#criticism even if it's constructive because my brain equates criticism to being wrong and being a bad and awful person

[yutadori]

it's so annoying that if i Do choose to give up, i'll feel so so guilty about it. for some reason somethingggg in my brain feels like i have to go through with a job even if it means being absolutely miserable . like . people can try things out and then decide it's not for them . it's normal . and yet

[mr-entj]

What do you think are the most common flaws / logical errors that INFPs fall into that prevents them from achieving things? I'm trying to identify errors in my thinking / priorities / approaches that don't fit the current world & its demands instead of thinking of myself as a failure / intrinsically broken

Thoughts below, applicable to ENFPs, ISFPs, and ESFPs.

The top 4 common flaws and logical errors in xxFPs

1. “Constructive criticism is bad and it’s a personal attack against me.” 

Also known as the “If you dislike what I’ve done, you must dislike me as a person” syndrome. This results in oversensitivity to feedback and taking everything personally. This prevents INFPs from achieving success because it’s difficult to interact with someone who can’t receive constructive criticism and apply it to fix issues. It’s difficult to improve, grow, and mature without being able to study mistakes, analyze shortcomings, and listen to solutions. This kind of thinking also causes INFPs to close up and withdraw for fear of being “attacked” by other people. It causes communication to break down, barriers to be raised, and prevents effective collaboration. 

Key takeaway: What feels good isn’t always good for you and what feels bad isn’t always bad for you. Look at situations, feedback, and people through an objective lens and ask questions like: “Is this true? Is it helpful? Will it make me/my life better?”

2. “Who I am now is who I am forever.” 

Also known as the fixed mindset which is the belief that traits and talents in people are fixed and can’t change. This inhibits growth and blocks success because it causes logical errors in INFPs like this math example. Yes, some people have natural advantages over other people at certain things, but no, it’s not impossible for you to achieve the same level of baseline proficiency with enough hard work. For example, I’m not the best at math but I put hours into practice problems, attended tons of office hours, watched and rewatched weeks of lectures, and became good enough to get admitted into multiple medical schools. I wasn’t born into this world doing multi-variable calculus equations in my diapers-- I had to work very hard at it.

Avoid this logical error because it will discourage you from pursuing things you love but that you’re not automatically good at. It will cause you to feel perpetually inferior to people who are “naturally talented” at the things you want to try. You’ll severely limit your potential by staying in your “safe zone” -- things you’re naturally gifted at -- because you’ll incorrectly think this is all you can do and you’ll be discouraged to try anything new.

Key takeaway: Mastery is not granted at birth, it’s a result of years of practice and repetition. Understand that and apply principles of hard work, discipline, and perseverance to your own life. The results of your honest effort will amaze you and energize you to pursue even bigger goals.

3. “I want to achieve my goals and only do it my way.” 

Also known as the “inflexible goal and inflexible method” syndrome. This prevents INFPs from achieving things because it makes them incapable of compromise to do what’s required to get things done. 

For example, let’s say you want to become a screenwriter but you don’t want to attend a university with a top screenwriting program, you refuse to network with other writers, and you avoid attending/joining writing groups. You just want to do it your way: post your scripts on Tumblr or email random movie studios and try to get discovered that way. It’s not going to work. To become a screenwriter, you need to mimic some of the steps that other screenwriters have taken to forge a successful career. You need to hustle and rub shoulders with people in the industry. If you’re inflexible with your method, you won’t achieve your goal.

Key takeaway: Love the goal more than the steps required to get there. Understand that not every part of your journey will be enjoyable, fun, and comfortable but that it’s worth the struggle if it gets you where you need to go. It’s better to suffer the pain of compromise than the pain of failure.

4. “There are only these options and nothing else.” 

Also known as black and white thinking or lose-lose syndrome. This commonly rears its head in INFPs in a number of inflexible beliefs, examples include:

"I can either make money doing what I hate or be poor doing what I love.”

“I dislike you so everything you say is wrong/invalid/false” or “I like you so everything you say is right/valid/true.”

“The world is screwed up beyond redemption, people are the worst, and nothing anyone can say will change my mind.”

This type of thinking prevents INFPs from achieving success because it shuts their minds to alternative possibilities. It causes them to become cynical, bitter, and withdrawn from the world because they’ve presented themselves with a (false) impossible choice. It saps them of motivation to try because there’s no point if the odds are so “stacked against them.” It becomes a spiral of pessimism where things are increasingly miserable with no hope of getting better.

Key takeaway: Look closely and objectively at the things that upset you, study why they’re upsetting, and look for solutions in the space between. Understand that very few things in life are “all or nothing”-- there is always a gray area, and it’s up to you to find it through exploration, engagement, and good faith effort. Ask people who have figured it out and pick their brains for ideas. Imagine the world in its ideal and perfect form, now compare that to the current reality, and use your creativity and idealism to push the world in the right direction. Find more solutions, not more problems.

[bigskydreaming]

Does dick read in canon? Because i heard somewhere his favorite book is robin hood and in part, his alter ego comes from that due to his mother calling him robin What do you think he likes to read Also, OMG Jason, Dick and Tim can make a book club :0

He does absolutely read in canon! And lies to the contrary are just fanon nonsense along the lines of “only one Robin per hobby, and Jason already called dibs on reading!” Which uh....if we’re going by ‘dibs’ logic, that might not be the best approach for non-Dick stans given that the dude has been around for 80 years and thus has essentially called dibs on everything by now, at least once. Hacking, reading, etc....Dick did ‘em all first, technically speaking. And also by that logic, none of the other Batkids are allowed to be acrobatic at all, to any degree, that’s Dick’s thing! Feet firmly planted on the ground at all times, Jason through Damian! No flipping about on grounds of copyright infringement!

Sorry. Ahem. I have a lot of feelings about the ridiculousness of certain ideas. And also no filter. It died.

But yeah, Dick does read in canon, and before the more commonly used origin of Robin where it was what his mother called him based on the bird itself, one of the earlier origins for the name Robin was in fact Dick naming himself that after Robin Hood, one of his favorite stories. 

(I had this one idea for an AU once where Dick and Jason are roughly the same age and both are running around the streets at the same time after Dick escapes from juvie and is hunting down Zucco, and Jason is stealing tires and sharing some of the money with smaller, younger street kids because y’know, he has a heart. And basically my idea was they’re both roughly the same age, same size, black hair and blue eyes, and a kid like that picking fights with guys twice his size and age and frequently coming out the victor is noteworthy enough that people have heard of both of them.....BUT.....they tend to think they’re the same kid. And Dick is calling himself Robin. And Jason is calling himself Hood. Put them together, and.....ta-da! But then I was like yeah no, people will inevitably make that shippy so I didn’t do the thing and also I died a little more inside. Bleh).

ANYWAY ANYWAY.

My personal headcanon is that while Jason reads classics and also fantasy stuff because my random hill that I will die on after being resurrected after dying on eighty million other hills cuz I have no chill - is that Jason is a dungeons and dragon nerd. No I will not elaborate or accept constructive criticism, it is TRUE and it is FACT and never shall I be convinced otherwise. In his spare time, Jason dreams up ways to torture his players with Dungeon Master glee. And I think Tim has always been a superhero buff and a bit of a geek, so he’s got a soft spot for comic books and various genre fiction.

Dick in contrast I believe is the kid who actually reads nonfiction of all types. He reads to learn things. Part of why I hate people’s usual classist attitude towards his intellect and the fact that he didn’t want to go to college, is that people often equate that with ‘doesn’t want to learn’ and umm, a) No, you’re wrong, stop doing that, that being wrong thing, its bad. And b) HELLO HAVE YOU MET DICK, THE DUDE LOVES TO KNOW THINGS AND KNOWS TEN MILLION THINGS ABOUT EVEN THE MOST RANDOM BIT OF TRIVIA.

WHERE DO YOU THINK THE COLLEGE DROPOUT GETS ALL THAT KNOWLEDGE????

In short, whether you believe that Bruce knows all kinds of stuff like that because of his random BUSINESS degree he hardly ever uses since LUCIUS FOX is the one who actually RUNS his damn company for the most part.....and that Dick somehow picked up all his own knowledge via Bruce in terms of like....osmosis or brain hacking or Bat-lectures....

The bottom line is DICK KNOWS LOTS AND LOTS OF FACTS.

And you can either conclude that Dick knows all this stuff because Bruce is pedantic as hell and growing up with him 24/7 is the equivalent of sitting through the lecture requisites for seven different masters degrees and probably a couple of PhDs.....

Or Dick knows all this stuff because he has a genuine thirst for knowledge and reads whenever he gets the chance to pick up new knowledge. Which allows him to know things that even Bruce doesn’t have archived in his Trivia Banks.

Or you can be like me, and assume that the answer is Both. Both is good. *nods sagely*

In conclusion, Dick reads, he reads a lot, he is hella smart despite his lack of a college degree - OR it can be just as easily argued, BECAUSE of his lack of a college degree, because rather than wasting time on various prerequisites that aren’t essential to the knowledge he wants or needs to acquire and wasting time being taught things he already knows via a childhood growing up with BATMAN (seriously, when he did go to college for like a year, it was for a criminology degree. Exactly what the hell was any college going to teach ROBIN THE BOY WONDER about criminology that he didn’t already KNOW? Of course Dick dropped out! He probably could have TAUGHT most of his classes, what the hell does he care about a piece of paper when he’s already been putting that knowledge to use since he was twelve and he clearly hasn’t suffered for a lack of that piece of paper ever since?)

ANYWAY AS I WAS SAYING BEFORE I INTERRUPTED MYSELF - yeah, it could be just as easily argued that Dick acquired MORE knowledge by not going to college than he would have sitting through required college courses because someone who is adept at teaching themselves (and don’t forget Dick grew up homeschooled before he lived with Bruce, his formative habits were structured around self-schooling) well, that someone usually is going to get more out of picking and choosing what information he most wants to acquire when and in what fashions it’ll be most expedient for him to acquire it.

