#(i.e. there's clear cause-and-effect)

[transmutationisms]

i understand no mental illnesses have been tied to any gene, but my understanding was that there is some evidence on heritability in some cases i.e. for ADHD “many genetic…risks…have a small effect” (doi:10.1016/j.neubiorev.2021.01.022); how are we to understand such findings through a antipsych lens?

okay I just want to be clear because I think a lot of you have a fundamental misunderstanding of what people mean when we self id as 'antipsych.' it's not that 'antipsych' is some sort of pie-in-the-sky theory that I pre-committed to and now have to reconcile with the medical literature—it's more like, I grew up as a very I Fucking Love Science Dot Com child, got interested in psychology among other things, started reading both popular and medical literature about it, started to notice that the things I was reading about psychology and mental diseases didn't really line up with the things I and people I knew experienced and heard when actually interacting with doctors and psychologists, and finally and only around about the age of 19 did I become aware that 'antipsych' is in fact a legitimate position that other people had come up with before me, and at that point I started to read things that you might be referring to here as being written 'through an antipsych lens.'

so, when I hear a question like this, ie one that presumes there is some contradiction between anti-psychiatric political commitments and the existing psychiatric literature, it suggests to me that you haven't really read the literature in question—where by 'read' I mean you need to actually look at the paper's methodology, and look at the process of knowledge-making that yields a sentence like "ADHD has genetic etiology." that's an empirical claim. evaluating whether it's true necessarily involves asking what evidence the person making the claim is offering. there are specific skills and strategies for doing this when you are a layperson dealing with specialised scientific literature; there is also a fundamental critical attitude you should adopt with regards to literally any claim, argument, discourse, article, etc.

it is always a good thing to recognise when you're in over your head and need help or further reading to understand a statistical method, piece of jargon, etc. but you do kind of have to, like, approach the issue with a fundamental attitude that just because someone said something in a scientific journal doesn't make it beyond reproach! read the claims, read the evidence, ask yourself if it makes sense. this isn't some rhetorical game of "I'm going to prove antipsych right"—the 'antipsych' is the loose umbrella term you are called when you actually read the psychiatric literature and critique the discipline's fundamental epistemological failures and disciplinary raison d'être. the horse draws the cart!

wrt 'genetic causes of psychiatric diseases' you also need to understand that many of you are tilting at windmills. I've never said genes don't have an effect on our affective and emotional lives. plainly, they do. this is not the same as "there is a distinct specific Pathology expressed in these genes; they are diseased and/or defective and this is why you feel miserable / cannot function / cannot go to work." like, we see these are two different statements, yes? if all we mean by ADHD is "a list of general behavioural dispositions" then yeah, of course those have genetic influences in addition to environmental ones. everything about us does. that does not mean that ADHD, the distinct and discrete clinical entity that psychiatrists presume exists (on the grounds of their patients having xyz problems), is indeed a 'genetic condition' or instantiates as a genetic mutation / malformation / differential expression / etc. this paragraph is foreshadowing.

having looked at the genetics section of this particular study for about 20 minutes (open-access here if you don't feel like searching by DOI), here are some things that immediately caught my attention:

this is just a meta-analysis of ADHD research. its claims are only as good as the underlying studies. a meta-analysis of shitty studies that had bad methodology will not 'even out' their respective badness, it will just produce a shitty meta-analysis that is intrinsically hampered by the bad underlying methodology. I've discussed this here.

the very first assertion under the genetics section cites three twin studies; I followed those links. first of all, these are written for other scientists, so they don't make a particularly clear (to lay people) distinction between the scientific notion of 'heritability' and what this term is typically interpreted to mean in popular discourses. so, to be clear, 'heritability' is an estimate of how much a given trait is caused by genetic factors at a population level. it does not tell you anything about how much an individual's expression of that trait is genetically caused, nor does heritability necessarily indicate the genetic cause is direct or dependent on one (or even a small number of) genes.

indeed, all three of these studies, and the overarching meta-analysis, assert that this genetic etiology is due to a very large number of very small genetic influences. this is not inherently scientifically unsound, but it does raise my eyebrows. how would we distinguish between a distinct pathology that is caused by a huge tangle of very low-impact genes, vs a whole bunch of behaviours that are socially stigmatised and grouped together on political grounds, and that also have some relationship to genetics, as does literally every physiological fact of human existence?

these cite twin studies, meaning basically they try to use comparisons between genetically identical twins and various other familial relationships to determine how much of a given characteristic is genetically caused. again, though, this is essentially boiling down to the observation that closely genetically related people have similar personality traits; also, twin studies in general have serious methodological problems with profound implications for the invocation of genetics in psychiatry.

in fact, the meta-analysis here also claims that ADHD can sometimes be due to "rare single gene defects" or chromosomal abnormalities. the study cited on the gene claim, for example, is also cited in the claim above, so I've already looked at it. the methodology here is to look at prevalence of ADHD among populations with certain known genetic conditions—that's it. now can we think of any other reasons why people diagnosed with one thing might also be diagnosed with another? for example, they're already in contact with the medical system. they have enough financial resources to seek diagnoses. symptoms of chronic pain & illness often manifest with attention disturbances. etc.

even if that were better founded, the claim they're making themselves here is that ADHD in fact has numerous genetic causes, all manifesting as the same behaviours and psychological disturbances. it's almost like those manifestations are not a single distinct pathology, but a group of 'signs' the clinician lumps together into a single diagnostic box regardless of whence they arise. hold that thought.

incidentally, that study also notes that initial heritability estimates for ADHD were much lower than what's cited now, and blames this on inaccurate self-assessment results, claiming the more recent studies using parent and teacher assessments of ADHD children are more accurate. of course, the actual diagnostic measure never became less 'subjective.' it's just that we trust it more if it's a parent reporting that their kids are all super ADHD than if it's the kid actually reporting their own experiences. because there certainly aren't any historical reasons why parents have felt the need to cling to the notion of a neurobiological, genetically determined distinct ADHD pathology!

similarly, numerous of these linked studies say that 'sub-threshold ADHD' (read: the behaviours considered to be ADHD symptoms, but at lower severity than clinicians have considered diagnosable) show the same genetic causal links—heritability. now that's also curious, no? almost like ADHD is not a discrete distinct genetically caused pathology, but a bunch of traits and behaviours that, like literally every human characteristic, have some genetic as well as environmental influence, and that are artificially grouped together under psychiatric taxa and presumed to be due to an underlying physical (genetic) defect.

indeed, what I'm laying out here is just the basic circularity that underlies all psychiatric diagnosis: we know you are X because you do Y, which you do because you are X, which we know because you showed up to the clinic and told us you do Y. I unpacked this logic in more detail here.

finally, and this bears pulling out from the list because it's important, multiple of these studies are claiming that they have identified general genetic risk factors for a broad variety of psychopathologies (example here). in other words, the claim is not even really that ADHD has specific genetic causes, but that some as-yet-unspecified genetic factor/s are generally responsible for what are diagnosed as mental diseases. how do we know that unspecified higher-order genetic factor exists? well, we don't. but we assume it's there. the same way we did for the 'general intelligence factor,' g, which by the way is entirely racist nonsense.

you may notice that basically all I've said here amounts to accusing psychiatry of failing to meet basic standards of empirical proof generally considered to be load-bearing elements of the 'scientific method.' this is not even really an 'antipsych' argument—it's, at best, a critique of psychiatry as it currently exists, using (in a locally uncritical way!) established standards of scientific discourse. I'm pointing this out both because it's an extremely valuable habit to get into yourself, and because I once again would love it if more people understood that 'antipsych' isn't really a prior theoretical commitment most of us just stumble into. it's a position we actively have to seek out, and often, what prompts us to begin doing that is precisely the experience of noticing problems like the above, and the corresponding utter failure of the psychiatric discipline to rectify such problems without nullifying its own epistemological foundations.

[literaryvein-reblogs]

600+ Personality Traits

as reference for your next poem/story

Positive Traits

Accessible - easy to speak to or deal with

Active - disposed to action; energetic

Adaptable - capable of being or becoming adapted (i.e., suited by nature, character, or design to a particular use, purpose, or situation)

Admirable - deserving the highest esteem

Adventurous - disposed to seek adventure or to cope with the new and unknown

Agreeable - ready or willing to agree or consent

Alert - watchful and prompt to meet danger or emergency

Allocentric - having one's interest and attention centered on other persons

Amiable - friendly, sociable, and congenial

Anticipative - given to anticipation (i.e., the act of looking forward)

Appreciative - having or showing appreciation (i.e., a favorable critical estimate)

Articulate - expressing oneself readily, clearly, and effectively

Aspiring - desiring and working to achieve a particular goal

Athletic - characteristic of an athlete; vigorous, active

Attractive - arousing interest or pleasure; charming

Balanced - being in a state of balance; having different parts or elements properly or effectively arranged, regulated etc.

Benevolent - marked by or disposed to doing good

Brilliant - distinguished by unusual mental keenness or alertness

Calm - free from agitation, excitement, or disturbance

Capable - having or showing general efficiency and ability

Captivating - charmingly or irresistibly appealing

Caring - feeling or showing concern for or kindness to others

Challenging - invitingly provocative; fascinating

Charismatic - having, exhibiting, or based on charisma (i.e., a special magnetic charm or appeal)

Charming - extremely pleasing or delightful; entrancing

Cheerful - full of good spirits; merry

Clean - pure; free from moral corruption or sinister connections of any kind; fair

Clearheaded - having or showing a clear understanding; perceptive

Clever - mentally quick and resourceful

Colorful - full of variety or interest

Companionable - marked by, conducive to, or suggestive of companionship; sociable

Compassionate - having or showing compassion; sympathetic

Conciliatory - intended to gain goodwill or favor or to reduce hostility

Confident - having or showing assurance and self-reliance

Conscientious - meticulous, careful

Considerate - thoughtful of the rights and feelings of others

Constant - marked by firm steadfast resolution or faithfulness

Contemplative - marked by or given to contemplation (i.e., an act of considering with attention)

Cooperative - marked by a willingness and ability to work with others

Courageous - having or characterized by courage; brave

Courteous - marked by respect for and consideration of others

Creative - having the quality of something created rather than imitated; imaginative

Cultured - cultivated (i.e., refined, educated)

Curious - marked by desire to investigate and learn

Daring - venturesomely bold in action or thought

Debonair - suave, urbane; lighthearted, nonchalant

Decent - marked by moral integrity, kindness, and goodwill

Decisive - resolute, determined

Dedicated - devoted to a cause, ideal, or purpose; zealous

Deep - of penetrating intellect; wise

Dignified - showing or expressing dignity (i.e., the quality or state of being worthy, honored, or esteemed)

Directed - having a positive or negative sense

Disciplined - marked by or possessing discipline (i.e., orderly or prescribed conduct or pattern of behavior)

Discreet - prudent; modest; unobtrusive

Dramatic - having or showing a tendency to behave or react in an exaggerated way

Dutiful - filled with or motivated by a sense of duty

Dynamic - energetic, forceful

Earnest - characterized by or proceeding from an intense and serious state of mind

Ebullient - having or showing liveliness and enthusiasm

Educated - having an education; skilled

Efficient - productive of desired effects

Elegant - of a high grade or quality; splendid

Eloquent - marked by forceful and fluent expression

Empathetic - involving, characterized by, or based on empathy (i.e., the action of understanding, being aware of, being sensitive to, and vicariously experiencing the feelings, thoughts, and experience of another)

Energetic - operating with or marked by vigor or effect

Enthusiastic - filled with or marked by enthusiasm (i.e., strong excitement of feeling)

Esthetic - artistic; appreciative of, responsive to, or zealous about the beautiful

Exciting - producing excitement (i.e., something that rouses)

Extraordinary - exceptional to a very marked extent

Fair - marked by impartiality and honesty

Faithful - steadfast in affection or allegiance; loyal

Farsighted - having or showing foresight or good judgment; sagacious

Felicific - causing or intended to cause happiness

Firm - not weak or uncertain; vigorous

Flexible - characterized by a ready capability to adapt to new, different, or changing requirements; tractable

Focused - a state or condition permitting clear perception or understanding

Forceful - possessing or filled with force; effective

Forgiving - allowing room for error or weakness

Forthright - free from ambiguity or evasiveness

Freethinking - thinking freely or independently

Friendly - showing kindly interest and goodwill

Fun-loving - lighthearted and lively

Gallant - nobly chivalrous and often self-sacrificing; spirited

Generous - liberal in giving; magnanimous

Gentle - free from harshness, sternness, or violence; docile

Genuine - free from hypocrisy or pretense; sincere

Good-natured - of a pleasant and cooperative disposition

Gracious - marked by kindness and courtesy

Hardworking - constantly, regularly, or habitually engaged in earnest and energetic work; industrious, diligent

