflict refers to a serious disagreement or argument about something important. when two people or groups are in conflict, they have had a significant disagreement or argument and have not yet reached an agreement.

conflict can arise from divergent ideas, interests, or opposing principles.

in relationships, conflict can manifest as tensions between people. when handled constructively, relationship conflict can lead to growth, and create problem-solving skills and deeper understanding. however, unresolved or unhealthy conflict can strain relationships, and even impact physical health.

common causes of relationship conflict

this by no means only applies to romantic relationships - in fact, it is best to apply this to any relationship, even one as simple as you and your bus driver.

here are some frequent causes of relationship conflicts:

problematic behaviors

communication issues

unresolved disagreements

differences in opinions and values

jealousy

unequal contributions

differences in expectations

life changes

sam's story

my close friend, sam, recently told me a story of how she and a friend of hers (let's call her maya) had a misunderstanding - and how it hurt their friendship.

maya had a beautiful silver bracelet, a family heirloom. it was delicate, with intricate patterns etched into each link. she wore it every day.

one evening, they both attended a crowded party. music blared, and people danced. in the chaos, sam accidentally bumped into maya, and her bracelet slipped off her wrist. they searched frantically, but it was gone.

maya cried. the bracelet was irreplaceable and meant a lot to her. sam felt terrible and guilty. their friendship strained under the weight of the lost bracelet. maya withdrew, and sam didn't blame her.

weeks passed, and they barely spoke.

one afternoon, sam found an old shoebox in her closet. inside was the missing bracelet. she had picked it up that night at the party, intending to return it, but fear held her back. fear that may would be angry, and that their friendship would shatter.

sam called her immediately - told maya that she had found her bracelet. she confessed everything. maya listened without interrupting.

maya admitted to being hurt. but not because of the bracelet. because sam didn't trust her enough to tell her.

they met at a cafe, and maya wore the bracelet. they spoke for hours, about trust, forgiveness, and the fragility of friendship. they laughed about the lost bracelet, how it nearly cost them their friendship. they promised to communicate better.

sam and maya's conflict was resolved by communicating clearly.

how to resolve conflict

initiate a conversation: let the person who you're having conflict with know that you’d like to discuss the issue. choose a neutral setting and give them advance notice to avoid catching them off guard.

use 'i' statements: focus on your feelings and thoughts. for example, say, "i feel hurt when…” rather than blaming or accusing.

listen actively: hear the other person's perspective without interrupting. they may not realize the impact of their actions.

seek a compromise: healthy relationships involve compromise. be willing to give a little to allow your friend to get a little. it’s not about winning or losing but finding common ground.

assess objectively: if you reach a stalemate, step back and evaluate whether your assessment is objective. sometimes we’re too emotionally invested to see clearly.

relationships thrive when both parties work together to resolve conflicts.

further reading

Confronting Conflict With Friends | Psychology Today

Ways to Resolve Conflict with a Friend | The Social Skills Center

Resolving Conflict in Friendships | Issues I Face

Effects of Conflict and Stress on Relationships | verywellmind

Relational Conflict: How To Manage Conflict In A Relationship | My People Patterns

end notes

hope you enjoyed this post and found it helpful!

❤️nene

image source: pinterest

23 notes · View notes

sabakos · 2 years

Text

In the future, modern psychological science has invented the Questioning. This free, voluntary, non-invasive procedure consists of only a short, hour-long survey and written assessment with a professional, after which time all problems with a human's mental health may be ascertained and treated in subsequent follow up sessions.

However, the Questioning is also an assessment to test for REPLICANTS, which are infiltrators, disguised as some small percentage of humans, though the exact numbers are not known. These REPLICANTS present a danger to mankind and themselves, and need to be kept safely away somewhere else.

Although no one knows for sure if they are a REPLICANT, the assessment criteria used to determine it are publicly available, so many may have some indication of their status. But as always, self-evaluations of mental states are tricky, and there is a high chance of misdiagnosis, so the professionals caution against attempting to determine your own status. Most people who assess themselves as REPLICANTS turn out to be mistaken, so there is little cause for concern.