*takes breath*

And in conclusion, a book club between Dick, Jason and Tim would be extremely amusing, especially if it were formed not long after Jason’s return by Dick as a way of awkwardly brokering peace and forming bonds between the brothers.

And also imagine the sheer entertainment value of the Robins with their many varied interests arguing over what book to pick next.

[discyours]

What are your thoughts on contrapoints' new video if you've watched it ?

I had actually watched it before I got this ask but I wanted to rewatch it to make sure I had a good answer. Terrible idea, I spent way too much time on this, too much to justify shortening this out so I’ll put a cut out of courtesy to my followers. 

I did actually find myself agreeing with her on a few points, though I didn’t spend much time being excited about that since criticising “TERFs” is hardly a new or rare thing. Starting out the video with a dramatic reading of a Germaine Greer quote was funny in my opinion, but it did set people up for an obvious bias. Some radfems truly are that transphobic and that’s really important to acknowledge, but it’s hardly news to anyone in her audience. I would’ve preferred if she’d engaged with more moderate forms of gender critical feminism, though I can’t say it’s all that much of a surprise that she didn’t do so since the entire basis of her channel is essentially putting on a wig to create a strawman (that’s not to say that the points she argued against were never made by anyone, but she does get to pick and choose which ones she talks about rather than debating a real person).

It’s also quite telling that she only asked past gender critical feminists for their input, not anyone who currently holds those beliefs (though again, can’t say I’m surprised). I did actually like her explanation of gendercrit ideology (”The idea is that gender [femininity, masculinity, gender roles, all that] it’s all a patriarchal construct, and biological sex is the only thing that makes a person a man or a woman.”). It’s fairly rare to see people represent it even somewhat accurately, so props for that.  She then went on to mock questions about trans ideology as being comparable to “the Jewish question”, so,,, that strong start didn’t last long.

She explained that trans people are on the defensive against genuine questions because of the amount of transphobia we have to deal with from the government, the press, and oftentimes our family. It’s the reason we stick together and stick to unambiguous slogans that don’t concede anything (”trans women are women”). Which, cue 10 people unfollowing me, I don’t disagree with. I started this blog to talk about trans issues and at this point I’m about as trans-critical as troons can get, but even I don’t have the energy or desire to engage every single person I come across in their genuine concerns about trans people. The part Natalie leaves out however is that these slogans and chants are often part of an attempt to change legislation, where you don’t get to just state that trans women are women and refuse to discuss it when people don’t blindly accept it. Being on the defensive makes sense, but it’s incompatible with being on the offensive to change laws and social norms.

Moving on to CONCERN ONE: GENDER METAPHYSICS

This is one part where I actually strongly agreed with Natalie (well, as much as could be expected). She explains that sometimes, people use metaphors to explain feelings that are difficult to put into words, and that that’s how she understands the “trapped in the wrong body” language. Thanks to some groups who do mean this literally (thanks transmeds!) I don’t blame radfems for taking those statements seriously and attempting to debunk them, but I’m also really not fond of radfems jumping on just about any attempt to talk about dysphoria. A lot of the time these objections go beyond wanting to debunk something that is assumed to be meant literally, and beyond wanting people to think critically about their dysphoria; it reaches the point of expecting that they’ll simply reason people out of their dysphoria, since being dysphoric (and being trans) just doesn’t make any sense.

She also criticises brain sex theory much in the way that I do, and says she thinks of herself as a woman who used to be a man rather than having always been a woman. I’m too gendercrit to relate or agree completely, but compared to most trans people’s stance on this it’s pretty damn agreeable.

She finishes off this… chapter? With a quote about “living as a woman”, and while I have plenty of thoughts on that it’s elaborated on later on, so let’s move on.

CONCERN TWO: GENDER STEREOTYPES

Natalie explains that her clothes, makeup or voice don’t “make her a woman”, and that no trans woman thinks femininity and womanhood are the same. Rather, they’re using femininity as a cultural language to prompt people to see them “for what they are” (women).  

Obviously the question of what makes someone a woman has yet to be answered here (unless the quote from the last chapter was intended to but that’s pretty circular [go watch the video this is too goddamn long to copy everything]) so I’ll leave the “see us for what we are” be for now. But it’s absolute bullshit that no trans woman equates femininity to womanhood. How many trans women have explained that they knew from a young age because they liked to play with dolls and their mother’s makeup? There have literally been trans women claiming that butch lesbians are closeted trans men, and that an aversion to femininity counts as gender dysphoria. I do agree with her last point, though. I didn’t cut my hair when I came out because I thought that would “make me a man”, I did so because it’d help me pass. A lot of radfems are intentionally obtuse about the existence of cultural signifiers just to paint trans people as delusional gender-worshippers.

I am actually gonna quote her here because I think it’s important;

“I think butch or gender nonconforming cis women sometimes side-eye hyperfeminine trans women because they don’t identify with this version of womanhood at all, and they’ve had to struggle since childhood against a society that’s told them they have to be feminine. And I completely sympathize with that. I think there should be more gender freedom, less coercion less restriction. But also, I’ve had to fight against the same society that told me I should really, really, really, not be *this*. So, I feel like we should be able to form some kind of solidarity here.”

I was ready to be mad at the start of the sentence but I actually agree. I just think that solidarity is lost when trans women refuse to acknowledge that society’s insistence that they don’t be like *that* is about gender roles and hatred of gender nonconformity. There is great potential for solidarity between GNC females and feminine trans women, but trans women reject it because they don’t want to be seen as GNC males or acknowledge that other people do. They want to be treated as normal, feminine women, and not doing so counts as misgendering.

CONCERN THREE: ABOLISH GENDER

Natalie argues that, while potentially a good idea, abolishing gender is a Utopian project (/pipe dream), much like abolishing borders. That denying trans people their gender identity because “abolish gender” is much like denying immigrants citizenship because “abolish borders”. It’s targeting the people who are most vulnerable under the present system, and then leveraging that system against them under the pretense of abolishing it.

I’ll concede that abolishing gender (and frankly, radical feminism as a whole) is fairly idealistic. Most radfem goals are incredibly long term and while that’s a good thing in some ways (I’m quite happy to be with a movement that refuses to accept anything less than complete female liberation, rather than some form of feminism that insists it’s only needed outside the west [”We’re already equal! I can vote! Look at the pants I’m wearing”]), it also leads to quite a lot of abstract academic bullshittery, and unreasonable expectations of ideological purity.

I don’t think it’s reasonable to view individual trans people as personally responsible for accomplishing the very long-term goal of abolishing gender. But radical feminism is not about individualism (which a lot of radfems do seem to forget, to be fair). There are radfems who are supportive of trans people; Andrea Dworkin herself supported transition. Only as a bandaid for a much bigger issue (the existence of gender) but she at least felt that trans people should be allowed this bandaid, should be allowed to reduce their suffering in current society in whichever ways they can. Dworkin’s view on this is far from rare and some radfems are even trans themselves. But to get back to the part about radical feminism not being individualistic; while individual trans people are not necessarily an issue for gender abolition, the wider trans community and its current political ventures most definitely is. The entirety of radical feminism is not going to collapse from a singular tran getting a gendered hairstyle, but replacing laws to refer to gender identity rather than sex can absolutely be devastating in the long term (and in the short term, when you look at the amount of protections that female-bodied people lose as a result), and that’s exactly what the trans community is currently pushing for.

Natalie also criticises the fact that gender critical feminists don’t seem to go after, say, Kim Kardashian for promoting gender roles. That they attack trans women with barely any following rather than people with actual power and influence. And I disagree with that, radfems are definitely highly critical of women like Kim Kardashian. But the way Natalie makes this point exposes part of the issue; nobody is going after Kim Kardashian for wearing a dress because Kim Kardashian never made an active choice to start wearing dresses. She experienced female socialisation no differently than any other woman (or, arguably, far more strongly considering who her parents were), so there’s some sympathy to be extended there. She has more responsibility due to her platform, but it’s no easier for her to break out of gender roles whereas trans people, to some extent, knowingly stepped into another gender role.

CONCERN FOUR: MALE PRIVILEGE

Natalie argues that men don’t treat trans women like their equals. That non-passing trans women are not treated like men, but like monsters, and that “male privilege” is not a good description of that experience.

This is one of those things that’s really hard to argue against because there’s an inherent disagreement about gender. Natalie’s insistence that non passing trans women aren’t treated like men comes from preexisting notions that a man is more than simply an adult human male, which is where I disagree. Non passing trans women are treated like men, but that does not mean that men will treat you like an equal; much like straight men can still treat gay men like shit, white men can still treat black men like shit, etc. “Male privilege” has never been a good descriptor of gay men’s experiences with homophobia either, but that doesn’t mean that they don’t have any. There is more than one axis of oppression.

Moving on, Natalie brings up radfems’ skepticism about the whole notion of “passing”. I’m not going to bother to quote it because the entire part is good, but I do have strong feelings about this.

Her argument about gas station attendants and plumbers is completely on point, and I fucking hate it when people try to argue that anyone who reads trans people as their desired sex is simply being polite. It’s genuinely fucking impossible that everyone we run into has been indoctrinated into politically correct gender ideology, and the nerve a lot of radfems have to insist that our genuine life experiences are worthless next to their opinion is downright insulting.

Passing is, in fact, subjective. With my shift in perspective since becoming gender critical, my perception of trans people has changed too. People I used to believe passed flawlessly are now quite noticeably trans to me, but that’s not to say that that’s a result of “breaking free from trans ideology”. Relying on gender roles to identify people’s sex is in fact the cultural norm, and only actively attempting to view things differently (or spending large amounts of time around GNC people) changes that.