Healthy - prosperous, flourishing

Hearty - enthusiastically or exuberantly cordial; jovial

Helpful - of service or assistance; useful

Heroic - exhibiting or marked by courage and daring

High-minded - marked by elevated principles and feelings; also: pretentious

Honest - genuine, real; marked by integrity

Honorable - deserving of respect or high regard; illustrious

Humble - not proud or haughty; unpretentious

Humorous - full of or characterized by humor; funny

Idealistic - of or relating to idealists or idealism (i.e., having a standard of perfection, beauty, or excellence)

Imaginative - given to imagining; having a lively imagination

Impressive - making or tending to make a marked impression; having the power to excite attention, awe, or admiration

Incisive - impressively direct and decisive

Incorruptible - incapable of being bribed or morally corrupted

Independent - not requiring or relying on others

Individualistic - pursuing a markedly independent course in thought or action

Innovative - characterized by, tending to, or introducing innovations (i.e., a new idea, method, or device)

Inoffensive - giving no provocation; peaceable

Insightful - exhibiting or characterized by insight (i.e., the power or act of seeing into a situation)

Insouciant - lighthearted unconcern; nonchalance

Intelligent - guided or directed by intellect; rational

Intuitive - possessing or given to intuition or insight

Invulnerable - immune to or proof against attack

Kind - of a sympathetic or helpful nature

Knowledgeable - having or showing knowledge or intelligence-

Leisurely - characterized by leisure; unhurried

Liberal - marked by generosity; openhanded; broad-minded

Logical - skilled in logic; analytic; capable of reasoning

Lovable - having qualities that attract affection

Loyal - unswerving in allegiance

Lyrical - having an artistically beautiful or expressive quality suggestive of song

Magnanimous - showing or suggesting a lofty and courageous spirit

Many-sided - having many sides or aspects; interests or aptitudes

Mature - based on slow careful consideration

Methodical - habitually proceeding according to method

Meticulous - marked by extreme or excessive care in the consideration or treatment of details

Moderate - avoiding extremes of behavior or expression; calm, temperate

Modest - decent; unpretentious

Multi-leveled - having a scale (as of difficulty or achievement) with multiple positions or ranks

Natural leader - a person who has qualities that a good leader has

Neat - habitually clean and orderly

Nonauthoritarian - not authoritarian (i.e., of, relating to, or favoring a concentration of power in a leader or an elite not constitutionally responsible to the people)

Objective - expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations

Observant - paying strict attention; keen; mindful

Open - characterized by ready accessibility and usually generous attitude; responsive

Optimistic - of, relating to, or characterized by optimism; feeling or showing hope for the future

Orderly - well behaved; peaceful; tidy

Organized - having a formal organization to coordinate and carry out activities

Original - independent and creative in thought or action; inventive

Painstaking - taking pains; expending, showing, or involving diligent care and effort

Passionate - capable of, affected by, or expressing intense feeling; enthusiastic

Patient - bearing pains or trials calmly or without complaint; not hasty

Patriotic - befitting or characteristic of a patriot (i.e., one who loves and supports his or her country)

Peaceful - untroubled by conflict, agitation, or commotion; quiet, tranquil

Perceptive - responsive to sensory stimuli; discerning; observant

Perfectionist - having a disposition to regard anything short of perfection as unacceptable

Personable - pleasant or amiable in person; attractive

Persuasive - tending to persuade (i.e., to move by argument, entreaty, or expostulation to a belief, position, or course of action)

Planful - full of plans; resourceful; scheming

Playful - full of play; frolicsome, sportive; humorous

Polished - characterized by a high degree of development, finish, or refinement; free from imperfections

Popular - commonly liked or approved

Practical - actively engaged in some course of action or occupation; useful

Precise - strictly conforming to a pattern, standard, or convention

Principled - exhibiting, based on, or characterized by principle (i.e., a comprehensive and fundamental law, doctrine, or assumption)

Profound - having intellectual depth and insight

Protean - displaying great diversity or variety; versatile

Protective - intended to resist or prevent attack or aggression

Providential - coming or happening by good luck especially unexpectedly; fortunate

Prudent - having or showing good judgment and restraint especially in conduct or speech; cautious

Punctual - being on time; prompt

Purposeful - full of determination

Rational - having reason or understanding; reasonable

Realistic - able to see things as they really are and to deal with them in a practical way

Reflective - marked by reflection; thoughtful, deliberative

Relaxed - easy of manner; informal

Reliable - suitable or fit to be relied on; dependable

Resourceful - able to meet situations; capable of devising ways and means

Respectful - marked by or showing respect or deference

Responsible - able to answer for one's conduct and obligations; trustworthy

Responsive - quick to respond or react appropriately or sympathetically; sensitive

Reverential - expressing or having a quality of reverence (i.e., honor or respect felt or shown; deference)

Romantic - having an inclination for romance; responsive to the appeal of what is idealized, heroic, or adventurous

Rustic - characteristic of or resembling country people

Sage - wise through reflection and experience

Sane - rational; able to anticipate and appraise the effect of one's actions

Scholarly - of, characteristic of, or suitable to learned persons; learned, academic

Scrupulous - having moral integrity; acting in strict regard for what is considered right or proper

Secure - trustworthy, dependable; assured in opinion or expectation; confident

Selfless - having no concern for self; unselfish

Self-critical - inclined to find fault with oneself; critical of oneself

Self-denying - showing self-denial (i.e., a restraint or limitation of one's own desires or interests)

Self-effacing - having or showing a tendency to make oneself modestly or shyly inconspicuous

Self-reliant - having confidence in and exercising one's own powers or judgment

Self-sufficient - capable of providing for one's own needs; haughty, overbearing

Sensitive - highly responsive or susceptible; delicate; touchy

Sentimental - marked or governed by feeling, sensibility, or emotional idealism

Seraphic - suggestive of or resembling a seraphim or angel

Serious - thoughtful or subdued in appearance or manner; sober

Sexy - sexually suggestive or stimulating; appealing

Sharing - to talk about one's thoughts, feelings, or experiences with others

Shrewd - marked by clever discerning awareness and hardheaded acumen

Simple - free from guile; innocent; modest; naive

Skillful - possessed of or displaying skill; expert

Sober - marked by temperance, moderation, or seriousness; calm

Sociable - inclined by nature to companionship with others of the same species; social

Solid - sound; reliable; serious in purpose or character

Sophisticated - finely experienced and aware; intellectually appealing

Spontaneous - controlled and directed internally; natural

Sporting - of, relating to, used, or suitable for sport

Stable - firmly established; enduring

Steadfast - firm in belief, determination, or adherence; loyal

Steady - not easily disturbed or upset; dependable

Stoic - not affected by or showing passion or feeling

Strong - extreme, intense; ardent; firm

Studious - assiduous in the pursuit of learning

Suave - smoothly though often superficially gracious and sophisticated

Subtle - delicate, elusive; obscure

Sweet - marked by gentle good humor or kindliness; agreeable

Sympathetic - given to, marked by, or arising from sympathy, compassion, friendliness, and sensitivity to others' emotions

Systematic - marked by thoroughness and regularity

Tasteful - having, exhibiting, or conforming to good taste

Teacherly - resembling, characteristic of, or befitting a teacher

Thorough - complete in all respects; having full mastery

Tidy - methodical, precise; neat and orderly

Tolerant - permitting or accepting something (such as a behavior or belief) that one does not like

Tractable - capable of being easily led, taught, or controlled; docile

Trusting - having or showing trust in another

Uncomplaining - accepting pains or hardships calmly or without complaint

Understanding - endowed with understanding; tolerant, sympathetic

Undogmatic - not dogmatic; not committed to dogma (i.e., something held as an established opinion)

Unfoolable -impossible to fool (i.e., deceive)

Upright - marked by strong moral rectitude

Urbane - notably polite or polished in manner

Venturesome - inclined to court or incur risk or danger; daring

Vivacious - lively in temper, conduct, or spirit; sprightly

Warm - secure; ardent; marked by or readily showing affection, gratitude, cordiality, or sympathy

Well-bred - having or displaying the politeness and good manners associated especially with people of high social class

Well-read - well-informed or deeply versed through reading

Well-rounded - fully or broadly developed

Winning - successful especially in competition; tending to please or delight

Wise - marked by deep understanding, keen discernment, and a capacity for sound judgment

Witty - marked by or full of clever humor or wit

Youthful - having the vitality or freshness of youth; vigorous

Neutral Traits

Absentminded - tending to forget or fail to notice things

Aggressive - marked by combative readiness

Ambitious - having a desire to be successful, powerful, or famous

Amusing - giving amusement; diverting

Artful - using or characterized by art and skill; dexterous

Ascetic - austere in appearance, manner, or attitude

Authoritarian - of, relating to, or favoring a concentration of power in a leader or an elite not constitutionally responsible to the people

Big-thinking - tendency to think about doing things that involve a lot of people, money, effort, etc.

Breezy - airy, nonchalant

Businesslike - serious, purposeful

Busy - full of activity; bustling

Casual - feeling or showing little concern; nonchalant; informal

Cautious - careful about avoiding danger or risk

Cerebral - primarily intellectual in nature

Chummy - quite friendly

Circumspect - careful to consider all circumstances and possible consequences; prudent

Competitive - inclined, desiring, or suited to compete (i.e., to strive consciously or unconsciously for an objective)

Complex - having many parts or aspects that are usually interrelated; complicated; intricate

Confidential - entrusted with confidences

Conservative - marked by or relating to traditional norms of taste, elegance, style, or manners

Contradictory - involving, causing, or constituting a contradiction (i.e., logical incongruity)

Crisp - concise and to the point; lively

Cute - attractive or pretty especially in a childish, youthful, or delicate way

Deceptive - tending or having power to cause someone to accept as true or valid what is false or invalid

Determined - characterized by determination (i.e., the act of deciding definitely and firmly)

Dominating - dominant; domineering

Dreamy - quiet and soothing; delightful, ideal

Driving - acting with vigor; energetic

Droll - having a humorous, whimsical, or odd quality

Dry - not showing or communicating warmth, enthusiasm, or tender feeling; uninteresting; plain; aloof

Earthy - practical, down-to-earth; unsophisticated

Effeminate - having feminine qualities untypical of a man

Emotional - markedly aroused or agitated in feeling or sensibilities

Enigmatic - of, relating to, or resembling an enigma; mysterious

Experimental - of, relating to, or based on experience or experiment; tentative

Familial - of or relating to a household or family; homey; domestic

Folksy - homespun; having or showing an unpretentious informality

Formal - following or agreeing with established form, custom, or rules

Freewheeling - free and loose in form or manner

Frugal - economical; careful in the management of money or resources

Glamorous - full of glamour; excitingly attractive

Guileless - innocent, naive

High-spirited - characterized by a bold or energetic spirit

Hurried - going or working at speed; hasty

Hypnotic - readily holding the attention

Iconoclastic - tendency to not conform to generally accepted standards or customs

Idiosyncratic - peculiar; eccentric

Impassive - unsusceptible to or destitute of emotion; apathetic

Impersonal - withdrawn; having or showing no emotional warmth or interest in others

Impressionable - inexperienced; easy to influence

Intense - extreme in degree, power, or effect; passionate

Invisible - discreet; not readily seen or noticed

Irreligious - lacking religious emotions, principles, or practices

Irreverent - lacking proper respect or seriousness

Maternal - of, relating to, belonging to, or characteristic of a mother; motherly

Mellow - pleasant, agreeable; laid back

Modern - being or involving the latest methods, concepts, information, or styles

Moralistic - characterized by or expressive of a narrow moral attitude

Mystical - impossible to prove, understand, or explain by either the senses or intelligence

Neutral - not decided or pronounced as to characteristics; indifferent

Noncommittal - having no clear or distinctive character

Noncompetitive - not inclined towards or characterized by competition or rivalry

Obedient - submissive to the restraint or command of authority; willing to obey

Old-fashioned - adhering to customs of a past era; outmoded

Ordinary - being of the type that is encountered in the normal course of events; normal

Outspoken - direct and open in speech or expression; frank

Placid - serenely free of interruption or disturbance

Political - involving or charged or concerned with acts against a government or a political system

Predictable - behaving in a way that is expected

Preoccupied - lost in thought and unaware of one's surroundings or actions; distracted

Private - preferring to keep personal affairs to oneself

Progressive - liberal; not bound by traditional ways or beliefs

Proud - feeling or showing pride

Pure - having exactly the talents or skills needed for a particular role; immaculate; innocent

Questioning - skeptical; inclined to doubt or question claims

Quiet - calm; gentle; easygoing

Religious - scrupulously and conscientiously faithful; zealous

Reserved - restrained in words and actions

Restrained - not excessive or extravagant

Retiring - reserved, shy

Sarcastic - given to the use of sarcasm; caustic

Self-conscious - conscious of one's own acts or states as belonging to or originating in oneself

Sensual - devoted to or preoccupied with the senses or appetites

Skeptical - relating to, characteristic of, or marked by skepticism (i.e., an attitude of doubt or a disposition to incredulity either in general or toward a particular object)