Although many humans do exhibit some REPLICANT-like behavior, and many of the assessment criteria are subjective, the professionals who make these assessments receive several years of training, so false positives are unlikely. Because of this, and the danger these infiltrators pose, once assessed, REPLICANTS cannot be trusted. Most of them will immediately protest their REPLICANT status, and seek to escape. This is proof of their erratic, harmful behavior, and often requires sedation and restraint once they are relocated somewhere else so they they stay there, far away from humans. Tragically, there is still little we can do for them, but know that we have their and our best interests at heart in treating them.

The Questioning is very popular in media, and several successive public relations campaigns have removed any social stigma associated with asking for help. Anyone who exhibits any issues that might be resolved by the Questioning, such as career uncertainty, interpersonal troubles, or SEEING THINGS THAT AREN'T THERE is strongly encouraged towards it by most friends, family, and even employers. But yet, many still have unresolved issues that could be treated by the Questioning, because despite almost everyone paying lip service to the Questioning, only 8% of adults have ever tried it! The people who administer the Questioning only want to help everyone. It's a great mystery still why it's not more popular. People must not care about their own mental well-being.

377 notes · View notes

lovers-tucked-into-a-quiet-cafe · 11 months

Text

Personnel Files [IKYLHT]

Series Masterlist | Next: 141 & Rabbit Headcanons

Name: [REDACTED]

Callsign: Highwater (formerly), Rabbit

Rank: Gunnery Sergeant (E-7)

Occupation: Demon Dogs Operative, 0251 MOS Interrogator/Debrief Specialist

Affiliations: United States Marine Corps (formerly), Demon Dogs, Coalition, Task Force 141

Identifiers: 26yr Female, 172cm, ‘Heavily’ Tattooed

Physical Assessment: Determined Fit for Duty: Affirm.

Note: Physical Examination cut short, patient held overnight in medical ward after severely injuring nurse practitioner. Sudden unprompted hysteria after [REDACTED], patient forcefully restrained. Absence of physical response to constraints- ceased movement and allowed for further restriction of movement in accordance to protocol. Negative emotional response to constraints- immediate increase in hysteria, cowering in expected physical harm, patient proceeded to [REDACTED], refused medical treatment. Evidence of trauma-response based attack. Unknown psychological trigger. Incident Number 9836573.

Psychological Evaluation: Determined Fit for Duty: Affirm.

Note: Recalled to active duty following brief unauthorized leave of absence after covert operation in [REDACTED], Mexico. Patient requested base transfer upon return, application denied until documentation of post-mission evaluation was received. Patient agreed to undergo aforementioned evaluation, halted after [REDACTED], Incident Number 9836573. Patient attended recommended Cognitive Processing Therapy following incident. Currently attending 1-1 Psychotherapy, prescribed Venlafaxine. Patient granted permission by PhD. Harrison to avoid medical institutions unless warranted by life-threatening illness or injury.

Name: John ‘Johnny’ MacTavish

Callsign: Soap

Rank: Sergeant (E-5)

Occupation: SAS Operative, Sniper and Demolitions Expert

Affiliations: SAS, Coalition, Task Force 141

Identifiers: 26yr Male, 183cm, Medium Brown Hair, Blue Eyes, Various Tattoos on Arms

Physical Assessment: Determined Fit for Duty: Affirm.

Note: Patient reports noticeable decline in migraine and fatigue following tinnitus treatment, as previously prescribed. Patient was recommended the continuation of such methods- avoiding caffeine and nicotine, limiting salt intake, increasing vitamin B12, and following proper PPE protocols.

Psychological Evaluation: Determined Fit for Duty: Affirm.

Note: - -

Name: Simon Riley

Callsign: Ghost

Rank: Lieutenant (O-2)

Occupation: SAS Operative, Sabotage and Infiltration Expert

Affiliations: SAS, Coalition, Task Force 141

Identifiers: 28yr Male, 192cm, Dark Blonde Hair, Brown Eyes, Half-Sleeve Tattoo on Right Forearm, Skull Plate Face Covering [On-Mission], Balaclava Face Covering [Off-Mission On-Base]

Physical Assessment: Determined Fit for Duty: Affirm.

Note: - -

Psychological Evaluation: Determined Fit for Duty: Affirm.