CONCERN FIVE: MALE SOCIALISATION

Natalie starts off by acknowledging that she has no idea what it’s like to be catcalled as a nine year old girl, or what that does to a child’s psyche. It did not start happening to her until she was an adult, when she knew what she was getting into and was ready for it. I just want to mention that separately because I just about cried when she said this. Sexual harassment at a young age is one thing I see trans women consistently failing to acknowledge, and an end has just come to the years of frustration I have suffered as the result of this argument going completely unaddressed.

She goes on to argue that socialisation does not stop at childhood; that it is a lifelong process. One example she gave is that her appearance is commented on far more now that she’s transitioned, and that that’s been something she’s had to get used to. I actually think that’s a good point and one that should be considered more, but I’m uncomfortable with the implication she brings when talking about resocialisation, as if childhood socialisation can be erased/redone entirely (which I don’t believe it can).

Then there’s the “trans women don’t experience socialisation the way cis men do” argument. Let me quote this and see if you can spot anything wrong;

“But also, trans women often don’t experience the socialisation the way cis men do. Many trans women are feminine and queer before they transition, and have always experienced a kind of femmephobia that is rooted in misogyny.”

The implication that feminine/queer equates to trans is really harmful, and once again she’s arguing from a different concept of what a man actually is. Not to mention that “femmephobia” is only a thing against men, as women are expected to be feminine.

“Some trans women also identified as women years before transitioning, and internalised society’s messaging about women more than society’s messaging about men. Now that’s still not the same as living in society as a girl from birth, but it’s also pretty different from the socialisation of most cis men.”

Interestingly enough, I initially wrote down “masculine cis men” rather than “most cis men” because that’s what the captions said. I wonder if Natalie realised her unfortunate implication that feminine = trans after uploading her video and decided to change it in the captions, since the words don’t sound all that alike.

She then talks about “stolen valor”, that she suspects that male privilege and male socialisation are such major talking points for gender critical feminists because they feel like it’s an injustice for people to claim their identity without experiencing their oppression. She compares radfems to transmeds; both groups supposedly believe that you need to suffer for your identity to be valid.

Fundamental disagreement about gender is affecting her understanding yet again. Identity-based thinking just can’t be applied to gendercrit ideology at all; the whole point is that gender identity itself is harmful, and that women who consider themselves as such because they are adult human females have extremely different experiences than people who feel that they identify with womanhood regardless of their lack of life experiences actually being female.

[”You didn’t suffer like I’ve suffered! You don’t know what it’s like”] “I’m tempted to strike back by saying that you don’t know what it’s like to occupy an identity so stigmatised that most of the people who are attracted to you in private are too ashamed to admit it in public”

Ever heard of butch lesbians, Natalie?

“You don’t know what it’s like to have a body so non-normative that you’re shut out of whole areas of society”

Cough

CONCERN SIX: REPRODUCTIVE OPPRESSION

I’m getting fucking tired at this point and I hate myself for even writing this long of a reply up until now. Basically, she pulls the good ol’ “not all women experience their womanhood the same way” argument, and then makes a fucking coat hanger abortion joke. I wish I had an in-depth reply to that but I don’t. I honestly don’t have the words to express how angry it makes me that someone who has never even had to deal with even the mere possibility of unwanted pregnancy thinks they have any place to joke about the horrific lengths women were forced to go to as a result of their reproductive oppression.

CONCERN SEVEN: ERASING FEMALE VOCABULARY

Through her assumption that feminism is a mere shield for gender critical radfems to hide their transphobia behind, Natalie is disregarding the actual feminist motivations behind opposing gender-neutral language. I mean, she literally does not even touch on it, she only says that nobody has any issue with individual women referring to themselves as women rather than “menstruators” (or, by her suggestion, “people who menstruate”).

Medical lingo is complicated, and I understand wanting to ensure that trans people do not lose insurance coverage when they change their legal sex. I don’t believe that changing all medical language to be gender neutral is the only possible solution there, but at the end of the day doctors are gonna know the difference between male and female anatomy even if their textbooks talk about “pregnant people”. Medical language is not the issue here, it’s the expectation that this language becomes commonplace everywhere, including in feminist discourse. That’s the point where female vocabulary is erased, and where it becomes impossible for women to discuss the reasons for their oppression. Menstruation and pregnancy are not “gender neutral” issues when it comes to institutional oppression, and we should not treat them as such.

Moving on, let me quote her directly:

“I have no problem with cis feminists discussing or celebrating periods or wearing pussy hats at political marches. […] I totally get why cis feminists would want to celebrate their reproductive anatomy in defiance of a society that routinely shames and subjugates them for it. The problem arises only when menstruation or reproductive anatomy are used to misgender trans men or exclude [women who don’t bleed].”

The assumption wasn’t that every individual trans woman takes issue with women discussing their anatomy, so “I don’t have a problem with it” is not an argument. I mean, you’re obviously free to say it to get people off your back about it, but it does not debunk radfem concerns when there absolutely are trans women who believe it’s “terfy” and “exclusionary” to talk about issues that only affect “cis” women. That last point is a funny one, despite all the inclusive language trans women regularly forget that menstruation is not a cis thing. And that’s an issue Natalie appears to suffer from too, unless this was unfortunate phrasing and we were just meant to assume that trans men talking about periods is not up for discussion. Either way, it’s clear that inclusive language is clunky to everyone, the mistakes that are acceptable to make just depend on which side you’re on.

CONCERN EIGHT: TERF IS A SLUR

Natalie uses an interesting definition of “slur” here: “a pejorative that targets someone’s race, religion, gender, or sexuality”. I say interesting because I can’t find it anywhere. I could find “an insinuation or allegation about someone that is likely to insult them or damage their reputation.”, “an insulting or disparaging remark or innuendo”, “a derogatory or insulting term applied to particular group of people”, but not hers. Presumably because she made it up herself (and haf-assedly at that, did you forget disabled people exist Natalie?) knowing that all of the former definitions would, in fact, consider TERF to be a slur.

Now I’ll be honest, I’m not a fan of the whole “TERF is a slur” thing. I’ve seen someone use that to say “if you call me TERF I can call you tranny”. I don’t think being called a TERF (which I have plenty of experience with) should be considered to be comparable to being called a tranny or a bitch. TERF has become essentially meaningless and is an inaccurate term roughly 95% of the time it’s used, but it is meant to have a meaning (”this person excludes trans people from their feminism”), whereas other slurs don’t tend to have any message aside from “this person belongs to a minority and I want to insult them for it”. I’m not ignorant to the fact that it’s often used as a synonym for “lesbian” though, and that it absolutely is used insultingly and with the intent to ruin a person’s reputation, so I’ll stay in my lane on that.

After comparing “gender critical” to “race realist” and mentioning a general refusal to use these terms as to not legitimise bigotry, Natalie explains that she has very little patience for “TERF requests for linguistic decorum” because of the “maximally hurtful, harmful, and insulting” language that radfems use to talk about trans people (eg, referring to transition-related surgeries as mutilation, and the terms “TIM” and “TIF”).

I have some thoughts on this because, while I fucking hate these terms, Natalie’s disdain for them is hypocritical. She just acknowledged that using certain language legitimises the ideologies behind them, and that’s exactly why “TIM” and “TIF” were born. Referring to trans women as trans women while also insisting that woman means adult human female, something trans women do not fall under, did not work out well for radfems in the past. Conceding linguistic ground merely for the sake of respect essentially meant they’d instantly lose that argument, an argument that is in fact extremely important for feminism. I justify using technically incorrect terms (including pronouns) to refer to trans people because I’m trans myself, I understand what it’s like to be dysphoric and I believe that signaling that level of respect can at times be essential to get people to listen. But this is not an apolitical issue and as much as I despise being referred to as a “TIF”, I can’t blame that term’s existence on hatred.

Natalie concludes her video by being “real” about what the core of the gender critical movement is actually about: transphobia. Visceral disgust and hatred for trans people’s very existence.

And you know, for some people that definitely is the case. But this isn’t where I concede that I’ve been faking trandom to give credibility to my transphobia, or where I break down, admitting that I’ve based my entire political stance on pure self hatred (I mean lord knows I have enough of it, but nah that’s not what happened). The reality is that there are gender critical trans people (including trans women), and I’d dare suggest that we are not the only ones who believe in gender critical ideology for reasons other than transphobia.

In conclusion, this video is just another rebuttal against a strawman of “TERF beliefs” which never even attempts to treat them as genuine, only as ignorance that is easily educated away, or hatred that can’t be argued with regardless. I can’t say I’m disappointed with this video (it’s certainly not lower quality than I’d expect from contrapoints) but I am disappointed with the political climate where this is the furthest any outsider is willing to go to debate against gender critical ideology.

[introvert-ramblings2017]

Well i didn’t have time for the whole valentines prompt. Sorry everyone; but i did have time for this. Sorry if it’s not good, at all.

A few things before you read.

Constructive criticisms is always welcome.

This is mostly head canon based since as far as i know neither Ryuuichi or Hayato have a romantic relationship with anyone, the manga’s not fully translated so i only have what’s available.

I’m really trying to keep this as in character as i can so sorry if either boy’s are ooc. I love Gakuean babysitters and i spent my last few days off reading the full manga...But my memory is so terrible no matter how much i love something i can still forget it completely (it’s a curse)

Other then that i hope you enjoy!

“So are you gonna tell me what’s wrong? or am i gonna have to get it out of you?” it wasn’t a threat as there was underlying concern in Hayato’s voice, addressing his boyfriend who’s focus was never drawn away from the current equation they had been working on.

Ryuuichi was completely average when it came to school, except for when it came to science.

There was just something about this particular subject that the red haired teen just couldn’t grasp, and Hebihara-sensei refused to stray from his methods to make things simpler for those who had trouble keeping up.