Smooth - amiable, courteous

Soft - lacking firmness or strength of character; feeble

Solemn - marked by grave sedateness and earnest sobriety

Solitary - not gregarious, colonial, social, or compound

Stern - having a definite hardness or severity of nature or manner; austere

Stolid - having or expressing little or no sensibility; unemotional

Strict - stringent in requirement or control

Stubborn - justifiably unyielding; resolute; mulish

Stylish - conforming to current fashion

Subjective - arising out of or identified by means of one's perception of one's own states and processes

Surprising - of a nature that excites surprise (i.e., a taking unawares)

Tough - capable of enduring strain, hardship, or severe labor

Unaggressive - not aggressive; not given to fighting or assertiveness

Unambitious - feeling or showing a lack of ambition (i.e., desire to achieve a particular end)

Unceremonious - not ceremonious; informal

Unchanging - constant, invariable

Undemanding - not requiring much time, effort, or attention

Unfathomable - incomprehensible; impossible to understand

Unhurried - not hurried; leisurely

Uninhibited - free from inhibition; boisterously informal

Unpatriotic - not feeling or showing love for or devotion to one's country

Unpredictable - tending to behave in ways that cannot be predicted

Unreligious - having no connection with or relation to religion; involving no religious import or idea

Unsentimental - not marked or governed by feeling, sensibility, or emotional idealism

Whimsical - characterized by whim or caprice; especially: lightly fanciful

Negative Traits

Abrasive - causing irritation

Abrupt - rudely or unceremoniously curt

Agonizing - causing agony (i.e., intense pain of mind or body)

Aimless - without aim or purpose

Airy - affected, proud

Aloof - removed or distant either physically or emotionally

Amoral - having or showing no concern about whether behavior is morally right or wrong

Angry - feeling or showing anger (i.e., a strong feeling of displeasure and usually of antagonism)

Anxious - characterized by extreme uneasiness of mind or brooding fear about some contingency; worried

Apathetic - having or showing little or no interest, concern, or emotion

Arbitrary - marked by or resulting from the unrestrained and often tyrannical exercise of power

Argumentative - given to argument; disputatious

Arrogant - exaggerating or disposed to exaggerate one's own worth or importance often by an overbearing manner

Artificial - imitation, sham

Asocial - not social; rejecting or lacking the capacity for social interaction

Assertive - disposed to or characterized by bold or confident statements and behavior; aggressive

Astigmatic - showing incapacity for observation or discrimination

Bewildered - deeply or utterly confused or perplexed

Bizarre - strikingly out of the ordinary

Bland - dull, insipid

Blunt - insensitive

Boisterous - noisily turbulent; tumultuous

Brittle - lacking warmth, depth, or generosity of spirit; cold

Brutal - cruel, cold-blooded; harsh

Calculating - marked by prudent analysis or by shrewd consideration of self-interest; scheming

Callous - feeling or showing no sympathy for others; hard-hearted

Cantankerous - difficult or irritating to deal with

Careless - negligent, slovenly

Charmless - unpleasant and without charm or interest

Childish - marked by or suggestive of immaturity and lack of poise

Clumsy - lacking tact or subtlety

Coarse - crude or unrefined in taste, manners, or language

Colorless - dull, uninteresting

Complacent - marked by self-satisfaction especially when accompanied by unawareness of actual dangers or deficiencies

Complaintive - prone to complain

Compulsive - of, relating to, caused by, or suggestive of psychological compulsion

Conceited - having or showing an excessively high opinion of oneself

Condemnatory - expressing strong criticism or disapproval

Conformist - following or seeking to enforce prevailing standards or customs; opposing or avoiding unconventional thinking and behavior

Confused - being perplexed or disconcerted

Contemptible - worthy of contempt (i.e., the act of despising)

Conventional - lacking originality or individuality; trite

Cowardly - being, resembling, or befitting a coward (i.e., one who shows disgraceful fear or timidity)

Crafty - adept in the use of subtlety and cunning

Crass - having or indicating such grossness of mind as precludes delicacy and discrimination

Criminal - guilty of crime; disgraceful

Critical - inclined to criticize severely and unfavorably

Crude - marked by the primitive, gross, or elemental or by uncultivated simplicity or vulgarity

Cruel - disposed to inflict pain or suffering; devoid of humane feelings

Cynical - having or showing the attitude or temper of a cynic (e.g., contemptuously distrustful of human nature and motives)

Decadent - characterized by or appealing to self-indulgence

Deceitful - deceptive, misleading

Delicate - weak, sickly; fragile

Demanding - requiring much time, effort, or attention; exacting

Dependent - relying on another for support

Desperate - having lost hope; suffering extreme need or anxiety

Destructive - designed or tending to hurt or destroy

Devious - not straightforward; deceptive

Difficult - hard to deal with, manage, or overcome

Dirty - morally unclean or corrupt

Disconcerting - causing embarrassment

Discontented - dissatisfied, malcontent

Discouraging - causing someone to feel less confident or less hopeful

Discourteous - lacking courtesy; rude

Dishonest - characterized by lack of truth, honesty, or trustworthiness; unfair, deceptive

Disloyal - showing an absence of allegiance, devotion, obligation, faith, or support

Disobedient - refusing or neglecting to obey

Disorderly - engaged in conduct offensive to public order

Disorganized - lacking coherence, system, or central guiding agency

Disputatious - inclined to dispute; controversial

Disrespectful - showing a lack of manners or consideration for others

Disruptive - disrupting or tending to disrupt some process, activity, condition, etc.

Dissolute - lacking restraint

Dissonant - marked by dissonance; discordant; incongruous

Distractible - when attention of the mind is easily distracted by small and irrelevant stimuli

Disturbing - causing feelings of worry, concern, or anxiety

Dogmatic - characterized by or given to the expression of opinions very strongly or positively as if they were facts

Domineering - inclined to exercise arbitrary and overbearing control over others

Dull - tedious, uninteresting

Egocentric - self-centered, selfish

Enervated - lacking physical, mental, or moral vigor

Envious - feeling or showing envy (i.e., painful or resentful awareness of an advantage enjoyed by another joined with a desire to possess the same advantage)

Erratic - characterized by lack of consistency, regularity, or uniformity

Escapist - relating to avoiding an unpleasant or boring life by thinking, reading, etc., about something more exciting or fun, especially something that could not really happen

Excitable - capable of being readily roused into action or a state of excitement or irritability

Expedient - governed by self-interest

Extravagant - lacking in moderation, balance, and restraint

Faithless - not to be relied on; untrustworthy; disloyal

False - not genuine; intentionally untrue

Fanatical - marked by excessive enthusiasm and often intense uncritical devotion

Fanciful - marked by fancy or unrestrained imagination rather than by reason and experience

Fatalistic - having or showing a belief that the future is determined and cannot be changed

Fawning - seeking or used to seek approval or favor by means of flattery

Fearful - causing or likely to cause fear, fright, or alarm especially because of dangerous quality

Fickle - marked by lack of steadfastness, constancy, or stability; given to erratic changeableness

Fiery - easily provoked; irritable

Fixed - firmly set in the mind

Flamboyant - excessively showy

Foolish - showing or marked by a lack of good sense or judgment

Forgetful - inclined to forget what one has learned or to do what one should

Fraudulent - characterized by, based on, or done by fraud; deceitful

Frightening - causing fear

Frivolous - marked by unbecoming levity

Gloomy - lacking in promise or hopefulness; pessimistic

Graceless - lacking a sense of propriety; immoral

Grand - lavish, sumptuous

Greedy - marked by greed; having or showing a selfish desire for wealth and possessions

Grim - ghastly, repellent, or sinister in character

Gullible - easily duped or cheated

Hateful - full of hate; malicious

Haughty - blatantly and disdainfully proud

Hedonistic - devoted to the pursuit of pleasure

Hesitant - slow to act or proceed (as from fear, indecision, or unwillingness)

Hidebound - having an inflexible or ultraconservative character

High-handed - having or showing no regard for the rights, concerns, or feelings of others; arbitrary, overbearing

Hostile - marked by malevolence; having or showing unfriendly feelings

Ignorant - unaware, uninformed

Imitative - imitating something superior; counterfeit

Impatient - not patient; restless or short of temper especially under irritation, delay, or opposition

Impractical - not practical; impracticable; idealistic

Imprudent - lacking discretion, wisdom, or good judgment

Impulsive - prone to act on impulse

Inconsiderate - careless of the rights or feelings of others

Incurious - lacking a normal or usual curiosity; uninterested

Indecisive - not decisive; inconclusive; irresolute

Indulgent - willing to allow excessive leniency, generosity, or consideration

Inert - sluggish

Inhibited - not confident enough to say or do what one wants

Insecure - beset by fear and anxiety; not confident or sure

Insensitive - lacking feeling or tact

Insincere - not sincere; hypocritical

Insulting - giving or intended to give offense

Intolerant - unable or unwilling to endure

Irascible - marked by hot temper and easily provoked anger

Irrational - not using or following good reasoning

Irresponsible - having or showing a lack of concern for the consequences of one's actions

Irritable - easily irritated or annoyed

Lazy - disinclined to activity or exertion; not energetic or vigorous

Libidinous - having or marked by lustful desires; lascivious

Loquacious - given to fluent or excessive talk; garrulous

Malicious - having or showing a desire to cause harm to someone; given to, marked by, or arising from malice

Mannered - having an artificial or stilted character

Mannerless - lacking good manners; impolite

Mawkish - exaggeratedly or childishly emotional

Mealymouthed - not plain and straightforward; devious

Mechanical - without thinking about what you are doing, especially because you do something often

Meddlesome - given to meddling (i.e., to interest oneself in what is not one's concern)

Melancholic - tending to depress the spirits; saddening

Meretricious - superficially significant; pretentious

Messy - extremely unpleasant or trying; slovenly

Miserable - causing extreme discomfort or unhappiness; being likely to discredit or shame

Miserly - marked by grasping meanness and penuriousness

Misguided - led or prompted by wrong or inappropriate motives or ideals

Mistaken - wrong in what you believe, or based on a belief that is wrong

Monstrous - having the qualities of a monster (i.e., a threatening force; of unnatural or extreme wickedness or cruelty)

Moody - subject to moods; temperamental

Morbid - abnormally susceptible to or characterized by gloomy or unwholesome feelings

Muddleheaded - mentally confused; bungling

Naive - deficient in worldly wisdom or informed judgment; credulous

Narcissistic - of, relating to, or characterized by narcissism (i.e., egoism, egocentrism); e.g., extremely self-centered with an exaggerated sense of self-importance

Narrow - illiberal in views or disposition; prejudiced

Narrow-minded - not willing to accept opinions, beliefs, behaviors, etc. that are unusual or different from one's own; not open-minded

Negativistic - having an attitude of mind marked by skepticism especially about nearly everything affirmed by others

Neglectful - given to neglecting; careless, heedless

Neurotic - behaving strangely or in an anxious way, often because one has a mental illness

Nihilistic - holding a viewpoint that traditional values and beliefs are unfounded and that existence is senseless and useless

Obnoxious - odiously or disgustingly objectionable; highly offensive

Obsessive - excessive often to an unreasonable degree

Obvious - very noticeable especially for being incorrect or bad

Odd - differing markedly from the usual, ordinary, or accepted

Offhand - done or made offhand (i.e., without premeditation or preparation; extempore)

One-dimensional - lacking depth or complexity; superficial

One-sided - limited to one side; partial

Opinionated - firmly or unduly adhering to one's own opinion or to preconceived notions

Opportunistic - taking advantage of opportunities as they arise (e.g., exploiting opportunities with little regard to principle or consequences)

Oppressed - burdened by abuse of power or authority

Outrageous - violent, unrestrained; going beyond all standards of what is right or decent; deficient in propriety

Overimaginative - excessively imaginative (e.g., devoid of truth)

Paranoid - characterized by suspiciousness, persecutory trends, or megalomania; extremely fearful

Passive - lacking in energy or will; lethargic

Pedantic - narrowly, stodgily, and often ostentatiously learned

Perverse - turned away from what is right or good; corrupt

Petty - marked by or reflective of narrow interests and sympathies; small-minded

Pharisaical - marked by hypocritical censorious self-righteousness

Phlegmatic - having or showing a slow and stolid temperament

Plodding - proceed slowly or tediously

Pompous - having or exhibiting self-importance; arrogant

Possessive - manifesting possession or the desire to own or dominate

Predatory - inclined or intended to injure or exploit others for personal gain or profit

Prejudiced - resulting from or having a prejudice or bias for or especially against

Presumptuous - overstepping due bounds (as of propriety or courtesy)

Pretentious - characterized by pretension (e.g., making usually unjustified or excessive claims)

Prim - stiffly formal and proper; decorous; prudish

Procrastinating - habitually and/or intentionally putting off the doing of something that should be done