Note: Patient’s routine psychological evaluation is past-due. Clear for active duty, ordered to schedule annual check-up eval at earliest convenience. When questioned, patient admits to decline in attendance of 1-1 Psychotherapy regarding [REDACTED]. Declines request for therapy and/or medication regarding childhood PTSD. Declines request for medication regarding [REDACTED].

Name: Kyle Garrick

Callsign: Gaz

Rank: Sergeant (E-5)

Occupation: SAS Operative, Weapons Tactics and Covert Surveillance Expert

Affiliations: British Army (formerly), SAS, SAS Domestic Counter-Terror Program, Coalition, Task Force 141

Identifiers: 24yr Male, 180cm, Dark Brown Hair, Brown Eyes

Physical Assessment: Determined Fit for Duty: Affirm.

Note: Patient reports continued migraine and light sensitivity post-concussion. Prescribed Topiramate to manage temporary symptoms. Screened for excessive bleeding and hemorrhaging, no evidence of prolonged injury post blunt force trauma found.

Psychological Evaluation: Determined Fit for Duty: Affirm.

Note: - -

Name: Jonathan ‘John’ Price

Callsign: Bravo 0-6

Rank: Captain (O-3)

Occupation: 22nd SAS Regiment Captain, Close Quarter Battle Specialist, Seek-and-Strike Expert

Affiliations: British Army (formerly), SAS, Coalition, Task Force 141

Identifiers: 36yr Male, 185cm, Medium Brown Hair, Blue Eyes, Full Beard

Physical Assessment: Determined Fit for Duty: Affirm.

Note: Patient was recommended the use of Cyclobenzaprine for continued back pain and muscle spasms, denied fulfilling prescription due to inability to consume nicotine or alcohol while on medication.

Psychological Evaluation: Determined Fit for Duty: Affirm.

Note: Patient was recommended the use of Nitrazepam to provide short-term relief from severe anxiety and insomnia while off-duty, denied fulfilling prescription due to sedative properties and possibility of impaired judgment or coordination in the event of an unscheduled call back to base.

Name: Alejandro Vargas

Callsign: N/A

Rank: Colonel (O-6)

Occupation: Mexican Special Forces Operative, Leader of Los Vaqueros

Affiliations: Mexican Army (formerly), Los Vaqueros, Task Force 141

Identifiers: 28yr Male, 186cm, Dark Brown Hair, Brown Eyes, Various Arm Tattoos

Physical Assessment: Determined Fit for Duty: Affirm.

Note: Patient recommended continuation of physical therapy for affected shoulder.

Psychological Evaluation: Determined Fit for Duty: Affirm.

Note: Patient noted displaying uncharacteristic signs of high stress. Unknown stress trigger. Recommended self-treatment: elimination of nicotine and caffeine from diet, substitution of herbal teas and remedies. Patient admitted as to previously declining aforementioned recommendations, notes having implemented recommendations under the order/care of [REDACTED]. Follow-up advised.

Name: Rodolfo ‘Rudy’ Parra

Callsign: N/A

Rank: Sergeant Major (E-9)

Occupation: Mexican Special Forces Operative, Los Vaqueros Second-in-Command

Affiliations: Mexican Army (formerly), Los Vaqueros, Task Force 141

Identifiers: 28yr Male, 181cm, Dark Brown Hair, Brown Eyes, Various Arm and Chest Tattoos

Physical Assessment: Determined Fit for Duty: Affirm.

Note: - -

Psychological Evaluation: Determined Fit for Duty: Affirm.

Note: Patient noted displaying signs of high stress, declined additional optional psychological screenings. Recommended time off-duty to mitigate stress, patient denied ability to leave base for extended periods of time.

Name: N/A

Callsign: Konig

Rank: Oberfeldwebel [Staff Sergeant, Technical Sergeant]

Occupation: KorTac Operative

Affiliations: Kommando Spezialkräfte (formerly), KorTac

Identifiers: 27yr Male, 198cm, Blue Eyes, Sniper Veil Face Covering

Physical Assessment: Determined Fit for Duty: Affirm.

Note: N/A

Psychological Evaluation: Determined Fit for Duty: Affirm.