But surprisingly enough Hayato seemed to handle the subject pretty well, and even offered to help Ryuuichi with his homework after seeing his pathetic grade when their work was given back to them (his sullen demeanor might have also been a dead give away)

So here they were at the Kamitani resident, though for Hayato it was also an excuse to get Ryuuichi alone so he could talk to him. The stoic teen was to observant when it came to the elder Kashima sibling, but getting the redhead to open up would prove just as difficult as pulling teeth.

“Huh?...I-I don’t know what your talking about Hayato” it was a clear lie as Ryuuichi tensed ever so slightly and averted his gaze from his worksheet.

“That’s not true Ryuuichi…” Hayato insisted, silence ensued and the raven haired teen let out a sigh racking his brain for reasons why the redhead wouldn’t want to speak to him “did i do something to upset you?...”

Startled Ryuuichi’s head snapped back to Hayato with a worried glance “Of course not!...”

“Then did something happen?” again the claim was denied. A few more questions later and Ryuuichi refused to relent; the odd behavior has been going on for quite some time and more then anything the taller teen just wants his boyfriend to come out with what was bothering him, because not knowing was bothering Hayato to.

“Ryuuichi, if you think whatevers bothering you is troublesome for me it’s not…” when he didn’t get a response Hayato went on “you don’t have to worry, even if it’s something small i’ll try to help...I want to help, don’t try to carry your burdens alone. That’s why i’m here”

To most people Hayato would come off as cold and uncaring, his usual stoic expression wouldn’t help that case. But one of the many reasons Ryuuichi found himself developing a crush on the baseball player was because underneath all that was someone who was genuinely kind, caring, and observant.

So to hear his boyfriend sound so concerned made Ryuuichi want to ease his worries…But how do you tell someone you like that you think they’d be better off with someone else because you don’t feel like you spend enough time together?

Both teen’s were rather busy with their respective clubs, and their younger siblings. There were times where they went on dates, but they were few and in between. If Hayato was unsatisfied with the way things were Ryuuichi wouldn’t know because the stoic teen acted like he always did.

So at this point he thought maybe he should break up with Hayato so that he can look for someone who can give him the time and attention he deserves, but the selfish part of Ryuuichi urged him to stay with the raven haired boy because he liked him too much to ever consider letting him be with someone else.

The silence persisted, but Hayato waited lips pressed into a thin line hoping that Ryuuichi would tell him what was wrong...Still nothing, well it was worth a shot, with a small ‘tsk’ the raven haired teens eyes went back to his worksheet “fine, tell me whenever you want-”

“Hayato are you happy with the way things are between us?” Ryuuichi finally managed to utter, gaze once again averted as his hands balled into fist on his lap, his whole body tense.

Hayato turned his attention back to Ryuuichi eye’s wide in surprise, afraid that letting the silence persist would be misinterpreted he quickly responded “Of course i am...Is that what you’ve been worrying about this whole time?”

The redhead simply nodded but of course he knew that wasn’t all Ryuuichi wanted to say “I know there’s more, so you might as well spill it all…”

‘Blunt as ever’ Ryuuichi thought with a small sigh as the raven haired teen gave him the time he needed to get all his thoughts together.

The red heads body tensed and he couldn’t bring himself to look directly at Hayato yet “I don’t spend as much time with you as i know i should...I wanted Kotaro to be my main priority, but at the same time you're the first person i really liked and i didn’t want to lose you to anyone else”

And just like Hayato wanted Ryuuichi let all out “but now i realized how selfish i was. By keeping you with me i’m taking you away from someone who can give you the time and attention you deserve.” his voice started to shake abit due to his nerves getting the better of him“Even though we’re dating nothing much has changed; y-you shouldn’t stay with me because your afraid of hurting my feelings...I-I want you to be happy Hayato even if it isn’t with me…S-So if you want to break up with me, i’d understand...I just hope we can still be friends”

“You done?...” Hayato waited a bit after the shorter teen finished his sentence before speaking receiving a nod for confirmation “Good” with that the raven haired teen balled his hand into a fist and hit Ryuuichi ontop of his head.

“Ow!” the red head cried out while reaching up with both of his hands to rub his injured head.

“Idiot” Hayato muttered.

“Hayato! what was that for?!” Ryuuichi whined while looking up at his boyfriend, tears welling in his eye’s.

“That’s for overthinking things” Hayato grumbled before taking hold of Ryuuichi’s arm and pulling the shorter teen into his embrace one arm wrapping around his waist to pull him into his lap, his head resting in the crook of Hayato’s neck.

“H-Hayato?...” confusion was clear in Ryuuici’s voice as the baseball players arm’s held him tight.

“And this is because your so damn cute i can hardly stand it”

“I-I’m not c-cute!” the redhead stammered as he tried to push Hayato away.  

“Your the most adorable person i’ve ever met” Hayato chuckled, a coy smile adorning his features as he tightened his grip.

Ryuuichi suppressed a sequel and buried his flushed face in the crook of his boyfriends neck “A-Am not” he retorted pitifully.

Occasions like this weren’t uncommon for these two, Hayato was quite affectionate often initiating intimate moments. With hugs being the redheads favorite because of how much he loved feeling safe. Despite how embarrassed he currently was Ryuuichi didn’t really want Hayato to let go. So he all but ceased his struggles, arms snaking around the taller teens neck to hold him even closer if that were at all possible as they sat in silence just enjoying each other’s company.

“I’m sorry…” Hayato finally spoke up after awhile, startled Ryuuichi pulled back slightly to look up at his boyfriend.

“W-Why are you apologizing? You didn’t-” but Hayato cut him off.

“You wouldn’t be feeling this way if i told you every once in awhile how much i enjoy being with you” now it was Hayato’s turn to flush, reaching up with one of his hands to scratch his cheek.

Ryuuichi continuously flushed as Hayato went on “I’ve been with a few girls before, but i still don’t really know what i’m doing. Through being with them i did figure out a few things”

“For one, I can’t stand anyone who’s to clingy” Hayato grimiced, tone greatly dripping with annoyance, Ryuuichi guessing that just thinking about those girls left a bad taste in the taller teens mouth “I swear being their boyfriend wasn’t enough; i could mend our bodies together and they still wouldn’t be satisfied”

Ryuuichi couldn’t help but sweat drop thinking ‘And yet you seem to be just as clingy…’

Hayato’s face shifted back to normal, guess this catagory didn’t bug him as much “and for others it was like we weren’t even a couple at all, some literary presented me like a goddamn trophy to their friends and didn’t want anything to do with me afterwards.”

“But i think we have a good balance, since we can’t spend alot of time with each other moments like these are all the more special to me...Especially since i’m the only one who gets to see your cute flushed face”

It was so sweet until Hayato had to start teasing again, with a huff Ryuuichi once again hid his face mumbling against the raven haired teens skin that he wasn’t cute, all he got in response was a light laugh.

“But what about you Ryuuichi?...” Hayato pulled away from the red head to look him in the eye “are you happy with the way things are between us?”

A smile adorned Ryuuichi’s features as well, his blush dying down whereas it adorned his whole face now it settled back to just his cheeks. One of his hands sliding down Hayato’s arm to grasp his hand “Hayato, i’m happy whenever i’m with you”

Hayato let out a content sight, shifting his fingers to intertwine with Ryuuichi’s and giving it a light reassuring squeeze “I’m glad to hear that”

Things probably wouldn’t get easier as the year went on, relationships were complicated and there’s no easy way to go about them, but one thing was certain: If you care enough about someone you find a way to make it work...Ryuuichi wouldn’t know what would happen as time went on, but so long as he had Hayato as a friend or to hold him in his embrace; things could surely work out.

[eminentfocus]

High Lonesome

“High lonesome can be a beautiful and powerful place if we can own our pain and share it instead of inflicting pain on others.  And if we can find a way to feel hurt rather than spread hurt, we can change.” -BRENE BROWN

John Cacioppo has been studying loneliness for more than twenty years at the University of Chicago and describes it as “perceived social isolation”.  We feel lonely when we feel disconnected or like our social interactions are meaningless.  Take note here that loneliness is just an emotion, and like all the others, it is not a directive.  Just a warning sign that we may need to seek out quality connection.  That’s it, nothing more.  Nothing less.  Yet as Brene points out, “living with loneliness?  It increases our odds of dying early by 45 percent”.  An emotion has the power to physically harm us, can you believe it?  How do we avoid it?  We start by looking at how we got here… Down the rabbit hole we go!

There is a sigma in the western world around loneliness.  Think about the term “loner”.  What comes to mind when you think of it?  An anti-social drifter?  A criminal on the run?  The shy kid sitting in the corner of the high school lunchroom?  We have equated being lonely to something being wrong with us.  We have linked it to shame.  But how did we get here?  That is the question at hand, right?  Fear.  “Fear of vulnerability.  Fear of getting hurt.  Fear of the pain of disconnection.  Fear of criticism and failure.  Fear of conflict.  Fear of not measuring up.  Fear.”

We’ve talked a few times about our survival wiring that drives us to feel like not being accepted is fatal.  I mentioned how we needed to join tribes for protection for a while in early history.  We discovered that it no longer is fatal to not have a tribe.  I will mention today that the biggest fear people report to me is not feeling accepted.  They are too scared of failure or constructive criticism to take a chance.  This is the biggest thing that people who go to an empowerment coach mention.  The fear, that is no longer fatal.  This is because we are programmed right to our DNA to be happy and free from suffering.  It is a basic human need.  Like anything else in the rabbit hole, this is going against your wiring, and it’s going to be uncomfortable!

The funniest thing about loneliness is that it does not mean that you are alone.  You could live in a crowded and loving family and still feel lonely.  You could also be completely alone in your environment but not feel lonely at all.  We live in one of the most connected generations in history, and yet, 46% of Americans reported feeling lonely regularly.  And this was a pre-COVID statistic!  You cannot protect yourself against loneliness because it’s part of your biology.  Bottom line.  Sucks right?  Maybe not!