Profligate - wildly extravagant; shamelessly immoral

Provocative - serving or tending to provoke, excite, or stimulate

Pugnacious - having a quarrelsome or combative nature; truculent

Puritanical - : of, relating to, or characterized by a rigid morality

Reactionary - relating to, marked by, or favoring reaction; especially: ultraconservative in politics

Reactive - done in immediate response to something especially without thinking or planning

Regimental - of or relating to a regiment; dictatorial

Regretful - full of regret (i.e., sorrow aroused by circumstances beyond one's control or power to repair)

Repentant - experiencing repentance (i.e., the action or process of repenting especially for misdeeds or moral shortcomings)

Repressed - characterized by restraint

Resentful - full of resentment; inclined to resent (i.e., to feel or express annoyance or ill will at)

Ridiculous - arousing or deserving ridicule; extremely silly or unreasonable; absurd, preposterous

Rigid - inflexibly set in opinion

Ritualistic - stressing the use of ritual forms; adhering to or devoted to ritualism

Rowdy - coarse or boisterous in behavior; rough

Ruined - bankrupt, impoverished; devastated

Sadistic - taking pleasure in the infliction of pain, punishment, or humiliation on others

Sanctimonious - hypocritically pious or devout

Scheming - given to forming schemes; devious

Scornful - full of scorn; contemptuous (i.e., manifesting, feeling, or expressing deep hatred or disapproval)

Secretive - disposed to secrecy; not open or outgoing in speech, activity, or purposes

Sedentary - lazy; not doing or involving a lot of physical activity

Selfish - concerned excessively or exclusively with oneself

Self-indulgent - excessive or unrestrained gratification of one's own appetites, desires, or whims

Shallow - lacking in depth of knowledge, thought, or feeling

Shortsighted - lacking foresight

Shy - sensitively diffident or retiring; reserved

Silly - exhibiting or indicative of a lack of common sense or sound judgment; frivolous

Single-minded - having one driving purpose or resolve; determined, dedicated

Sloppy - slovenly, careless; disagreeably effusive (i.e., marked by the expression of great or excessive emotion or enthusiasm)

Slow - lacking in readiness, promptness, or willingness

Sly - lightly mischievous; roguish; furtive; dissembling

Softheaded - having or indicative of a weak, unrealistic, or uncritical mind

Sordid - marked by baseness or grossness; vile; meanly avaricious; covetous

Steely - harsh and threatening in manner or appearance

Stiff - stubborn, unyielding; harsh, severe

Strong-willed - very determined to do something even if other people say it should not be done

Stupid - marked by or resulting from unreasoned thinking or acting; senseless; vexatious, exasperating

Submissive - submitting (i.e., to yield oneself to the authority or will of another; surrender) to others

Superficial - concerned only with the obvious or apparent; shallow

Superstitious - of, relating to, or swayed by superstition (i.e., a notion maintained despite evidence to the contrary)

Suspicious - disposed to suspect; distrustful

Tactless - marked by lack of tact (i.e., a keen sense of what to do or say in order to maintain good relations with others or avoid offense)

Tasteless - having no taste; insipid; dull

Tense - feeling or showing nervous tension

Thievish - given to stealing

Thoughtless - lacking concern for others; inconsiderate; reckless

Timid - lacking in courage or self-confidence

Treacherous - likely to betray trust; unreliable

Trendy - marked by ephemeral, superficial, or faddish appeal or taste

Troublesome - difficult, burdensome; giving trouble or anxiety; vexatious

Unappreciative - not giving recognition or thanks for something

Uncaring - lacking proper sympathy, concern, or interest

Uncharitable - lacking in charity; severe in judging; harsh

Unconvincing - not convincing; implausible

Uncooperative - marked by an unwillingness or inability to work with others

Uncreative - lacking originality of thought; not productive of new ideas

Uncritical - showing lack or improper use of critical standards or procedures

Unctuous - having, revealing, or marked by a smug, ingratiating, and false earnestness or spirituality

Undisciplined - lacking in discipline or self-control

Unfriendly - not friendly (e.g., hostile, unsympathetic; inhospitable, unfavorable)

Ungrateful - showing no gratitude; making a poor return

Unhealthy - of a harmful nature; morally contaminated

Unimaginative - having or showing a lack of imagination or originality

Unimpressive - not attracting or deserving particular attention, admiration, or interest

Unlovable - incapable of inspiring love or admiration; not having attractive or appealing qualities

Unpolished - not polished (i.e., characterized by a high degree of development, finish, or refinement)

Unprincipled - lacking moral principles; unscrupulous

Unrealistic - not realistic; inappropriate to reality or fact

Unreflective - unthinking, heedless

Unreliable - undependable, untrustworthy

Unrestrained - immoderate, uncontrolled

Unstable - wavering in purpose or intent; vacillating; characterized by lack of emotional control

Vacuous - marked by lack of ideas or intelligence; inane

Vague - not thinking or expressing one's thoughts clearly or precisely; vacant

Venal - originating in, characterized by, or associated with corrupt bribery

Venomous - spiteful, malevolent

Vindictive - intended to cause anguish or hurt; spiteful; vengeful

Vulnerable - open to attack or damage; assailable

Weak - not firmly decided; not factually grounded or logically presented; ineffective, impotent

Weak-willed - not having the determination that is needed to continue with a difficult course of action

Willful - obstinately and often perversely self-willed

Wishful - according with wishes rather than reality

Zany - strange, surprising, or uncontrolled in a humorous way

Sources: 1 2 3 ⚜ Writing Resources PDFs

[thaifanfests]

🏳️‍🌈Marriage Equality Act & Updates🏳️‍🌈

What we now know as the Marriage Equality Act did not begin as such. Efforts towards passing same-sex marriage in Thailand began with an attempt of legal recognition of civil partnerships in 2012-2014 when the Thai government held its first hearings on a potential civil partnership bill. Despite the support towards legalizing same sex marriage, the Civil Partnership Act, at the time, did not grant same-sex couples the same rights as their counterparts (i.e.: same-sex couples were not entitled to raise children, and the minimum age for those wishing to register a same-sex partnership would be 20 whereas heterosexual couples could register at 17.) In other words, there was an attempt at legal recognition of same-sex couples, but the bill still had the veil of discrimination and other flaws. Other factors, such as political unrest, also stalled the bill. (Prachatai)

Other significant attempts were made as well, especially with mass public support. Petitions that called for the legalization of same-sex marriage led to efforts in 2018, when the Justice Minister of Thailand began drafting a Civil Partnership Bill (Bangkok Post). Despite the support in public hearings and approval from the government, it did not pass in time. However, it’s still important to note that while there was support and tremendous push to pass the Civil Partnership Bill, many felt that recognizing same-sex couples as “legal, civil partnerships” “falls short of marriage” and therefore, could not truly be equal to heterosexual marriages (Bangkok Post).

This brings us to the Move Forward Party, which introduced the Marriage Equality Act in June 2020. This bill is significantly different from the previously mentioned bills, as it sought to amend the Civil and Commercial Code to include gender neutral language (ThaiPBSWorld). Doing so would allow any Thai citizen of any gender to seek marriage. After rewriting, redrafting, governments dissolving, and more scrutiny over a persistent exclusion of certain rights, the Thai government approved several drafts of same-sex marriage law, all of which passed with overwhelming support. The House of Representatives then approved a unified draft in March 2024, and then passed the Senate in April (Associated Press/Time). Finally, after receiving the royal endorsement from the Thai King on September 24th, 2024 and publishing the Royal Gazette, the Marriage Equality Act is slated to take effect on January 22nd, 2025. (BBC News)

Well, it was.

There’s a tiny delay. A discrepancy in the 120 day period has caused the initial January 22nd date to be pushed back to January 23rd. (Bangkok Pride)

The Marriage Equality Act is also missing an important signature. As reported by Bangkok Pride: “Currently, the process awaits the signature of Mr. Anutin Charnvirakul, Thailand's Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of the Interior, to formally activate the law. However, as of now, Mr. Anutin has not signed the order, which may lead to continued confusion among government agencies hesitant to act without a clear and official enforcement date” (Bangkok Pride). His delay in signing the law is causing some confusion, especially for the public and those who must prepare themselves to provide registration services. 

Beyond legal frameworks, there are other challenges that the Love Foundation anticipates, such as addressing misunderstandings, lack of local government readiness as an influx of legal changes and commitments take place, and opposition from those who dissent. We urge you to take a look at their breakdown of some of these issues and their potential solutions. (LoveFoundation)

Still, even with the delay, Bangkok Pride and several other LBGTQIA+ organizations move forward with plans to celebrate. Mass wedding ceremonies are anticipated to take place across Thailand on the 23rd. Commitments in all forms are slated to continue. While we’ll be a day or two early with our festivities, we hope this was an informative rundown on the Marriage Equality Act and what to look forward to!

🏳️‍🌈 What's ThaiTheKnot2025? 🏳️‍🌈 Guidelines 🏳️‍🌈 Prompts 🏳️‍🌈 Discord & Carrd 🏳️‍🌈

[thranduil-aran-edhil]

There are 3 ways to revive Astarion/reverse his vampirism in D&D 5e. Two are baked into the mechanical rules. And one would be interesting to roleplay.

OBS: im not counting the method used in BG2EE where you can use Bodhi's Heart to revert Jaheira's/Viconia's/Aerie's/Anomen's vampirism.

The first one is True Resurrection. Now, of course, by the time the Tadfools can get a hold of this (by level 17), the whole thing with "the creature can only have been dead for 200 years" would make it a bit inconvenient. HOWEVER, Astarion isn't dead, he's UNdead. So they would have to kill him. A funny mental image, in my opinion. This would be the most certain way to revive him. (if you're going with Rules As Written, if you're spicy and like the Matt Mercer method, it could be less certain)

The second one is the Wish spell. Which is a very interesting spell, it would need a specific and clear wording to revive him. There's a chance it won't work. And there's a chance that the caster (most likely Gale) won't ever be able to cast the spell ever again.

The final one... comes from Elven High Magic. The only magic in DnD that can still go beyond level 9 even after Mystra's prohibition after Netheril's Fall. All of the spells are ritual and communal. It's quite thematically fitting, as Astarion is an Elf, but he never says anything about Elven culture in the game. It's Ye Olde Lore, like 2e (AD&D). Here's the spell in its entirety:

Gift of Life (Wizard Spell) This powerful high magic spell has an effect unlike any other. It restores undead creatures to life. Undead creatures are allowed a saving throw vs. death magic, but they can only make such a roll at a level equal to half their Hit Dice. An 18th-level lich, for example, would make a sav­ing throw vs. death magic as if it were actually a 9th-level wizard. If the undead creature fails its saving throw, it is immediately restored to life as it was just before its death, if it died by unnatural causes. It is restored to life as it was 10 years before its death if it died of old age or similar causes. The restored creature is stunned and incapable of any action for 1d4 turns as it slowly realizes what happened. The restored creature returns to life at an appropriate experience and Hit Die level, and with its original alignment and abilities. It will, however, be wearing the same clothes, and carry­ing whatever equipment (if any) that it did as an undead creature. This spell does not necessarily change the alignment of a creature that was originally evil, but the elves recount legends of wicked liches or vampires who were restored through this spell, repented their old lives, and changed alignment, dedicating themselves to the defense of elves. The material component of this spell is a gold medallion in the form of the sun (worth at least 500 gp). Notes: Restricted to elves able to cast High Magic, such as those of Evermeet.

And here's an interesting alternative, based on the D&D Elven High Magic from angelfire.com:

Suyoll/The Revival: This ritual restores an elf's life, health, and harmony with the Weave. This is seen as an acceptance back into the community of elves, despite any changes that occur during the elf’s life (or death). This ritual restores an elf’s natural state, neutralizing all ill or unnatural effects upon him. It cancels curses of any nature other than those divinely placed (i.e., personally inflicted by a god) and spell effects such as petrification and polymorph. Suyoll allows the regrowth of full limbs, muscles, and organs (such as eyes, tongue, etc.). It also negates any magical or non-voluntary alignment changes. The most advanced form of this ritual involves the restoration of undead elves to a living state, as they were 100 years before their deaths or transformations. GM’s Note: This ritual is rarely used; for the elves are a stubborn lot and forgiveness is not a virtue they practice often. Thus, any outcast elf or seriously injured elf is often perceived as pitiful or as a fool who learned his lesson for straying away from the path of elvenkind. However, great sacrifices made for sake of a clan or kingdoms are looked upon proudly, and the Suyoll is invoked to honour heroes who act in such interests. This ritual can even restore a Drow to status among the Tel`Quessir, though the ritual erases all powers (but not appearance) of the Drow (judge as a moon elf).