Note: N/A

Name: Valeria Garza

Callsign: El Sin Nombre

Rank: N/A

Occupation: Leader of Las Almas Cartel, KorTac Operative

Affiliations: Mexican Special Forces (formerly), KorTac

Identifiers: 28yr Female, 168cm, Dark Brown Hair, Brown Eyes, Various Tattoos on Arms

Physical Assessment: N/A

Psychological Evaluation: N/A

100 notes · View notes

surgerypatient · 3 months

Text

chatgpt explanation of the suite of feminization procedures necessary to create an indistinguishable woman ( not perfect)

Preoperative Phase

Preoperative Appointment:

Final Consultation:

The patient meets with the surgical team to discuss the procedure in detail.

Final consent forms are signed, and any last-minute questions are answered.

Medical and Psychological Evaluation:

Comprehensive health assessment including blood tests, imaging, and psychological support.

Detailed explanation of the recovery process and postoperative care.

Day of Surgery:

Arrival at the Hospital:

The patient checks in at the hospital and is escorted to the preoperative waiting area.

The patient changes into a hospital gown, cap, and compression socks.

Preoperative Preparation:

IV line is started for administering fluids and medications.

Baseline vital signs are recorded, and the patient is given a sedative to help relax.

The patient meets the anesthesiologist who explains the anesthesia process.

The surgeon visits to review the surgical plan and answer any final questions.

Transport to Operating Room:

The patient is wheeled to the operating room on a gurney.

Final identification checks and surgical site markings are made.

Intraoperative Phase

Anesthesia and Initial Prep:

Anesthesia Administration:

The patient is connected to monitoring equipment to track vital signs.

Anesthetic drugs are administered through the IV, inducing unconsciousness.

An anesthesia mask is placed, and the patient is intubated for airway management.

Eye ointment is applied, and the eyes are taped shut to prevent dryness.

Sterile Prep:

The patient’s body is cleaned with a pink antiseptic solution.

A urinary catheter is inserted to manage urine output during surgery.

Surgical Procedures:

Orchiectomy:

An incision is made in the scrotum, and the testicles are removed.

The incisions are closed, and the area is dressed.

Penile Inversion Vaginoplasty:

Penile skin is deconstructed and inverted to form the vaginal canal.

Scrotal skin is used to create the labia majora and minora.

Nerve bundles are used to construct the clitoris.

The urethra is shortened and repositioned.

Stem cell and nanobot therapies are applied to enhance healing.

Facial Feminization Surgery (FFS):

Procedures may include brow lift, rhinoplasty, jaw and chin reshaping, and tracheal shave.

Each step is performed with precision to feminize facial features.

Waist Contouring:

Liposuction is performed to remove excess fat and contour the waistline.

Fat grafting may be used to enhance the hips for a more feminine silhouette.

Breast Augmentation:

Incisions are made, and implants are placed to achieve desired breast size and shape.

Bioengineered implants ensure natural feel and appearance.

Buttock Augmentation:

Fat grafting or implants are used to enhance buttock size and shape.

Advanced techniques ensure minimal scarring and natural results.

Estrogen Implant Placement:

Hormone-delivery implants are placed to provide continuous estrogen therapy.

The implants are fine-tuned for optimal hormone balance.

Postoperative Phase

Immediate Postoperative Care:

Recovery Room:

The patient is moved to a recovery room and monitored closely as they wake up from anesthesia.

Pain management and anti-nausea medications are administered as needed.

Initial Assessment:

Vital signs are monitored, and the surgical sites are checked for any complications.

The patient is kept in a semi-upright position to promote breathing and comfort.

Instructions and Mobility:

The patient is given instructions on how to move and care for surgical sites.

Gradual introduction to liquids and soft foods.

Ongoing Postoperative Care:

Hospital Stay:

The patient remains in the hospital for a few days for close monitoring.

Regular check-ups by the surgical team to ensure proper healing.

Discharge and Home Care:

Detailed discharge instructions are provided, including wound care, medication regimen, and activity restrictions.

Arrangements for follow-up appointments and physical therapy sessions.

Long-term Recovery:

Gradual resumption of daily activities as healing progresses.

Ongoing hormone therapy adjustments and psychological support.

Regular follow-up appointments to monitor the results and address any concerns.

Final Outcome:

Physical and Aesthetic Results:

Natural-looking and functional vaginal canal with satisfactory depth and sensation.