Social pain.  Because it used to be fatal if we were rejected, evolution gave us the gift of this big guy to deal with rejection.  Oh look!  Another feeling, fun!  It is just a warning sign that what you are doing may not be looked at the best by your social network.  Rejection hurts because our brain thinks that we need to be accepted or we will die, even though consciously we know we will not.  Social pain shares the same receptors in the brain as physical pain to help mold our behaviors to those in our social setting.  It’s necessary but still not a directive.

If we look all the way back to the renaissance, we start to break all of this down to where we are right now.  Fancy dresses.  Top hats.  Galas.  Protestants engraining that each person had an individual moral responsibility through religion.  The focus was removed from the tribe and placed onto the person singly.  The industrial revolution further forced people out of their farming villages and into factories and mines.  Today, in modern times, it is extremely usual to leave your social network for a job or educational opportunity.  Once this happens, we frequently become busy in our careers and personal goals.  We move about until one day we realize we accidently become lonely.

Isolation.  The biggest problem with isolation is that it can become chronic.  Especially as adults, it’s hard to create authentic connections.  The scariest part is that once it becomes chronic, it can become self-sustaining.  You turn to self-preservation mode, a.k.a. fight or flight.  Others cannot connect with you because you are in defense mode and you continue to feel isolated.  You further isolate yourself by declining invitations all the while asking yourself what’s wrong with you that people don’t want to be around you.  Cycle ensues.  Sound about right?  What if I told you that people get medically sick and die when they are isolated?  It’s true.  Isolation is a form of self-harm.  

Fitting in is not connection.  One more time- being accepted by a group of people based on how you behave when spending time with them is not connection.  Nope!  Not it!  We need three things to feel connected to another: our authentic self needs to be seen, heard, and valued.  You cannot go out into the world and just find connection.  It is not something that we can simply purchase or engage in on a whim.  Connection requires us to go back to doing things we love and doing them with intention.  It takes work and vulnerability.      

The biggest catalyst to the public health crisis that we refer to as loneliness is the idea that we have to suffer alone.  I am the first to admit that I am guilty of this.  When I feel “off” or negative, I retreat.  I hide.  I run.  I stop texting because I do not want to share my pain.  This.  Is.  Bullshit!  The biggest piece of it we were ever fed, actually.  If we look to the places some refer to as “blue zones”, they live the longest and happiest lives.  Some of these areas have seen the most war and natural disasters, yet they are happy, connected, and outliving most of the world!  What gives?  Ready for it?

They prioritize their connections by focusing on their relationship rituals.  They share meals, with no cellphones, that last hours.  They stroll in parks taking in the sunset together.  They share wine and company on the couch sans the television.  But there are three main things that really set them apart: 1. They talk to every and anyone they meet.  The cashier, the bus driver, the shopper next to them.  2.  They genuinely reciprocate by sharing about their authentic selves.  They don’t simply disclose the title of the book they are reading and move on, but they share their honest opinions of the book and others like it too.  3. They lean into connections when they are in pain versus hiding alone.  After spending all of this time and energy cultivating these deep connections, they almost automatically turn to their rituals after a tragedy.  The shared meals, the grounding walks, the wine and laughter on the couch.

You understand that I numbered those to challenge you to pull them out and practice, right?  See you next time!  

[funkymbtifiction]

Thanks for all great the feedback! Speaking generally, what is the strengths/weakness of each type in relation to writing fiction? Personally, I struggle to see my strengths. I do struggle with chronic dissatisfaction. I'm trying to translate a dream/grab a cloud and make it solid. Usually I feel like I get it wrong. At times, I struggle to write cause I know I can't create the perfect the story in my head. It's better to keep it perfect, but that doesn't make me happy. Thanks again.

First, you need to remember this:

Perfect does not exist.

Perfect is an abstract concept.

Define “perfect.” If you do, it equates perfection TO YOU, but not to the rest of the world. Your idea of perfect differs from my idea of perfect. Perfect is an imaginary thing that is never quite you, that is just out of your reach, a goal so intangible that you can never succeed, an ideal which you cannot define – it’s just… perfect. 

Think about it. Can you write the perfect novel? What IS the perfect novel? A novel with no mistakes in it? Well, would that REALLY be perfect? What makes something perfect? Can you ever achieve it? Has anyone ever achieved it? In my opinion, no. You may think your favorite novel is perfect. It isn’t. There’s always some way for anything to be improved.

What happens is, in your striving for perfection, you spend about a thousand more hours making something 1%, 2%, 3% better… when the world, and everyone except the irrational little perfection demon on your shoulder would have been happy with 95% perfect. You can drive yourself insane, trying to live up to a standard that does not even exist.

I know this. I have done it. I have written, and written, and proof-read, and changed, and streamlined, and risked ruining something, because I was always trying harder for perfection, creating problems in my head where there were none on the page, being too ruthlessly critical of myself and my product. Other people read it and tell me, “This is good, but I got confused in paragraph six,” meanwhile I’m thinking, “The characters aren’t deep enough!” Or, “I liked this character, but could you weave him into the plot a little more?” whereas I was worried about the sentence structure in that part of the book.

I read a writing book once, from a very well-known / best-selling author who said she let several friends read a novel once and all of them complained about the exact same thing. She had a choice whether to try and fix it (which would mean hours and hours of work, tearing up and reconstructing chapters to fix it)… or to sell the book to a publisher. She sold it. They published it. And when the reviews first came out, she thought, “Oh, they’re all going to harp on that one flaw.”

None of them did. No one noticed it. No one commented. No one thought it was a big deal. That huge glaring “error” her friends noticed went unnoticed by the world – or at least, enough people for it to catch no air time. She could have spent another six to twelve months fixing that flaw… would it have been a better book? Maybe. But it proved to her that: the world is hard to please, the world really doesn’t care if you spend a thousand hours or twelve thousand hours on a book, and everyone is going to harp on something different, so … a book in your hand is better than a perfect, imaginary book in your head.

Are you an NF type by any chance? They struggle the hardest with wanting to live up to some perfect ‘ideal’ / imaginary potential which is not always grounded in reality. Their intuition feeds them all kinds of paranoid thoughts about their writing ability / plot construction / detail-focus / etc, that trust me, very few other people notice or care about. And the more research you do, the more you can feed those problems.

Here’s a few solutions:

Recognize perfect does not exist. This is a made-up thing by evil goblins to keep you from feeling good about what you write. Screw ‘em.

Do your best. Is it not good enough? Tough. If you did your best, no one can ask anything more of you – including yourself. Writing is a skill enhanced with time and practice. You will be a better writer in ten years than you are right now – but to BECOME that better writer, you have to write right now.

Consciously Improve. I read an excellent article once about how it takes a thousand hours of practice to become an expert at something – but a thousand hours does not mean practicing in general, it means practicing with intent. Let me give you an example: you notice as a writer that you tend to use a lot of adverbs instead of strong verbs. Practicing in general would be continuing to write, but using 10,000 adverbs – as usual. You are teaching yourself nothing, just repeating your old mistakes – and not becoming a better writer. Practicing with intent is continuing to write and training your brain to seek our and supply and use strong verbs instead of adverbs.

Do not seek advice from other perfectionists. Two unreasonable idealists do not make one realist. And do not put ideas into your proof / beta reader’s mind; they will go in looking for that flaw and reaffirm your concerns. Trust me, a fresh pair of eyes will find things wrong you did not think of, and may not consider what you’re worried about as a problem. If you have five beta readers, and they all say something different, you cannot make anything perfect by listening to all of them (unless they all have a point); but if five of them say the exact same thing (”Joe is a poorly developed character…”)… LISTEN.

Set reasonable standards for yourself that conform to good writing (such as: I will proof read it to catch any mistakes, I will not over-use adverbs, I will run it through a grammar checker to see if my sentence structure is good) … and then stick to them. Force yourself to stick to them.

Do not borrow trouble. Do not compare yourself to other writers. Do not envy other writers. Do not read other writers, while working on a project, if you have learned in the past that this triggers your fear / perfectionism and makes you overly hard on yourself. (This is why I read no fiction while writing novels; my Ne likes to play the comparison game and I always come up short.)

Okay, the strengths and weaknesses: (these are SUBJECTIVE… and remember, readers of your own type won’t consider them flaws)

NFs: [weaknesses] too much desire to be perfect / too unrealistic / high of standards which stalls the writing process, a lot of trouble adding in the right amount of description. [strengths] Intuitive understanding of emotional dynamics, able to write compelling characters with complex psychological motives.

NTs: [weaknesses] may have unrealistic / perfectionist tendencies / too high of self-standards, a lot of trouble adding in the right amount of description, and sometimes, flat or emotionless characters. [strengths] Often excellent satirists or comedic writers with zany world approaches and good at jarring the reader from their comfort zone.

SFs: [weaknesses] may use too much detail / descriptions / focus on things that do not drive the plot forward, be fussy about making their story ‘realistic’ and worry their ideas aren’t original enough. [strengths] Terrific at creating realistic, emotionally dynamic characters and world building in ways that make the world seem real (focus on describing actions / events, and noticing everyday things that intuitive writers tend to forget about).

STjs: [weaknesses] may become absorbed in making their stories logical / realistic and focus more on that than emotional connections or growth between characters; may forget to explain motives or clumsily handle emotions or fall into using too much description which slows the plot. [strengths] Excellent at creating realistic, complex, dynamic worlds full of details, often packed with action.