Do with these informations what you will, I just thought it would be nice to share :D

[gentle-hero-blog]

Fun Samus n Adam fax yayyyy bc I'm writing ANOTHER thing about them

Samus:

she can eat A LOT but she's also fairly picky. She also gets nauseous easily as a lasting effect of Phazon sickness

(EXTREME HEADCANON TERRITORY) Chozo have minimal sex dimorphism and basically no concept of gender - this is why we never see any quote unquote “female” ones (I like to believe their language doesn't even have indicators of gender, i.e. when Raven Beak calls her "nadaha" [daughter] it translates more literally to "child"). so I think the GF Academy was really her first exposure to the complicated world of human gender expression (since the age of 3 at least). she vibes with some of it and really Doesn't vibe with the rest

“Lady” was actually a name she was trying out for a while after joining the Academy (^see above). She warmed up to Adam a Lot when he just went with it. Nowadays she doesn't use it anymore, except in an inside-joke sort of way with him

Loves Joey to death if i'm being honest. she sees him as a little bro and he sees her as The Most Amazing Spectacular Hero In The Universe (as per the s&j comics)

Has complicated feelings about slowly becoming a Metroid. at what point does it stop? can she still call herself a person? it feels to her as though she's lived in a different body at every stage of her life and highkey she's tired of it

Laser-focuses on other people's problems to avoid processing her own. ruh roh

LOVES fixing stuff/solving puzzles and very little can snap her out of it when she's in the zone. she'll often work on her gunship to clear her mind and forget to do anything else

BONUS: some misc. metroid DNA effects

scaly skin on back, arms and calves

raspy scratchy voice (FANS SELF FURIOUSLY) and basically i think if she were to scream it would sound like a metroid shriek

suit develops a ridgy, almost organic texture on the plating; colors shift (less vibrant, starts to tinge with green)

unexplained Cravings. gets real grumpy and finds it hard to think when they hit. anger and stress cause them to flare up especially hard (like in Dread)

something weird with her eyes.....when the cravings hit the irises dilate

Adam:

I usually envision him as anywhere from 10-20 yrs older than Samus

Definitely not weak per se (highly trained soldier. duh) but he's no powerhouse like Samus. easily throwable individual

eyestrain McGee. this guy does not wear his readers as often as he should

tolerates animals and actively avoids young children. I think he could maybe bond with a cat or something if given the chance though

he and ian didn't have much of a choice about going into the military. It was a very strict family tradition

enjoys music a lot. I imagine he'd have a nice singing voice too but this guy would NOT sing i'm sorry

(entirely 100% self-indulgent) his favorite song is Pink Pony Club. The unit was in hysterics upon finding this out

was in advanced placement at the Academy due to being large-brained which meant his classmates were all much older. one of these classmates was Rodney Aran

(more self-indulgence) that being said, the one and only quote unquote "date" he has ever been on was with Rodney, who asked him to the Academy's equivalent of prom. it was uncomfortable and bad

similarly to Samus, he has complicated feelings about the AI situation. that was NOT done with his consent. but at the very least he can finally drop the commander act and just be a catty snark

AI Adam is a lot more talkative than his former self. the main reason for this is that he will no longer lose his job for telling someone to suck his entire ass

Joey reminds him of his brother. who said that

Both:

they don't necessarily Identify as such (I don't think they like. care), but both are likely some flavor of aroace. adam finds the idea of romance/sex borderline repulsive and samus just doesn't think about it often beyond Boobs Are Cool (she does get very flustered when girls are nice to her though)

transgener. yay 🥳🥳🥳

Sooo introverted YAYYY. lowkey they first bonded over being the quiet ones in their unit (“bonded” meaning they stood next to each other in awkward silence at some sort of gathering and thought aaahhhhh thank god another quiet person)

they're just comfortable around each other idk. it's nice :] on the other hand they also Get On Each Other's Nerves So Enormously Bad

not all is well between them. there is defo some silent resentment on Samus' part for some of his past actions and their way of solving problems does NOT always align. they are, however, making the most of it AND i love them

[psychopomp-namine]

link click fans we got a new translation to that line everyone was confused over. it does not clear up anything at all lmao.

now I'm extra confused. "death has introduced uncertainty into determinism?"

so is it that instead of being worried about how he's introducing uncertainties in the timeline and therefore making the death node unpredictable (i.e. he can't predict when/how cheng xiaoshi dies), is it that the death node itself is what causes uncertainties and is changing the timeline? how does that work?

I don't understand. is the death node the cause or the effect of uncertainties?

[whenmemorydies]

Chaos and Consistency

I've been thinking about why Carmy chose a career in fine dining in the first place. Obviously there are the reasons we're told in the show:

Cooking was a source of connection between Carmy and his family, particularly with his brother/surrogate father, Mikey (recall the first scene of 1x06 Ceres).

Carmy also knew that he wanted to be chef from a young age (recall 3x02 Next and the convo between Carmy and Chi Chi, and 3x06 Napkins and the convo between Tina and Mikey about Carmy's purpose).

Carmy's family is well connected in the restaurant industry: his parents owned their own restaurant (The Beef) and his cousin Michelle owns restaurants too (recall Michelle and Carmy's sidebar in 2x06 Fishes). Carmy is given the opportunity to work in these places and gain valuable experience that opens up doors for him to go onto work elsewhere in the industry.

In addition to the above, I think Carmy chose and stayed in professional kitchens as a response to the chaos he grew up in, which was largely the result of his absent father and abusive mother. I'll explain my reasoning for this conclusion below.

Chaos

The chaos that would have been present in Carmy's childhood is never as clearly illustrated in the show as it is in 2x06 Fishes. The emotional powder keg that is his mother, Donna Berzatto, propels the action in that episode, whether its via her constant yelling at the people around her, the repeated dinging of her kitchen timers or the multiple pots and trays of food she has going that simmer and bubble until everything boils over at the end of the episode with Donna purposely crashing her car through the family living room:

Its clear that in Donna's house, chaos reigned. She was erratic, unpredictable and inconsistent as a parent. She also nursed an alcohol addiction and left her children feeling afraid. Recall 1x08 Ice Chips and Natalie's disclosure to Donna about the former's fears for her unborn daughter:

Natalie: Mom, I don't want her scared like I was scared.

Donna: I scared you?

Natalie: You scared all of us.

While its indicated on the show that Carmy's father left the family when Carmy was young, its also implied that he too behaved erratically and suffered from multiple addictions. In 1x04 Dogs, Cicero tells Carmy that the last time he spoke with Carmy's father, they had fought about the latter's drug and alcohol use as well as gambling issues. Cicero also discloses to Carmy that his dad couldn't settle on a job and had a new career "every ten minutes."

Cicero's chat with Carmy along with what we know of Carmy's father from Mikey and Donna (i.e. that he abandoned his family leaving his eldest son to step into the trap role of "man of the house", that he was an unsupportive partner only being present for the birth of one of his three children - Carmen's - and while he was at the hospital, did everything BUT support his wife through her labour), paints a picture of a volatile and incredibly unreliable person.

Consistency in childhood

One of the most important things that caregivers can provide children is consistency in their parenting. This usually takes the form of regular routines for your child and as much predictability as possible in your reactions and behaviour.

Routines and predictability give children a sense of safety as they absorb the world around them. Consistent parenting gives kids the space to learn what to expect in any given situation, particularly in relation to cause and effect. It teaches them about limits: physical and behavioural, because kids can rely on their parents to model and guide them as to what is acceptable in both regards. Repetition through routine has a big role to play in children's learning (as kids - and adults alike - learn new skills through repetition). Importantly, the security that children feel due to consistent parenting also gives them the confidence to take risks and try new things. And novel experiences expand children's knowledge bases and skill sets.

Think about it: if you are in an unpredictable situation with lots of things changing or out of your control around you, would you feel comfortable doing something totally out of the box that you have no experience in? Probably not.

Where a child experiences parenting that is inconsistent or unpredictable, this has been found to lead to a number of different, harmful outcomes for that child, including but not limited to:

low self-confidence

anxiety

depression

attachment issues

emotional dysregulation

Its clear that the Berzatto kids grew up in a home where chaos and a fair measure of dysfunction dominated. Consistency was rare and when it did occur, it was likely to have involved the elder Berzatto children, Mikey and Natalie, stepping into provide that security for each other and their youngest sibling, Carmen.

Throughout The Bear, we've seen multiple examples of the impact of that chaos and dysfunction on Carmy as an adult. Those impacts include Carmy's various attempts at asserting control over his life (for example, his spiral in 1x07 The Review or his obsessive focus on perfection, most dramatically highlighted in season 3). Another example is the firm boundary he's able to set with his volatile mother. Of all three of Donna's kids, Carmy is the one who's maintained the widest distance from her: its been established by those working on the show that by the end of season 3, Carmy hasn't seen Donna since the events of 2x06 Fishes (which took place roughly 5-6 years ago).

Carmy is also the only Berzatto child whom we see clearly articulate that at least one of his parents was chaotic. He's also the first Berzatto child that we hear name the antidote to chaos: consistency. Recall the conversation between Carmy and Nat in 1x06 Ceres:

Natalie: Plus, we never spend any real time together. This place is eating you alive.

Carmen: You always blame this place.

Natalie: What do you mean?

Carmen: I mean, you blame the restaurant. Alright, you don't blame Mom. You don't blame Mikey.

Natalie: How can I not blame this place? I just cleaned up shot-out glass, and now, I'm covered in carbon. All of our time, money, work, gets sucked up into this place. The only thing we get back is chaos, resentment. Its bullshit.

Carmen: Sounds like Mom.

Natalie: I'm serious.

Carmen: I'm serious.

Natalie: I just want things to be calm. I just want things to be on solid ground. I want things to feel...

Carmen: Consistent.

Natalie: Yeah. Consistent.

Carmen: Yeah. That's totally reasonable.

While Natalie identifies The Beef as the source of the chaos that plagues her family, Carmy insists that that chaos rests at the feet of their mother, Donna. It is here in this conversation, that we can see a difference in approach between Carmy and Nat when it comes to relationships. Natalie is quicker to give her family members grace (recall her admission in 1x06 Ceres that she knew it was a bad idea to co-sign with Mikey for ownership of The Beef but did it anyway; also recall 3x08 Ice Chips and her reaching out to Donna to help her through labour, despite all of her trauma directly caused by her mother) while Carmy has shown that he will internalise sleights (real and perceived) and will cut people off as a result - though we know how deeply feeling the man is, I imagine the cutting off would be experienced as akin to dismemberment for him. Recall his monologue in 1x08 Braciole and his description of how Mikey made him feel as they grew apart:

Carmen: He stopped letting me into the restaurant, couple years ago. He just cut me off, cold. And that...that hurt, you know. And I think that just, that flicked a switch in me, where I was like, okay, fuck you, watch this. And because we had this connection through food, and he had made me feel so rejected, and lame, and shitty, and uncool, I made this plan where I was going to work in all the best restaurants in the world.

Also recall the entire walk-in blowout between Carmy and Richie in 2x10 The Bear after Richie compared Carmy to his mother, Donna (I'll just include an excerpt below because, honestly, I hate rewatching this fight):

Richie: Where were you when I fuckin' put your brother in the ground you selfish piece of shit?

Carmen: You know what? You're-you're obsessed with my family. That's what you are. You fuckin'...

Richie: I'm fucking obsessed with you.

Carmen: You're a fucking leech.

Richie: I'm obsessed with you.

Carmen: You fucking leech.

Richie: Yeah.

Carmen: I should've cut you out!

Richie: I fuckin' love you!

Carmen: I should've fuckin' cut you the fuck out!

Above: The line that, in my view, blew up Carmy and Richie's relationship at the end of season 2 and from which it still hasn't recovered by the end of season 3. Screenshot from 2x10 The Bear.

Despite Carmy and Nat's different approaches to their relationships, the conversation between them in 1x06 Ceres shows they do have something in common when it comes to responding to the chaos in their lives: a desire for consistency.

Striving for consistency as adults

Natalie and Carmy go about achieving their goal of consistency in different ways. Nat has sought it out and found it in her partner and father of her daughter, my beloved Pete. The man is the definition of an unproblematic king: see this post and this post by @thegirlwhowatchedeverything for the evidence). Natalie has also got a head for accounting and project management. Its hard to be good at that stuff without being consistent and diligent. She's actually a bit of a jack of all trades: she can lecture a plumber on how to fix a toilet (recall her phone call about The Beef's possessed toilet in 2x02 Pasta), run FOH for The Bear and interference with The Bear's main investor, Uncle Jimmy. For Natalie, consistency means making sure her home life is safe and secure. It means being practical and reliably available to check in and help others, even to her own detriment ("if someone feels sick, I start to feel sick").

In contrast, Carmy spends little to no time on building a secure home life for himself. When he does partner up, its with a woman wearing a bullet necklace, who talks about almost committing manslaughter at work and who mirrors his abusive mother. Carmy's home itself is pretty barren and he appears to be living out of boxes. He's still storing his books in piles on the floor by the time we hit the penultimate episode of the series thus far (3x09). Its also clearly established that Carmy is not practical (recall Sydney and Nat's joint observation in 2x01 Beef: "Your math is fucked" lmao), and he's often not reliable (recall episodes 2x03 through to 2x10 when he flakes on The Beef's renovation repeatedly).