Feminized facial features, contoured waist, enhanced breasts, and buttocks.

Hormone levels are balanced with the help of estrogen implants.

Psychological and Social Adaptation:

Continued psychological support to help adapt to the new gender identity.

Social integration and increased confidence in personal and professional life.

This detailed step-by-step guide outlines a comprehensive and futuristic approach to M-to-F sex reassignment surgery, incorporating advanced technologies and procedures to ensure optimal outcomes for patients.

#anesthesia #intubated #surgery #medfet #surgeon #intubatedlover #female surgery #medical equipment #anesthesia mask #intubation

18 notes · View notes

so-i-did-this-thing · 1 year

Text

Trans Floridians: "Informed Consent" guidelines are shaping up to be worse than the Harry Benjamin days

The Florida Board of Medicine is discussing the "informed consent" standards today. These will affect trans people, including adults, who are both starting and continuing care.

In short, the guidelines require a prohibitively expensive and difficult to access number of regular assessments for the life of "treatment". (Which, for most of us on HRT is the rest of our lives.) The guidelines look for any opportunity to deny care, from lack of social support to "co-morbidities" that are likely targeting autism, depression, etc.

The specific requirements for you to receive and continue HRT treatment include the following: 1. Meets the current DSM or ICD criteria for gender dysphoria; 2. Mental health and physical conditions that could negatively impact the outcome of treatment have been assessed, with risks and benefits discussed 3. Gender dysphoria is marked and sustained; 4. Demonstrates capacity to consent for the specific gender dysphoria hormone treatment; 5. Does not suffer from psychiatric comorbidity that interferes with the diagnostic work- up or treatment; 6. Has adequate psychological and social support during treatment; 7. Demonstrates knowledge and understanding of the risks, benefits, and expected outcomes of HRT as well as the medical and social risks and benefits of sex reassignment surgery; 8. Understands the effect of gender-affirming hormone treatment on reproduction and they have explored reproductive options; 9. Undergoes an evaluation by the prescribing physician at least every 3 months 10. Undergoes a suicide risk assessment by a licensed mental health care professional at least every 3 months; 11. Undergoes laboratory testing, including blood tests, at least every 6 months; 12. Bone (DEXA) scan once a year to allow monitoring of your bone density (bone strength) during treatment, which can be altered by HRT; 13. Annual mental health assessments by a board-certified Florida licensed psychiatrist or psychologist; and 14. Continued counseling with a licensed mental health care professional during the treatment period, with the frequency recommended by the licensed mental health care professional.

Erin covers here:

From Representative Anna V. Eskamani:

Beginning on page 264 of the meeting packet is the draft informed consent forms for tomorrow's meeting. In part it reads -- "Before beginning or continuing HRT, the individual needs to undergo a thorough psychological and social evaluation performed by a Florida licensed board-certified psychiatrist or a Florida licensed psychologist. The psychiatrist or psychologist must submit a letter to the prescribing physician confirming this." https://ww10.doh.state.fl.us/.../06232023_JRL_Publicbook.pdf Licensed mental health counselors and licensed social workers are trained to write evaluation letters. They know most providers have an LCSW or mental health on staff. This is cruel for the sake of bring cruel and designed to make access more difficult.

I experienced the gatekeeping during the Harry Benjamin days, including the mandatory one year "real life test" where you have to live as your gender in all aspects of your life without the benefits of HRT. It was a very stressful and dangerous practice that was designed to crush us.

This is so much worse. Even with my current salary, health benefits, and work from home schedule, I don't see how I could afford the time and money for all the assessments, nevermind how insulting and discriminatory they are.

Trans Floridians should watch this story closely as the Board of Medicine discusses and finalizes these requirements. As of today, these are not final, but in the current state, would mean the end of informed consent in Florida, and all but bans care entirely.

#trans stuff #transgender

106 notes · View notes

sundasystems · 2 months

Text

2. The Footprint of a Giant

I've said before that Sunda Systems was a global company, but I don't think even I understood the scale of the investigation I was undertaking. The first thing I needed to do was get a sense of the scope. To do that I needed to understand the corporate layout.

To start, Sunda is an umbrella company that has quietly (and not so quietly) purchased a lot of technological companies.