- ENFP Mod

[parentsperspectivetest]

Original article can be found here

“Thomas the Tank Engine had to shut the hell up to save children everywhere”

So, this is, effectively, the title of this piece. It was written around the time Martin T. Sherman, the voice of Thomas since 2009, quit his job due to a salary dispute and this is what the title is referring to. I’ll give that it’s fairly attention-grabbing (it made me read the damn thing), though I can’t ignore that it’s also clumsily worded and deceptive. Sherman did not quit his job to “save children everywhere”, (nor did his departure slow the success of the franchise, if I’m honest) he quit his job because the company refused to pay him the amount he sought and felt was apropos for the growing popularity of the franchise. He made it quite clear in the follow up of this development that he lamented having to leave the show and blames HiT entertainment for their lack of professionalism, not the Thomas franchise itself (which he still seems to admire for the very themes Van Slyke will go on to criticize); “I find it ironic,” Sherman said, “that most of the shows that Hit Entertainment puts out are about worlds where good people get rewarded, justice happens, and bad things happen to bad people. They themselves don't live up to that world in any way.”

What’s more, Van Slyke only takes the first few sentences of this piece to comment on Sherman’s departure, yet she’s using it as the pulling point to read her article. Already she’s put herself in a less-than reputable position for capitalizing on a very disappointing moment in an actor’s career, while simultaneously refusing to expand on it past its attention-grabbing potential.

My son, now three-and-a-half years old, thankfully never never went through a manic train fascination like so many other children. But once in a while, he'd get a bug in his brain to watch Thomas, and every time I sat and watched with him, I winced and groaned almost as much as Percy.

We have to commend Van Slyke on her heroic amount of patience to sit down and watch something her child enjoys despite the lack of personal entertainment she might find in his choices (such is the life of a preschool parent). That does seem to be the accolade she’s seeking, along with one for her child that he “never went through a manic train fascination like so many other children”. Evidently Van Slyke Jr. is already on the path to moral sainthood and social enlightenment nirvana just like his mother. I’m sure his being spared the Thomas fascination (as the spawn of the rest of us peons so often fall prey to) was just a happy coincidence, a result of his superior breeding and not due to a controlling parent that upholds the values of fascist-like censorship in the household.

When I heard the news this week, that the voice actor behind Thomas's incessant whinging quit the series because he was underpaid, I remembered all of the reasons that I cut my kid off from the show in the first place.

Having read this article already I can promise you that Van Slyke does nothing to connect Sherman’s departure from the show with her reasons for banning Thomas and his steam engine friends from her morally pure, socially enlightened household (begs the question why she had to “cut [her] kid off” from a show that she claims he never really cared for anyway). This makes one wonder why a contract dispute between an actor and a company made Van Slyke remember her own desperate reaching. I’m going to guess that the news simply gave her relevant leverage to alert everyone to her own parental martyrdom- after all, what is an act of heroism if there’s no one there to pat you on the back for it/and or feel inadequate in comparison?

Thomas and those friends are trains that toil away endlessly on the Isle of Sodor – which seems to be forever caught in British colonial times –

This odd little non-sequitur continues to haunt me. While I won’t deny the given fact that the rest of Van Slyke’s points in this article are varying levels of ridiculous, this assertion that the comings and goings on the Island of Sodor are like that of British colonial times is a special kind of strange. What colonial period in British history is Van Slyke referring to? In my US-centric mind I immediately think of our 1700’s colonial period, but that, for obvious reasons, is completely inapplicable. I looked deeper into it and realized oh, of course, British imperialism, how could I forget? “The sun never sets”, the time with India and all of that. And yet...literally nothing about the world of Thomas alludes even indirectly to imperialism or the colonial period (of any country’s history), so far as I can see. Of course, Van Slyke doesn’t mention this again, much less explain where and how she came to this conclusion. Maybe she’s thinking of Misty Island and how Topham Hatt basically helped himself to it after the discovery of the Logging Locos. And, yet, he didn’t really at all. Crash, Bash and Ferdinand pretty much continue on their island as usual and TH occasionally appeals to them for Jobi wood, which they’re happy to provide. Sometimes they come and help out on Sodor which, again, they’re happy to do. Seems like a pretty symbiotic relationship to me. The point is moot, anyway, because I’m willing to bet serious money that Van Slyke is basing this entire op-ed piece off of two or three haphazardly watched episodes from the dismal 15th or 16th seasons and has no idea the Misty Island/Logging Locos thing even exists.

It should be noted, ‘colonialism’ is one of those shock-factor buzzwords people sometimes throw into an argument to make something sound worse and more socially irresponsible than it is, whether it actually applies to the object in question or not (it usually doesn’t).

For one, these trains perform tasks dictated by their imperious, little white boss, Sir Topham Hatt (also known as The Fat Controller)...basically, he's the Monopoly dictator of their funky little island. Inevitably, the trains get in a fight with or pick on one another (or generally mess up whatever job they are supposed to be doing) until Hatt has to scold one of them about being a "really useful engine", because their sole utility in life is their ability to satisfy his whims. Yeah, because I want to teach my kid to admire a controlling autocrat.

Where I will -half heartedly and with much reluctance- concede to understand the point is the troubling nature of the steam engines’ sentience and their devotion to working without pay. There have been nights I, too, have laid wide awake wondering at the moral responsibility of this in a children’s show...and then I remember that we’re watching a show about steam engines. Locomotives. Literally, working and performing tasks is what they were built to do and this doesn’t change just because they’ve been made sentient for the sake of telling a story (how boring would the show be if the engine characters didn’t have personalities just to avoid any allegories to slavery? The show would instead have to be about humans and that defeats the whole purpose of Thomas entirely- unless the show were like my human au fanfic where all the engine characters are, instead, human...but I digress). To the franchise’s credit in this respect, they make it pretty clear that the engines are usually given the choice of whether or not to go work where they get slated to work (in terms of location, like Thomas got to choose to come work on Sodor, Victor received the same offer, when Hiro wanted to leave and go back to Japan he was permitted to do so without argument- even in the very early stories when Topham Hatt first goes and gets Percy, he asks him if he’d like to work for him). Yes, there are the occasional complaints, but such is true in most jobs. The concept of, ‘you don’t always get to do the jobs you like’ is a very universal truth of life and prevalent in Thomas, however bitter a pill that is to swallow for those living in idealistic dream worlds (as I suspect Van Slyke is).

Van Slyke is also wrong in that the steam engines’ “sole utility in life is their ability to satisfy [Topham Hatt’s] whims”. Sir Topham, for all the villain that he apparently is, is as much bound to the duties and obligations of the Sodor economy as the rest of his fleet. Yes, it is true he tasks them with the personal missions of transporting his mother, family members and so on, but most of the jobs we see the engines tasked with are public transportation and shipment of goods- much the opposite of Topham Hatt’s whims.

But, really. If you take honest personal offense with steam locomotives being used for their constructed purpose, I really don’t know what to tell you. Take the protest to an actual railway, I guess.

James is mortified that he has to travel while pink and proceeds to hide from all the other trains along the way. When he's caught, the other trains – including Thomas – viciously laugh and mock him.

Van Slyke is speaking now of the episode where James is tasked with picking up Topham Hatt’s granddaughter while covered in his pink undercoating. James is vain (which Van Slyke also naturally takes issue with- a bit ironic, considering) so he feels embarrassed to have to tool around Sodor while painted such a silly color, a color that is inherently feminine, Van Slyke will later attest: “You think a little boy watching Thomas is going to file away the lesson that pink is OK for boys? No, what kids remember is that James was laughed at, cruelly, over and over again, because he looked different and was clad in a "girly" pink color.” “Girly” is not a label that any of the trains place on James, even during their “vicious mocking” (vicious for Van Slyke apparently equates to good-natured, mild ribbing between friends at the expense of all-too fragile ego) but rather one that Van Slyke invents on account of the fact that Topham Hatt’s granddaughter happens to like pink. Van Slyke’s logic is infallible, folks: if one girl likes pink, then they all must like pink right? What’s more, the fact that girls like pink must indeed be why the engines thought James looked silly and not because, as is evidenced in the episode itself, being that shade of pink means an engine is only half-painted (the steam engine equivalent of moving around in one’s underwear) or that, as an undercoating, this particular shade of pink looks flimsy and dull and unremarkable. No, no, Van Slyke insists, the explanation just couldn’t be that simple.

I think we also need to commend Van Slyke on knowing exactly what each and every child is going to take away from this episode- which is, without a doubt, the fact that pink is not okay! It’s not for boys! Despite the fact that by the end of the episode James accepts his pink proudly because it made someone happy and he doesn’t care what anyone thinks of him, even if they do continue to poke fun. What a terrible message for children.

(For the record, all the "villains" on Thomas and Friends are the dirty diesel engines. I'd like to think there was a good environmental message in there, but when the good engines pump out white smoke and the bad engines pump out black smoke – and they are all pumping out smoke – it's not hard to make the leap into the race territory.)

No, it’s not hard at all, not when you’re explicitly looking for a white versus black allegory, to the point that you’re more than willing to invent one. Once again, Van Slyke’s ignorance of this franchise shows; only two of the many diesels in the show have ever been portrayed as villains and not even entirely shameless or irredeemable ones at that. Diesel is shown to have a heart when he goes to great lengths just to make some school children happy, Diesel 10 (for as Snidely Whiplashian as he can be) only ever acts of malice when he wants equal treatment for the diesels, which he always gets in the end when he makes amends. Most of the time the antagonist role either falls to one of the steam engines or, in the most recent film, Legend of the Lost Treasure, an old white guy. A white guy, Van Slyke! A white old guy who was, without a doubt, one of the most irredeemable and shameless villains the franchise has ever produced (in canon- let’s not forget the ill-fated PT Boomer that was cut from the final version of The Magic Railroad, another old white guy villain though I’m not sure if he counts).