The primary way Carmy has sought consistency in his life has been through his work as a chef.

In the course of researching and drafting You love taking care of people: Love in the Time of Late Stage Capitalism, it became very clear to me just how regimented the back of house of commercial kitchens aspires to be. The creation and implementation of the French Brigade system is one way that the restaurant industry tries to imbue order into a kitchen setting. The French became synonymous with fine dining and restaurants because, in large part, of their involvement in systematising the kitchen in order to scale service and increase the number of patrons that could be fed.

That systematisation and desire for order, consistency and control in restaurants is reiterated repeatedly in The Bear. Recall the following bits of dialogue from throughout the show:

1x02 Hands

Marcus: [cleaning BOH] Why am I using a toothbrush?

Carmen: Its about consistency and being consistent. Can't operate at a higher level without consistency.

1x08 Braciole

Carmen: And the more he wouldn't respond, and the more our relationship kind of strained, the deeper into this I went and the better I got. And the more people I cut out, the quieter my life got. And the routine of the kitchen was so consistent, and exacting, and busy, and hard, and alive, and I lost track of time and he died.

3x10 Forever

Will Guidara: I was just, like, immediately obsessed with the controlled chaos. Like, the orchestrated frenzy. [...] And then you get to, like, be the conductor of it all.

We also saw visuals throughout the show of the control asserted in restaurants, particularly in BOH. Recall Carmy scrubbing floors by hand, the cold sterility and precision in the Empire kitchen, and the well-oiled cleaning machine that is The Bear crew in 3x03 Doors:

Note how different the above restaurant kitchens are to the state of the kitchen in the Berzatto house - how orderly and clean. While I'm sure these kitchens can reach epic levels of mess when staff are in the middle of service, through his experiences as a chef Carmy would have seen time and time again a system - as fucked as it was - to get that mess under control. In the Berzatto house, there was no system - at least no reliable one - that could reign in the chaos left in the wake of Donna and her ex-partner.

We know Carmy came back to The Beef to try and fix his family, as he tells us in 1x08 Braciole. But what if Carmy has been trying to fix his family with every job he's taken as a chef? What if he is using - either consciously but more likely unconsciously - his experience in each kitchen he's been in as an opportunity to perform control and consistency in the way he wishes he was able to have done at home, with his mother and with Mikey?

Carmy may not be able to fix people, but he knows restaurants. He’s had experience in wrangling, to varying degrees, the chaos of a kitchen into some semblance of order. And if he can impose that order, that consistency in one context, maybe he can do it in another. What Carmy will need to learn is that consistency in terms of a product (e.g. a clean kitchen every night or immaculately plated dishes each service) and consistency in terms of relationships are two different things. You can strive for consistent products but destroy all your relationships in the pursuit of them. Conversely, if you strive for consistency in your relationships, you may not always make consistent products (and quite frankly, that's OK - is a perfectly plated agnolotti dish worth Carmy's relationship with Tina? Is driving Syd to a panic attack worth Carmy's pursuit of a star? I think not on both counts).

Consistency as peace: Sydney

The reason why Sydney makes Carmy better at his job is because unlike him, she is a chef who has practically mastered both forms of consistency. She understands what consistency of product means in the realm of the restaurant industry and can execute to that standard (she may not be as experienced as Carmy in this regard but she's more than capable).

Sydney is also incredibly adept at relationship-building and the consistency required for this. In regards to her relationships, Sydney is consistent to a fault, likely due to the fact that the parent who raised her for most of her life - Emmanuel Adamu - was also a consistent and loving father. He modelled steady, unwavering love for his daughter and Sydney exudes this in turn.

For me, the most clear manifestation of Sydney's consistent love and care is in how she mentors the staff at The Beef and The Bear. Unlike Carmy, she does not visit the trauma she has been subjected to (which we understand has largely occurred in kitchens through her work as a chef) on her peers. Sydney does not displace or blow her trauma through others. The one time she comes the closest to doing so is in 1x07 The Review. However, the experience is such a foul one for Sydney that she quits her job because of it (much to Carmy's dismay). And as we all know, she returns to The Beef and then goes onto run interference between Carmy and the rest of The Bear crew in season 3, protecting the crew so that don't get in Carmy's line of fire.

Above: Sydney physically and emotionally protecting Tina from Carmy's emotional dysregulation in 3x03 Doors.

Like Nat, Sydney is reliable and practical. Recall the below non-exhaustive list of examples:

how Sydney took control of lunch service at The Beef in 1x05 Sheridan after the restaurant loses power and gas (including by building an entire grill from found construction materials - what?!);

how Sydney single-handedly oversaw much of The Beef's transformation into The Bear in season 2 while Carmy was out numbing himself with Claire;

how after the birth of Nat's baby, Sydney makes a shit tonne of food for Nat and Pete, including Nat's favourite lasagne.

Above: Sydney and Tina building an outdoor kitchen in 1x05 Sheridan

Sydney is also able to establish firm boundaries with Carmy ("You are an excellent chef. You are also a piece of shit.", "If this is going to work the way that, I think, we both want it to work, we need to try to listen to each other.", "I'm not your fucking babysitter") and pushes Carmy to be consistent in his relationships. Recall 3x01 Tomorrow and her gentle insistence that he call Richie after their walk-in blow up.

Carmy recognises all of this pretty quickly with Sydney, making her his sous chef by the third episode of the series ("I will dial business. You are everything else.") and offering her part ownership of The Bear by 3x02 Next. Whether Syd is going to accept Carmy's offer is another question and one that I suspect is going to heavily depend on Carmy's ability to repair and practice loving consistency in his relationships next season.

I think key to this, is going to be a realisation on Carmy's part that he cannot treat consistency in relationships like he does consistency in the restaurant or creating a dish. He can't just "be square with everything [...] and everyone" or "make it good [by filtering] out the bad" like he described in 3x07 Legacy.

That description by Carmy of how he wants to be remembered - his legacy - still reads to me like the description of a product. That Carmy wants to be remembered for creating something panic-less and anxiety-free while giving little attention to how he might go about actually creating the thing in the first place: the consistent work that needs to be done in relationships to make sure that people aren't panicking and aren't anxious. Contrast this with Marcus' desire for his legacy:

Marcus: I kept my chin up. Listened and learned. I did honest work. Fun to be around. And an excellent emergency contact.

Marcus' legacy is all about relationships and process. He, like Sydney, knows that at the end of the day, the end product - his legacy - will not be a thing. It will be the sum total of everything: what he made through honest work but more importantly how he engaged with others: how he listened and learned, was fun to be around, and was reliable enough to be an excellent emergency contact. Key to all of this, is his consistency (which Marcus models from the first episode of The Bear and is probably why he is held so dear by Carmy as well). I’ve no doubt that Marcus’ consistency and how he treats people was modelled for him by his primary caregiver, his mother Angela Brooks. This is based on Marcus’ eulogy for Angela in 3x03 Doors.

Marcus: She loved everyone. I think you can tell 'cause there's so many people here. I always felt loved. It didn't matter what was going on or if I was in trouble or whatever. I knew she was listening. And she knew I was listening too.

This is essentially, the core of consistent parenting. Ensuring that a child feels loved, even when things are hard. Its also the core to consistent relationships throughout one's life. And it depends entirely on people and how we handle our connections to each other.

Indeed, what Carmy needs to realise could also be put another way, as it was by Chef Terry in 3x10 Forever:

Andrea Terry: I think what I've learned over the years in all the places I've worked, is people don't remember the food. [...] Its the people that they remember.

Tagging in case you're interested in more of my rambles but as always, I'm interested in chatting about this stuff with whoever wants to (tagged or not!):

@currymanganese @vacationship @thoughtfulchaos773 @moodyeucalyptus @fresaton @ciaomarie @hwere @tvfantic87 @freedelusionshere @mitocamdria @ambeauty @angelica4equity @anxietycroissant @turbulenthandholding @brokenwinebox @devisrina @alwaysrunningoutoftime

[orphiclovers]

Avatar - fundamentally broken skill?

This is a thing I have been thinking about. The way powers (skills, stigmas, whatever) work in the world of ORV is fascinating in that they are not designed to help the incarnation or adjust to their bodies like a classical superpower. It's repeated many times that the Star Stream is a cruel place, so of course it makes nothing easy on them. Just look at how many times Shin Yoosung and Lee Gilyoung bleed when using their skills. Or how Anna Croft and Yoo Joonghyuk were destroyed mentally by their repeated lifetimes - don't even get me started on Regression.

And Avatar is one of the skills that is the most developed. I've talked about how manifesting it seemingly splits you in two (I recommend reading this previous meta before this post) but what does that split entail, exactly? Here's my theories.

1. Author/Character divide.

If we take 1863rd Yoo Joonghyuk as an example, it's very clear cut. The black coat wearing YJH would be the 'character' who stays and dies and the white coat wearing YJH would be the 'author' who choses to write another story. 'Character' used here in the sense that Kim Dokja would look at them and be able to see/assign them this metaphysical trait, as he does for everyone else.

With Kim Dokja, it is basically easy too. 51% is the author, while 49% is the character, probably.

Han Sooyoung is more difficult. I think since Kim Dokja looks at 1863rd and says she is already a 'character', while 3rd stays a person the whole time IIRC, 3rd would be the 'author' self, even if this seems counterintuitive and like it should be the opposite - this makes the most sense with the second part of this theory.

Technically every author (or reader - someone with the knowledge of the narrative) becomes a 'character' (i.e forgets everything) at some point as per Star Stream rules, but this has not yet happened to Han Sooyoung of the 3rd round.

Still, it's not a perfect fit. Both Han Sooyoungs write novels and neither Kim Dokja does (not that writing is 100% necessary to be an 'Author', since YJH is one and barely writes anything until the epilogue) But it's still an interesting connection to explore.

Onto the second part.

2. Does the divide into two...actually work long term, because it doesn't seem to, based on the evidence we have?

First, let's look at 49% Kim Dokja. Perhaps Kimcom would have accepted him as the real Kim Dokja, like they do with Han Sooyoung, if he didn't ACT like a wet paper towel. The detoriation in mental faculties is very apparent and jarring and soon he falls apart physically too. This doesn't happen to 3rd Han Sooyoung, who is also an avatar, so what gives?

Well, it might not happen to 3rd but definitely did to 1863rd Han Sooyoung.

A 'probability storm is gnawing at her memories' and there's physical effects too. She says this has been happening for a while. Even though she has found a way of slowing down the effects it clearly doesn't fix the issue and eventually, despite her resistance, she might have become like 49% Kim Dokja.

(Maybe that's why she was so ready to leave her companions after the scenarios were over. If rereading stuff helps, perhaps that's also why she kept a diary of her round that 3rd YJH eventually got? Just spitballing, this isn't part of the theory.)

She names two possible causes to this detorriation - exessive use of the Avatar skill or Ways of Survival. 'Ways of Survival' probably refers to the Star Stream rule that once you reach the end of your knowledge you forget you were an author and become a 'character', which 1863 justifiably doesn't want to happen. Later, Kim Dokja comments on her 'status as a character' too, so it is related to that.

With 'overuse of Avatar' she could be refering to the way she makes thousands of them in her mind, but if we look at 49% Kim Dokja and the way their sympthoms match pretty closely, it's likely also the fact that another her - the main body/'author' - is running around in another worldline.

So for these two it checks out that one of the halves is always unstable.

With 1863rd Yoo Joonghyuk, well, it's hard to tell how it would have gone, since black coat YJH dies almost immediately. But the very fact that his avatar didn't even make it a couple minutes is also pretty telling.

As previously stated, nothing is stopping a skill from being harmful for the user. So maybe, one half of the initial avatar pair gets the short end of the stick and ends up slowly disintegrating. That's the basics of this theory.

Technically 51% Kim Dokja disintegrates into the Star Stream too but it is by a different mechanism, unrelated to the Avatar skill. First, he overconsumes probablility and shrinks into a child - this happens to Secretive Plotter too, it's just a thing.

Then, he loses his memories and if Kimcom hadn't interviewed would have become the same exact child that SP takes away in the subway, so that was just the time loop asserting itself. Like alt-1863rd YJH losing his memories when regressing to the 3rd round, or 1863 Han Sooyoung going dormant in Young Han Sooyoung's mind on the day the scenarios start. (Each of these are the looping points of the universe for yhk.)

But something about the way 1863rd Han Sooyoung in those 13 years sheds pieces of her story to create TWSA is very reminiscient of how 51% Kim Dokja disintegrates into the Star Stream on that subway. So perhaps there is some kind of connection there too.

[thisweeksobsessionis]

New Fandom trends with anti-ship names

K, so probably not a new thing, but i have noticed a raise in the S.T fandoms with anti-ship names. I.e bylosers for anti-byler content and milkvan for anti-mileven content.