Sunda Systems had complete ownership or majority stake in things I'd never imagined.

Some things I would have anticipated. For example, in 2021, they purchased the internet radio company Re:Mx and they had controlling interest in a broadcasting technologies company called Ressepont. For a corporation focused on wireless connectivity, these things made sense to me.

Engineering and satellite companies? Sure. Even the three laser research companies kind of made sense. I could talk myself into the idea of using lasers for fiber optics.

But then there was the medical research. They outright owned Brainwire, a tech start up that wanted to create a human-computer interface. They also owned Lotus Clinical Research and it's subsidiaries.

What on Earth would that have been for? A sideways purchase in the name of portfolio diversification?

It got stranger when I found court documents of Lotus trying to fend off a hostile takeover. Brainwire seems to have gone smoothly. If you started tiny company in your back shed and a giant like Sunda approached you with a truck of money, you're not going to turn it down. But Lotus appeared to be functioning well on its own and the CEO, James Pepper, did not want to sell.

Until he suddenly did.

Hundreds of documents and depositions were attached as exhibits to this Order.

When Mr. Pepper first files his injunction to stop Sunda from buying Lotus, it was because the swing vote on the board, John Delphine, began behaving strangely. Here is testimony from his initial October 1, 2008 filing:

It appears that John has lost his mind. Years we spent building this company from the ground up. We wrote protocols together late into the nights. We found medical equipment anywhere we could. We found doctors willing to work with a couple of scrappy upstarts. And god damnit we did it. We made this company profitable. And now? Sunda Systems waves a couple dollars at him and he's ready to sign the company over? No. No chance in hell. No amount of money is worth the work we put in here, and he knows it. I don't believe he's in his right mind, and I would like him assessed by a professional. It had to be some kind of nervous break or an addiction or something! There is no other reason he would come into my office in the state he was in. Talking so fast about the wonderful multinational conglomerate that wants to buy us out. I was only catching every three words. He was maddened! That wasn't the John I knew.

Mr. Pepper fought tooth and nail against the sale of his company by his partner. The suit lasted three months. Mr. Delphine never got his psychological evaluation. Instead, Mr. Pepper simply gave up the fight. This is a retraction that Mr. Pepper gave on December 21, 2008, leading to the closing of the case:

I now see what John saw back in October, and I apologize for thinking what I thought about him. I'm still worried about the zeal with which he approached me, but the points he made were valid ones. Ego kept me from seeing the truth. It is my wish to retract my claim of mental incapacity and move forward with the sale to Sunda Systems and I am very excited to work with them in a subordinate position so that I can continue to shepherd out company to greatness.

The recorder who took Mr. Pepper's retraction noted in the filing that the man appeared tired and defeated with red eyes.

Mr. Pepper and Mr. Delphine are now high ranking executives in Sunda's Clinical Research Division, and both have offices in the Eden Springs Campus.

I reached out to them, posing as a reporter following up on the sale years later. I asked if they'd had any regrets selling Lotus to Sunda. Oddly, they both answered the exact same way, verbatim:

"It is a wonderful opportunity to work for such a forward thinking company. I wouldn't leave it for anything."

It sounded obviously rehearsed; even more so after I heard it the second time.

During my call with the men, the webcam light on my laptop came on again, only turning back off after I had hung up. That seemed far too much of a coincidence. I don't want to believe that someone in the company is keeping tabs on me, but a company dedicated to the internet has to have someone who can hack a webcam.

I'm proceeding with the assumption that I'm being monitored. I wondered if I should try to get a new router, but every time I think about it, it seems so overwhelming. My provider uses Sunda equipment exclusively so I'd have to find a new provider and cancel my service and it just all seems too much. I'll just keep it. What harm could it really be doing?

The last piece of information I found today was an old classified add for the home of the Delphine family. They listed their Eden Springs home in early 2009 and it sold for $349,000. Quite the windfall for that era of history.

Out of curiosity, I looked up John Delphine in the Avery County Tax Assessment records and found he and his wife's new address.

They live on-site at the Eden Springs Campus in an apparent outbuilding on the same property as the offices.

Perhaps it's time for a visit to North Carolina so I can get a real look at Maple Hall.

#sunda lies

17 notes · View notes