Also, steam engines don’t pump out smoke, they pump out steam (the clue is in the name, Van Slyke, come on). Diesel engines puff out exhaust. If an engine or a diesel were pumping out smoke something would be seriously wrong so, no, they are not “all pumping out smoke”. (Also, there technically is no such thing as “white smoke”)

It’s rather unbelievable how adamantly opposed Van Slyke was to doing any research into any of this whatsoever, despite feeling this article deserved publishing. The future of journalism, everyone.

And that's not even to get started on the female trains. Well, actually it's hard to get started on them, because they barely exist. Take a quick scan of the more than 100 trains and characters in the Thomas universe – it spans multiple books, toys and continents in addition to a TV show – and you can quickly count on two hands the number of lady trains that populate is Isle of Sodor. Emily – the only lady train to get name checked in the opening credits and the only one who regularly hangs out with the boy trains – is said to "know her stuff." That's the sole description of her personality. What does that even mean?

I imagine it means exactly as is written on the packaging, that Emily is knowledgeable about her job. Is that really so hard of a blank to fill in, Van Slyke? The other male engines don’t get much better descriptions in this roll call song either, for whatever that’s worth (apparently nothing). In fact, I personally think Henry and Toby are the ones that get the bum deal as their only character description in this song is “toots and huffs and puffs” and “well, let’s say, he’s square”, respectively. At least Emily’s lyrics give us some insight, however shallow, into her character’s personality. Since Van Slyke is so good at making leaps, I’m gonna go out on a limb here and guess that if all the main characters had been made female her critique would be that their 2 second description line in a roll call song was too vague, because characterization in the actual show means nothing in the wake of a minute long theme song. Apparently.

Now, I do have to give that the female presence in Thomas was sorely lacking for awhile. Yes, even in the first few books the cast is entirely male! What Van Slyke doesn’t mention is the effort the franchise has made to introduce more and more varied, colorful female characters to the line up; Marion, the endearing, upbeat, talkative steam shovel with a very active imagination; Caitlin, the lively streamlined engine that can best the speed of the fastest engines on Sodor; Mavis, the stern, matronly diesel engine that even the most fearsome engines on the island fear and respect; Belle, the powerful but kind fire engine that everyone admires (just to name a FEW) and that says nothing of the incoming swath of female characters being introduced in The Great Race later this year.  Last year, we saw the airing of “The Best Engine Ever” which features Emily and Caitlin deriving strength from one another and turning envy into a respectful friendship while realizing their own individual talents and merits (not to be left out is Marion’s cameo encouragement for Emily to be proud of herself and lift her metaphorical shovel high). This 10 minute episode did better at responsibly writing female characters and their relationships than most hour long adult shows I’ve seen recently.  

What I can’t agree with is the assertion that the show is somehow undeserving and lacking in any other value just because the male cast outnumbers the female. The fact that Van Slyke ignores all the things the show does right with the female characters, however small in number, makes this probably the weakest way someone could’ve brought the argument forward. Such can be said of the rest of this article.  

When it comes to female characters with regard to feminist ideals quality is always more important than quantity- after all, what good is an entire cast of female characters if they’re all bland and stereotypical and one-dimensional?

Last year, the British Labour shadow Transportation Secretary even called out Thomas for its lack of females, saying that the franchise setting a bad example for girl wannabe train engineers everywhere.

Though this is one of the only times Van Slyke makes an effort in this article to back up her sources (the first being, simply, the article about Sherman’s departure from the show) she still completely disregards Mary Creagh’s mention of a whole host of other children’s shows that are also, in her opinion, falling behind in female representation. Creagh also commends the Thomas franchise for having “wonderful stories”, something that was suspiciously left out of this mention. Gee, I wonder why Van Slyke so conveniently skims over that part and otherwise colors Creagh as bitter about the Steam Team as she is? For that matter, why would the Transportation Secretary go to the trouble of trying to improve a show that was just an irresponsible, irredeemable garbage heap, like Van Slyke so desperately wants us to believe Thomas and Friends is?  She also neglects to mention the part of the article where HiT entertainment weighs in: “Hit Entertainment, the company which owns the rights to Thomas & Friends, admitted there was a "historical imbalance", but said more female engines are "in development". A spokesman said: "Every engine has a job to do whether that's hauling materials aroudn the Island of Sodor or pulling passengers - gender is irrelevent."

And so it should be. When we start valuing characters more for their decided gender identity rather than the quality of their writing, the integrity of the story and the character falls apart, making it meaningless whether they’re male or female or otherwise. Either way, they’ll still be shoddy.

At first blush, Thomas and his friends seem rather placid and mild. And there are certainly a lot worse shows in terms of in-your-face violence, sexism, racism and classism. But looks can be deceiving: the constant bent of messages about friendship, work, class, gender and race sends my kid the absolute wrong message.

I suppose it depends on what your definition of ‘wrong’ is. Let’s briefly dissect each of these themes into how they pertain to the show, according to someone who is actually familiar with the Thomas universe:

Friendship: No, this is not a show where all the engines are consistently sweet and patient and generous with each other, like in some children’s programming. To do so would mean to water down the Thomas characters to the point of unrecognizability, to make them bland and one-dimensional and boring just in the name of being inoffensive. It wouldn’t make sense for a character like Gordon, for example, to be nice and sweet all the time. Gordon is a haughty, serious, but secretly vulnerable engine that takes a lot of pride in his abilities. To be kind and friendly, to him, means weakness and so he often employs defense mechanisms in the form of boasting, bragging, teasing, etc. For this reason, it’s all the more satisfying when he does humble himself, when he shows avid concern for his friends, when he defends their honor. Gordon is an interesting, well-rounded, well-written character because of his pride, because he’s also an extremely loyal friend with a soft underbelly. The fact that the characters are so layered and unique and well-written is something that sets Thomas apart from many other children’s shows where supporting characters have a tendency to be interchangeable, flat, forgettable, more prop than character...mostly because they always agree, are always sweet to their friends and lack vital conflict. Personally, I’d rather my son see examples of well-written characters at an early age than bland character after bland character just to shield him from the very natural personality conflicts people run into with each other in real life, even with their friends. This kind of complex writing shouldn’t just be reserved for adult-oriented shows. What’s important is that, in the end, Thomas and his friends find ways to work around their differences and continue being amicable. To me, that’s more helpful for developing children and their sense of relationships with people than an unrealistic ideal of everyone being sweet and considerate all the time.  

Work/Class: Van Slyke has already made it pretty clear to this point that she doesn’t appreciate the kind of work ethics that Thomas is promoting. She also doesn’t appreciate that Sir Topham exercises his perfectly legal right to have his engines transport him for personal outings. How dare he be a successful businessman, I guess? How dare he use his steam powered locomotives for exactly what they were built to do! He should just let them run freely out in the track-less fields! (I’m trying to play along, Van Slyke, I really am) While I can sort of understand taking issue with the blind loyalty to the boss thing (and I certainly take my own halfhearted issue with Sir Topham’s lack of professional boundaries in the live action snippets with Perkins- seriously, dude, you were hired as an engine driver, why are you making cakes for this guy? Babysitting his mother’s parrot? Putting on magic shows for him?) I still don’t really agree that caste systems and class discrepancies on Sodor really even play that big of a part. As far as the humans are concerned, Sodor seems to have a thriving economy with a strong middle class. The ‘rich’ characters, the few that there even are, are never depicted treating anyone as inferior or even getting that much more privileges. It bears mentioning that the Earl of Sodor, Sir Robert, only ever takes public transport (apart from his first appearance, in which he seemed pretty uncomfortable in Spencer’s coach), always hangs out with the locals (even rallies and tailgates with them before a soccer match), and made his castle open to the public, for everyone to enjoy. Again though, I don’t think Van Slyke bothered to watch King of The Railway or anything past the handful of episodes that so deeply offended her, so she’s blissfully unaware of the facts outside her own echo chamber. Engine-wise, no one is ever above doing menial tasks. Even Spencer, the private engine of the Duke and Duchess, is occasionally given railway jobs like being a back engine or helping to transport freight. I don’t see the alleged glorified class discrepancy in Thomas, but then again I’m not reaching for it with my football field length pole either.

Gender: For someone like Van Slyke who believes that a feminist narrative is only as good as the amount of female characters rather than the quality of their writing, Thomas is indeed a disappointing show. It really doesn’t matter that the female cast is ever expanding, that each of the lady characters are unique and strong and endearing in their own way, it only matters that there’s simply not enough female character filler to fulfill her arbitrary quota, I guess. For someone that likes to see well-written, important female characters with no specific concern to the exact number, Thomas is a great show. There’s strength and pluck to be found in all of them, along with the same flaws that all of the male characters have too. They’re all factoring in more prominently to the plots, taking on the same tasks as the boys, and are often even seen as smarter and more capable than. Thomas and Friends deserves every accolade for what they’ve been doing to add a female presence and Van Slyke really has no room to be commenting one way or another as Emily seems to be the only female character she’s aware of.

Race: It really takes a special sort of person to find race issues in a show that focuses on steam locomotive characters with grey colored faces but, god bless her, Van Slyke has defied the odds. To put it plainly, the engines do not have assigned races (nationalities, sure, but that’s not the same thing)- and if, for some reason, they do and I missed it, it literally plays no role in how the engines are treated or how they treat each other. As Van Slyke briefly mentioned through that rather silly allegory about the ‘smoke’, there are tensions between the diesels and the steamies (though it’s almost non-existent in the more recent episodes and movies, as the diesels and the steamies seem to get along fine). This is not a race thing, not even in metaphor; it’s a result of the natural progression of diesel engines replacing steam-powered locomotives, a thing that happened in real life. This is something of a moot point anyway because, as stated previously, Sodor has achieved some kind of peaceful, amber-stasis utopia where time doesn’t move in a productive way and the steamies and diesels coexist without much incident anymore.