And as a byler shipper, i have no problem with the tag ‘byloser’ for anti-byler content, or content that isn’t byler friendly i genuinely don’t have an issue with anti-ship names. That’s what anti tags are for — they’re there to make your stance clear and to help keep your space curated the way you want it.

in some ways, anti-ship names can even be useful. depending on the platform or search engine, terms like “anti-Byler” will still show up in results for “Byler,” because the keyword is still in there. Which can be frustrating for people just trying to scroll through their ship tag in peace and obssess, it also highlights why people started coming up with completely separate names in the first place. if you’re really trying to keep your content out of the opposing ship’s ecosystem, using a totally different name (like "milkvans" instead of "mileven") is probably more effective. there’s less overlap in words which = less accidental exposure.

BUT — and this is where my concerns comes in — making up a completely separate name for a ship can have downsides too.

a) it can create an echo chamber. if you're only ever using your own little in-group language, you start losing the ability to actually engage with the broader fandom — or even recognize that other perspectives exist. it's like self-curation gone too far, where you're no longer filtering for your comfort, you're filtering out nuance.

b) it can encourage cruelty. when you're not even calling a ship or its shippers by their actual names anymore, it becomes way easier to dehumanize them. what starts as a little inside joke name can spiral into full-on mob behavior. and let’s be real — some people use these “funny” alt names as a shield to be genuinely mean without having to take accountability. once it becomes an us vs. them thing, the insults start flying, and actual discussion is out the window.

Curious about other peoples opinions should new anti-ship names (milkvan, bylosers) be encouraged for further separation and less risk of overspill, or discouraged as it can encourages to much isolation and pack mentality, not helping people engage in healthy fandom discourse. Cause when your part of a fandom you should be able to talk and disagree with other members of the fandom without it turning into an insult competition

i might just be overthinking

[iamnmbr3]

Great answers! I do love the idea of Sirius as DADA teacher!

Here's another one for you: rank these characters from worst to best for the post of Minister of Magic

Albus Dumbledore

Lucius Malfoy

Sirius Black (again cause I love him and I read a fic about this once)

Minerva McGonagall

Barty Crouch Sr.

oh god. these clowns would all be such terrible minsters of magic. why are you doing this to me? ok fine. here goes.

Lucius Malfoy: I think because movie!Lucius was sort of toned down and defanged fandom sometimes forget what a nasty piece of work book!Lucius was before he had his downfall and got all sad and pathetic. Fanon!Lucius often gets turned into kind of a joke but book!Lucius was out there torturing muggles for fun by night while he had the ear of the Minister by day and was, seemingly, extremely adept at subtly spreading his pureblood supremacist agenda in government. (Honestly, better at it than Tom because unlike Tom he actually cared). Also in book 4 it's very clear that if he had gotten hold of Hermione - a fourteen year old child - on the World Cup grounds he would've attacked her without hesitation (been eager for it, in fact). Yeah he wasn't down with Voldemort's whole thing but that was more because of the effect it had on him personally. with Voldemort out of the picture he was top dog and he was doing just fine. All this to say, as Minister the policies he enacts are...not good to say the least. He'd be out there building a violent pureblood supremacist dictatorship in a heartbeat.

Albus Dumbledore: Albus says he can't be trusted with the power of being Minister and honestly...I believe him. He'd still play the same messed up manipulation games he plays in canon but on a much larger scale (while simultaneously feeling bad about it and telling himself it's for the greater good). He does some truly epic mental gymnastics to convince himself he needs to make himself dictator for life and then things spiral because obviously anyone who resists him is evil right? Right? Of course! The alternative is that he is wrong and he doesn't want to think about that. Also, he doesn't seem that bothered by house elf slavery and his ideas for getting nonhuman magical creatures on his side in canon seemed to involve asking nicely but not actually granting them rights. So I'm not super optimistic on that front. So yeah. This just turns into the whole of wizarding Britain getting gaslit and thrown into insane situations by a madman who seems so wholesome and lovable and yet... Also. Given how poorly organized the Order is I think it's safe to say that all other flaws aside, the man does not have a gift for management.

Barty Crouch Sr.: Listen. He ALSO sucks. Very clearly ok with slavery, not a fan of due process, and allowed Aurors to torture confessions out of suspects. His only saving grace is that he does love rules so he'd probably eventually step down and wouldn't make as many potentially damaging changes as Dumbledore.

Minerva McGonagall: Her no nonsense attitude ensures that any meeting she runs actually accomplishes things. She's smart. She's sane. She's stable. She doesn't care about ending slavery or changing the status quo, but she's a lot better than most of the options. She's not especially creative or good at political games though which often hampers her ability to carry out objectives and prevent bad actors (i.e. Lucius and his faction) from getting their way.

Sirius Black: What does the man who hates authority do when he finds himself in a position of ultimate authority? I don't know but I'd love to read about it! Sirius is actually pretty shrewd (contrary to fanon) and I think he'd actually turn out to be a natural at handling politics (much as he might hate it). He also understands traditional pureblood society (he is a Black after all) but he doesn't idolize it (he hates being a Black) which would allow him to understand and work with multiple factions. Additionally he can be forceful and authoritative. He's impatient, often biased and unfair, sometimes quite cruel, can be temperamental, and again, has 0 problem with slavery. So like. He's not good per say, but he's actually better than some of the others. (At least with him meetings are never dull because if he gets bored enough he just turns into a dog and eats the agenda).

[funnier-as-a-system]

Hi, singlet here, I hope this is okay to ask, not sure if y'all are the right person to ask, but I stumbled across your roleplaying tag - then again my question is kind of coming from the opposite direction than what the tag is for in your blog...

Do you have any recommendations or are there any resources on portraying systems while roleplaying? Because one of my roleplaying characters turned into a system by accident*) and I don't want to be a prejudiced, stereotype-ridden asshole about it

*)by accident, because during a scene I gave that character's fear a voice, mainly for reasons of exposition and very much on the fly, but because characters never behave as you expect or meant them to, exposition-personification-of-an-emotion just decided to flat out be a person after all... so now that character is two persons in one people, which was not planned...

Hm... that's an interesting question that I don't think we've ever gotten before. I don't have any advice or resources tailored to this specifically, but I will say that it may help for you to keep some personal notes on each system member, so that you can better identify what each of their feelings/responses will be to developments in your campaign/game, as well as what their relationship is like. Such things can be tricky to keep straight when they're just in your head, so having it all written out on paper can keep things clear(er).

Something in particular you may wish to keep track of is Who Fronts When. For instance, you could have conflict or angst if one of them appears to be "hogging the body" and the other feels like they don't get to front enough. Or maybe one of them is more skilled at something so you switch to get that buff for a particular action, but too many switches (or even just one) in a short amount of time causes a debuff in some other area, like how dissociation or other side-effects from switches can affect real-life systems.

I wouldn't worry too much about falling into stereotypes. The main thing is to just not make one of your characters into a serial killer Just Because; don't be a "murder hobo" or pull the "something inside me is trying to get out and murder innocent people/I fear whatever this thing inside me is" trope and you'll probably be fine. If this were a different medium I'd recommend avoiding murder entirely, but roleplay is... well, the base of the game itself can make it difficult to avoid such situations. But to be on the safe side, you may wish to avoid one of your characters fearing the other, especially if for unspecified reasons or because they don't know what they'll do when in control. While I believe that in general, anyone can write whatever they want, I also feel that such topics are better left to those who are systems or know systemhood well (i.e. have done a lot of research and went into their writing/roleplaying with a goal in mind, and didn't just stumble into it or decided to make a character plural on a whim), as these topics can easily be handled in a clumsy matter that echoes these horror tropes.

Hope this helps, anon!

[soft-pine]

while i totally get the motivation behind believing that mary's feelings for john be completely manufactured (and i think it's an interesting angle), i…. also think it's kind of crazy that it's based solely on a cupid's few lines of dialogue and none of the other cupid motivated meet-cutes are treated with the same malice of heavenly intervention. also like. while i get making mary's feelings manufactured, isn't it kind of fucked john's feelings are manufactured?

like maybe the reason he got so bad after she died is because his feelings for her were intensified, but the concept pushed forward by the fandom is that john's feelings were Real(tm) but mary's are 100% fake. there's also very little evidence john was a bad father prior to her death (i know people point to the dark side of the moon but thats only indicative of johnmary relationship troubles, not necessarily john being a bad father)

like. i dont actually think all of her feelings for john were manufactured, every time she talks about john she seems to sincerely believe in his goodness, and if the cupid caused them to fall in love, why would it be affecting her opinion on him (season 14) when it was shown to not affect her opinion on their relationship when they were together (her and him having fights for one).

now i'm not defending john winchester's actions i just find it strange people are willing to jump to "oh mary was forced into the relationship and didn't love john at all" but no one ever suggests that about john, when he's included in the cupid's line of "they couldn't stand each other" and afaik john was a decent guy before mary died.

hi anon! it's nice to get asks for sure but i am not a mary expert!! i do love her dearly but please take everything i say as something i will happily give way about to a real mary understander.

but tbh yeah it really does seem like mary loved john.

in 12.02, she says:

MARY: Stuff I'd forgotten about. Funny stuff your dad did. He was a great father.

in 14.05, she says:

MARY: Bobby's not open like your dad. SAM: Wait. Like my dad? MARY: Okay. At least he's not like your dad was when I knew him.

these are things she says long after the cupid's effects would need to be taking place. but of course these are all things we can do readings about! and i'm certainly a sucker for lesbian mary!

but given all of this and, i am inclined to think that the cupid's effect was more about breaking down the initial dislike of each other but that mary and john did end up in a semi-functional and pretty loving (i.e average) relationship? which is not to say that heaven interfering in their lives isn't incredibly fucked up and violating! just that, i think often times, people find things to like and love about each other... and regardless of heaven, it's clear something mary specifically wanted was a life and a family outside of hunting - which john clearly provided!

and i agree that it would be weird to think the cupid only changed mary's feelings and not john's. but i really cannot emphasize enough that i would not consider myself an expert in this!

the one thing i will say is in dark side of the moon, john does seem to have developed his pattern for leaving (with an unclear timeline) as relationship problem solving (and maybe a little bit punishment) before mary died. which, to me, is not the sign of a super great or decent father...

MARY: Hello? … No, John. … We’re not having this conversation again.… Think about what? … You’ve two boys at home. DEAN: I remember this. Mom and Dad were fighting and then he moved out for a couple days.

(but that is maybe the subject i'm most sensitive about in all the world)

[chuelectrico20]

@redlikerosesandflowers and others who asked

Well first off, why the relationship between emeralds and super forms is so different between continuities is their settings and that's important to first dive into before talking specifically about movie sonics relationship. In general the chaos emeralds hold unlimited power in granting users power ups, turning thoughts into reality. In the games specifically Sonic goes super because the emeralds respond to his positive thoughts turning into positive energy and in turn becoming Super Sonic. Super forms in general, going Super anyone can do with all 7 chaos emeralds or if someone already super shares energy with other living beings to turn them too.

Onto Sonic going Super throughout different continuities, it stays relatively the same (Sonic Boom it isn't clear if such powers exist since the emeralds don't exist here) find the chaos emeralds or anything adjacent to them or their power and go super easy formula. Now what about when a super form is inherently negative instead, only in two continuities do we see that Dark Sonic and Fleetway Sonic. Dark Sonic is from Sonic negative thoughts being influenced by the fake chaos emeralds and Fleetway is caused from moments of extreme stress or chaos energy.

After all that setup, we're at movie Sonic relation with his Super form, in the movieverse our characters comparably know less about well everything. The Master Emerald was even considered a fairytale for a while. They don't have many allies on Earth (GUN would betray them no matter what), deal with bounty hunters, and all the alien kids are well KIDS even if they're inherently more powerful than the average human they're just kids trying to do what they think is right at the end of the day and that goes especially for Sonic. Sonic doesn’t have a natural handle of his powers compared to his other counterparts, his chaos energy is so great it appears in him naturally not like Knuckles who trained his to be on a higher level or Tails who uses his gadgets. When Sonic first goes super it wasn’t willingly, he thought he was in his last moments with his parents by his side the chaos emeralds reacted to that love he felt for them in that moment. Afterwards defeating Eggman when Maddie and Tom tried to hug him in this form Sonic states: "it’s a good thing we didn’t do this before or you would’ve blown up" funny, yes, but that also shows how he doesn’t have a full grasp of this form. After all he’s got a lot of growing up still to do. Funny enough in the movies they refer to it as golden god mode, and such they made a promise to not use the master emerald being that it’s way too powerful to be in anyone’s hands. So to movie Sonic specifically he doesn’t view it in a positive light as much as game Sonic, i.e. he doesn’t even trust himself with said power either. It’s all so new to him and everyone around him, so there’s no clear answer to Sonic on how he should treat this access to power that was granted to him. Then in movie 3 it shows that the emerald has sort of a connection with Sonic, in his emotional state greatly effects his golden mode and its how Shadow also gains the emeralds power both by their heightened emotional state. Then at the moon before Sonic completely loses himself he realizes this isn’t who he is, and with his talk with Shadow their feelings on wanting to save the earth power both of them up.