Listen, I firmly believe a parent is well-within their rights to choose the best programming for their child. A parent is perfectly entitled to not like some of the shows their children do. A parent is also allowed to decide that a certain show or movie or game or toy etc is not conducive to how they’re choosing to raise their child and keep their child from being exposed to that thing. My motive here is not to deny Van Slyke her right as a parent, but rather to challenge her weak, publicly-posted argument that Thomas is a poorly written, irresponsible narrative that encourages things like racism and sexism just because she doesn’t like it.. The fact that she would drum up such an argument with so little of an understanding for how the Thomas universe works is offensive in and of itself.

There are many good, valid reasons not to like something, even Thomas. This article doesn’t present any of them.

And really, that theme song makes me scream. Thomas can just go bust my buffers.

Ah, there it is.

[wisecharlie]

Inversion

The write-up below starts with examples and a short definition followed by historical examples and detailed analysis. The analysis ends with a list of applications to which the inversion model can be applied.

Scenario 1: Do you remember when you mistakenly touched an electric fence or a hot stove? And, you never touched it again because it was a painful experience.

Scenario 2: Jeff Bezos (Founder/CEO of Amazon) approaches the problem inversely. Instead of saying “what is it that my customer wants?” he will approach the problem asking “what is it that my customer does not want?”

Scenario 3: Instead of asking “How can I become successful?” ask “What are the things I should avoid that will prevent me to achieve my goals?

What is Inversion?

These scenarios of inverting two sides is the basic premise of inversion. In scenario 1, one makes a mistake and then never goes in that direction again. That is an example of inverting. The thinking in which you want opposite — not only thinking forward but also thinking backward. This trick is a powerful idea because it de-biases us from having blinders. The goal of this exercise is to envision the negativity in any event so that it can be avoided.

History — let’s cover a few historical examples:

Source: Wikipedia

Stoics (early 3rd century BC)— followed the inversion process to eliminate the worst case scenario by thinking backwards and avoiding any failures. While the Greeks may have developed the philosophy of Stoicism, many Romans also adopted the philosophy. It was a practical philosophy used as a pathway through life by many early Romans, including slaves and Emperors. The ancient Stoic philosophers like Marcus Aurelius, Seneca, and Epictetus regularly conducted an exercise known as a premeditatio malorum, which translates to “premeditation of evils.” The goal of this exercise was to envision the negative things that could happen in life. For example, the Stoics would imagine what it would be like to lose their job and become homeless. Or to suffer an injury and become paralyzed. Or to have their reputation ruined and lose their status in society.

Source: Internet

Carl Jacaboi (1804–1851) was a German mathematician, who made contributions to elliptic functions, dynamics, differential equations and the number theory. These theories are still applicable in our modern age. How was Jacobi able to contribute so much to scientific fields during his career? He was known for his ability to solve complex problems by following a simple strategy: “Invert, always invert(man muss immer umkehren), conveying his belief that the solution of many hard problems can be clarified by re-stating them in an inverse form. He would write down the opposite of the problem he was trying to solve. In doing this, solutions came to him easily.

Deep Analysis

The power of inverse thinking is a rare and crucial skill that all great thinkers employ to their own advantage. You will often hear “How can I be successful in xyz?” This mantra is a modern ideology that dominates reality. In order to think independently, one needs to learn how to think critically and make unbiased decisions. This is where inversion comes into play. Being positive and negative is complimentary. One does not need to pick one side. Everyone wants to be a winner and be successful, but many, if not all, forget to think about how they can avoid failure. Chasing success is overvalued. Avoiding failure is equally important in being successful (for a lack of a better term).

However, do not confuse the idea of experimenting with failure. New ideas often requires experimenting until the solution is no longer falsified.

Subtractive Knowledge is when you envision negative things and then subtracting what is not important or what is wrong. Additive measuresmanifest in form of an urge to do something about a problem which may not need any intervention. Subtractive measures adhere to the philosophy of “don’t try to fix something which ain’t broken.” Nassim Taelbo also employs “subtractive epistemology.” He argues that the greatest and most robust contribution to learning and knowledge consists of removing what we think is wrong. What does not work, that is negative knowledge, is more robust than positive knowledge.

Avoiding stupidity is another way to apply inversion in your life. It’s a choice between avoiding stupidity and seeking brilliance. You can avoid a bad marriage by being loyal to your significant other. Or in life, you can avoid death by staying away from alcohol and drugs. Another way to apply inversion is to not only find role models but also find anti-role models — people you don’t want to resemble when you grow up. You want to avoid the path they took. Ambitious young people can find a lot of success in this type of thinking.

Another great implementation of inversion was by the CTO of Pandora. Pandora faced immense competition from Spotify, Apple Music, Google, and Amazon. However, it still managed to stay alive despite the heavy competition.

“90 days is the length of one quarter. That’s how far you can reasonably think and plan ahead when you’re in hyper-growth,” Conrad (Pandora’s Twitter) says. “And there’s a question you have to ask yourself at the start of every quarter:

What would be stupid for us not to do in the next 90 days?”

Charlie Munger is one of the greatest thinkers alive today. He is Warren Buffett’s business partner. Charlie Munger has adopted an approach to solving problems that is the reverse of the approach many people use in life. He avoids misery. Munger once gave a speech where he spoke about a famous Johnny Carson talk in which the comedian described all the ways one can be miserable. Munger said:

“What Carson said was that he couldn’t tell the graduating class how to be happy, but he could tell them from personal experience how to guarantee misery. Carson’s prescriptions for sure misery included: 1) Ingesting chemicals in an effort to alter mood or perception; 2) Envy; and 3) Resentment. What Carson did was to approach the study of how to create X by turning the question backward, that is, by studying how to create non-X.”

“Just avoid things like racing trains to the crossing, doing cocaine, etc. Develop good mental habits.” “A lot of success in life and business comes from knowing what you want to avoid: early death, a bad marriage, etc.”

Charlie Munger is famous for using “Invert always invert.”

“Think forwards and backwards — invert, always invert.” “Many hard problems are best solved when they are addressed backward.” “The way complex adaptive systems work and the way mental constructs work is that problems frequently get easier, I’d even say usually are easier to solve, if you turn them around in reverse. In other words, if you want to help India, the question you should ask is not “how can I help India,” it’s “what is doing the worst damage in India? What will automatically do the worst damage and how do I avoid it?” “Figure out what you don’t want and avoid it and you’ll get what you do want. How can you best get what you want? The answer: Deserve what you want! How can it be any other way?”

“[The great Algebra pioneer Jacobi] knew that it is in the nature of things that many hard problems are best solved when they are addressed backward. In life, unless you’re more gifted than Einstein, inversion will help you solve problems.”

“Let me use a little inversion now. What will really fail in life? What do you want to avoid?” “Having a certain kind of temperament is more important than brains. You need to keep raw irrational emotion under control.” “When you have a huge convulsion, like a fire in this auditorium right now, you do get a lot of weird behavior. If you can be wise [during such times, you’ll profit].”

“It is remarkable how much long-term advantage [we] have gotten by trying to be consistently not stupid, instead of trying to be very intelligent.”

“The secret to Berkshire is we are good at ignorance removal. The good news is we have a lot of ignorance left to remove.” “Just as a man working with his tools should know its limitations, a man working with his cognitive apparatus must know its limitations.”

“If you have competence, you pretty much know its boundaries already. To ask the question is to answer it.” “We know the edge of our competency better than most. That’s a very worthwhile thing.”

Applications

The type of inverse logic can be extended to many areas in life.

Math: applying inversion to solve complex math problems. Jacobi believed that one of the best ways to clarify your thinking was to restate math problems in inverse form. He would write down the opposite of the problem he was trying to solve and found that the solution often came to him more easily.

Art: inversion is often at the core of great art. Great artists fight status quo by going in the opposite direction of what society is used to. Great artists break previous rules and unconventional thinking by asking — “How can I invert the status quo?”

Project Management: Amazon employs the Press Release strategy before launching a project. If employees have an idea, they are supposed to write a one-page PR and submit to the executives. The whole process is thinking backwards. This strategy allows to remove blind folders by asking backward questions like — “What could cause the project to go horribly wrong?”

Business Management: in a modern organization, everyone is talking about innovation. Instead what if the management asks, “What are the areas where we do not innovate?” This can address to remove any biases, competition threats and innovation strategy. The same methodology can be applied when evaluating risks. Avoiding risks is a successful business strategy.

Productivity: most people want to get more done in less time. Applying inversion to productivity you could ask “What will decrease my productivity? What will distract me?” Once you find those answers, block those distractions to up your productivity.

Decluttering: inversion can also be applied when tidying yourself up. “What do I want to keep?” Not “What do I want to get rid of?” Inverting the relationship helps you answer tough questions when discarding useless things at home or office.

Relationships: people usually ask “What will make this relationship successful?” Instead ask, “What behavior will cause my relationship to end?” Inverting will help you stop behaving irrationally which can affect your relationships.

Personal Finance: everyone wants to make more money. In personal finance and investing, the hardest job is able to preserve capital. By applying inversion one could ask “How to stay in debt? What can destroy my financial well-being?” Spending too much can creep up and can prevent you from achieving your financial goals. Inversion can help you stay on track and avoid irrational behavior towards money.

Fitness: inversion can also be applied when trying to reduce weight. “How to gain unwanted weight that can cause long-term health issues and obesity? — Eating fried food, drinking sugary drinks, and not exercising” Once you have the answers, avoid them at all cost.

Startup: “How to make a product that no one wants? How to not experiment? What can we do to not talk to customers?” Then find ways to work backwards by building something that customers want and engaging them in the process.

Literature: a literary technique in which the normal order of words is reversed in order to achieve a particular effect of emphasis. For example: “People are computers. Computers are people.”

---

Mental models are big ideas from big disciplines, like business, psychology, science, & engineering. An understanding of the key concepts from these multi-disciplinary topics will teach you to be an independent thinker. Visit www.wisecharlie.com to learn more.