To summarize this all, in my opinion movie Sonic and his super form is more in line with his development as a character rather than an achievement or goal post like in the games (which makes sense it’s literally a video game franchise) it’s not the prize or a narrative plot coupon, there’s no inherent good or bad with said power this time around it’s whatever Sonic and by extension any other character is feeling and thus placing its theme of responsibility and choices in line with it. So that’s why me personally I don’t care for any "evil" or "dark" super power up because it’s not the powers that are the focus but characters emotions and autonomy with what they do with said powers.

[hoboblaidd]

Hey there, random question. Does Solas feel emotions more intensely or feel will of objects more strongly due to his composure? Does this also affect his relationship with his own feelings? Does he tamper them down or does he allow himself to work through them? If he does not allow himself the grace to unpack them due to his trauma and past, how is this detrimental to his idea of self? How does this feed into his means to an end?

Idk if he feels emotions more strongly than mortals, but he certainly feels strong emotions and, as a once purely emotional being, he processes them differently. Bellara tells us the ancient elves were freer with their emotions which is incredibly logical - emotion is what the firstborn elves’ nature was, and it makes sense that that would translate into their new reality/society.

I genuinely think the root of most of his problems is that he doesn’t deal with his relationship with emotions. He wants to be this creature of logic, but that’s more of a perversion of his nature than even the corruption of wisdom -> pride. Emotions hurt, and Solas excels at nothing better than trying to protect himself from pain. This is a man who buried his most painful memories, and their associated emotions, and then tried to erase them. He tried to make a matryoshka doll to remove these feelings. It’s not even making the internal external - it’s trying to forcibly excise those emotions/memories.

Solas’ relationship with emotions is multi-faceted, and include both metaphysical and incredibly human reasons:

For the metaphysical - he’s not a spirit anymore and hasn’t been for >10,000 years. He isn’t a single emotion, be that pride or wisdom. But he wants to be. He’s never been able to get over the trauma of such a massive shift in his very nature/being. ‘I prefer to be known as Wisdom,’ he tells emmlich. Babe you haven’t been that for a long ass time. HOWEVER, he’s also not fully ‘human.’ There’s a good theory out there that bad endings Solas in essence fully corrupts into a Pride demon. I buy it, given how extreme his snap from regular Solas to angry Solas is. His mind doesn’t work the same way mortals’ do. He’s still going to be driven by emotion moreso than logic or intellect.

I don’t think this is inevitable for spirits who enter the waking world. I think it’s the result of the firstborn elves not knowing how to deal with this dramatic change/not receiving good guidance. They still likely tried to function within the parameters of emotion they were familiar with. So for example ‘war trauma’ isn’t attributed to the psychological, which it is, it’s attributed to a corruption or twist of their nature. To be clear, I think they do get corrupted bc again, they’re not mortals, but that’s not the only thing that’s going on.

Which brings us to the ‘human’ aspect - emotions are a detrimental thing to have when you’re at war, and Solas has been at war since he took a body; be that Titan, violent or intrigue civil wars, Rebellion, or Veilfall. Emotions cloud the ‘necessary’ ruthlessness of winning a war and complicate decision making that will cost lives. They make the inherent trauma of war harder to bear. Divorced from emotion, making calls or dealing with the day-to-day feels easier (emphasis on feels - numbing yourself is not an effective way of dealing with psychological trauma, but it is an extremely common ‘human’ reaction). ‘Can’t have PTSD if you pretend the T doesn’t exist’ or something smh.

Where he can’t divorce himself from emotion, he redirects the emotions he can’t shake (bc no one can) into the cause. It is ‘ends justify the means.’ What he can’t numb himself to he justifies as being ‘for the People’: i.e., he substitutes or redirects ‘guilt’ into ‘purpose.’

[a-d-nox]

web of wyrd: the career number

paid reading options: astrology menu & cartomancy menu

enjoy my work? help me continue creating by tipping on ko-fi or paypal. your support keeps the magic alive!

the number we are focusing on today is based on the SACRAL PHYSICS NUMBER AND THE FLOW NUMBER (ex: my career number is 7: 8 + 17 = 25 -> 2 + 5 = 7 (recall that numbers must be summed a second time if they total 23 (i.e. 2 + 3 = 5) and above)). for some reason this is a calculation error in my astro-calc chart - my monetary number and relationship numbers are swapped (don't be afraid to question your numbers and check the math of websites).

but what does this number mean?

this number represents your career and monetary situation in this lifetime. that being said, this number can give you insight into what you can do for a career long-term, what you are like at work (your strengths and weaknesses in the workplace), and your monetary mindset.

so let's talk about some examples:

7 - the chariot

click here for the card description of the chariot found in a prior wyrd web post.

for unblocked 7s it is important to maintain focus, have clear intentions, and a plan in their line of work. they often work from the bottom up - they start in an entry level position then come into power (in some theories, the charioteer was both the page of swords and the page of wands before they came into power in the major arcana). often it is their careful planning and plotting that gains them their success.

blocked 7s often lack confidence at work and fear being talked down to / judged for their actions. they often lack focus and direction, which causes them financial stress. they are in need of careful planning and reflection to get out of their burdensome situations. they should try to be less impulsive and more intentional at work and when searching for jobs in order for them to find what works for them.

careers for the charioteer are chauffeur, delivery driving (UPS, amazon delivery, mail, etc), military services, pilot, police men, emergency services (firefighting, EMT, etc), security guard, equestrian, chemist/pharmacist, chef/cook/baker/nutritionist, political diplomat, marine biology, phlebotomist, ship captain, babysitter/nanny, hotel manager, housekeeper, fisherman, fertility specialist, farmer, land baron/baroness, pottery maker, plumber, real estate agent, and other related fields.

14 - temperance

rider-white's temperance (symbolic of sagittarius) depicts an angel facing the view with their eyes shut. their purple-y/red wings emphasizes their passion for the mystical as well as harmony. their golden curls are haloed showing that the angel is an enlightened being. they stand in a white (innocence) robe with one foot on land and the other in water - which shows they are connected to the emotional and the physical world. water seamlessly flows between the cups, meaning to show the flow of energy in life forces. a sun (alludes to the sun card) rises in the distance and illuminates a path for the angel to take. the irises to their [the angel's] right show that they have the wisdom needed to take on whatever gets in their way on this journey.

unblocked 14s seek help from those around them so that they can reach their monetary and career goals. they look for signs as to what they should act upon in their career and as to what they should do for their long-term career. they are flexible at work and are often very even-keeled. they are patient at work and when it comes to making money.

blocked 14s often try very hard at work and to make a lot of money - they can be too hard on themselves and their co-workers. they might struggle with relaxing - they have a lot of monetary stress. they have to realize that being overworked does not mean they are working efficiently/effectively. look at you schedule / your role and try to find ways to slow down so that you can realign with your values and goals.

careers for the angelic temperance person are medical careers (doctor, nurse, etc), pharmacist, scientist, librarian, life insurance agent, marketing/advertisement, air steward/stewardess, attorney, banker, religious leader, teacher, philanthropist, philosopher, publisher, podcaster, radio show host/hostess, writer, and other related fields.

18 - the moon

rider-white's the moon (symbolic of pisces) depicts one wild dog/coyote and one tame dog (the duality of human nature) barking at the moon or rather an eclipse. behind and between the two dogs is a lobster - the lobster is a bottom feeder of sorts, thus could represent the shadow self. the lobster emerges from the water to walk a moonlight/guided path through the mountains similar to how the hermit once walked the mountains - thus alluding to the lobster doing self-discovery / the quartet doing shadow work. first the lobster must walk between the rebuilt towers - likely face personal change.

unblocked 18s embrace their darker selves when in the workplace - they are okay with failing and having weaknesses. they see it as room made to grow/evolve. while they know how to be civil, they also know when to be impulsive and aggressive to get things done. they are open to others ideas - they are open to learning what they perviously didn't know before. they are ambitious and want to go outside the scope of what they are already know. they don't fall for things that sound too good to be true in their financial realm. they are willing to confront why they maybe the ones in their own way of gaining more money, getting a raise, etc.

blocked 18s often refuse to acknowledge that they are in a career that is making them unhappy or is not compatible with their monetary lifestyle. they might be the type to ignore their debts for awhile or to the point where it gets bad and they struggle to catch up / recover. they are also prone to falling for "get rich quick" schemes; they also might struggle with gambling - the might not know how to walk away when they have made money back / are gaining. they hate failing at things or having weaknesses in the workplace. they are prone to staying in a job that is comfortable for them without growing or accepting promotions. don't be afraid to break free.

careers for the moon are night club owner/manager, psychic, doggie daycare center management, dog kennel owner, dog breeder, night club performer, professional water sport athlete, alcohol vender, sommelier, marine biology, art therapist, artist, bartender, mental health professional, chemical engineer, detective, drug manufacturer, life guard, prison guard, private investigator, relief worker, writer, and other related fields.

have ideas for new content? please use my “suggest a post topic” button!

return to nox's guide to metaphysics

return to the masterlist of the web of wyrd

© a-d-nox 2023 all rights reserved

[chubphoe-linkclick]

Link Click Superpower Mechanics: Time Travel and How to Change the Past

and why neither Cheng Xiaoshi nor Lu Guang can do it alone

Tl;dr: the past CAN be changed, but you have to know the secret cheat codes to do so because the cause-effect relationship of events is mad complicated and conditional on borderline random factors. Only Lu Guang's supernatural observer powers can see these 'cheat codes' to safely direct Cheng Xiaoshi's actions to end up at the correct state. Moreover, Cheng Xiaoshi's autonomy when diving allows new possibilities to occur in the past that would otherwise have been impossible.

In Season 2 Episode 2, we see Lu Guang use his powers on all the camera feeds in the hospital and it gives a node-link graph visual in the background as his powers activate along with the more concrete visual of the hospital, CXS and QL's locations (presumably), and the person they're tracking. This graph representation in the background could actually be a hint on how Lu Guang's powers work, and it could explain why he talks about death as 'unchangeable nodes.' It's not an unusual way to think about things, but maybe there is a reason he uses the word "node" specifically.

Maybe the way Lu Guang experiences his powers is like an insanely complicated graph with multiple paths and outcomes that then also move in a bizarre chronological way, rather than seeing specific events unfold on a simple and neat line or a tree of possible events and outcomes. [Based on the visual below, the graph that Lu Guang sees is cyclic i.e. not a tree, so you can go around in circles without changing the outcome if you're not careful even if the actual events change: the meaningful causality is missing.]

If timelines are actually graphs, this affects how we can interpret how timelines work because it essentially bundles actions together in nodes, which is much more limited than allowing a near-infinite combination of any actions and outcomes. It also means that moving from Point A to Point B via Action X could be conditional on factors unforeseeable in real time (or unrealistic to account for in real time) because they've been bundled together in these nodes.

This fits with what we've seen of the missions so far and fits with Season 2's themeing of unchangeable fate while explaining why Cheng Xiaoshi couldn't change events when he dived by himself. Lu Guang to direct Cheng Xiaoshi to choose the correct series of action-bundles for a specific outcome, since which actions are bundled together isn't clear in real time as the actual timeline changes.

Okay, but couldn't we know this while using the regular framing of time as a line?

Maybe (?), but-

Thinking of time as a timeweb rather than a timeline explains more about Lu Guang's experience as well as why he does what he does and keeps Cheng Xiaoshi on such a short leash without explanation: it's just an insane amount of information that's hard to comprehend let alone explain to fucking Cheng Xiaoshi.

It tells us about Lu Guang's predictive abilities when looking at the 12 hour time frame of a photo, since he can see branches of possible actions and outcomes that are quite different from what actually happened (something that'd be impossible if he's just seeing the raw events of a photograph).

This explanation also explains why they're able to change the past without rewriting the present: because the critical path from Point A to Point B wasn't changed.

This also tells us that Cheng Xiaoshi's powers opens up new possibilities that Lu Guang could not see on his own (cough cough end of S2). Consider when Lu Guang couldn't tell what would happen if Cheng Xiaoshi won the basketball game: because it was a section of the graph that was never supposed to exist. Lu Guang can (likely) only see nodes that were realistically possible to occur in the original timeline. So Cheng Xiaoshi's influence can completely disrupt his ability to read events because it forcibly creates a series of nodes/action-bundles that were not supposed to exist thus forcing Lu Guang to re-use his ability from scratch, re-expend the energy to read a photo's timeweb, and completely recalibrate his planning to make sure Cheng Xiaoshi stays safely on course (which also takes time).

There are likely future implications that we're unaware of and need to be considered. For example, the fact that CXS, QL and Xiao Ma are all represented as nodes in his view could be used to work backwards on the limitations of his powers and the knowledge he's able to glean from them.

Suddenly Lu Guang's controlling attitude when they're diving makes a lot more sense, and I know I'd be pissy with Cheng Xiaoshi too if I were him.