#i have learned critical thinking is about spotting patterns | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

writing-for-life · 1 year ago

Text

Nuance in (The Sandman) Fandom

Send me asks about everything Sandman-related!

I thought a lot over the past few days, partly prompted by discourse on here, partly due to a couple of “interesting” asks and messages I received (the type you don’t answer). I *think* they might have been prompted by engaging in discourse on topics like anti-blackness/racism, misogyny/sexism, TERF characters etc in The Sandman.

Fandoms are always getting super sensitive if someone shines a critical lens on their favourite works, authors and characters. So to make this clear (in case it isn’t already obvious from my brain-rot blog):

I love The Sandman. I love Neil Gaiman. I have an extremely soft spot for Dream (and Desire btw, who deserves a lot more character analysis than just being summed up as “villainous, sexy bitch”. One day, perhaps ;)).

I can read The Sandman and just get lost in the story, even after decades and many rereads.

But I can also view it through a critical lens—these things aren’t mutually exclusive.

Not critical enough or too critical?

As fans, we can get trapped in certain thinking patterns, like:

“My blorbo can do no wrong”-syndrome

“Characters with flaws are inherently problematic and imply authorial endorsement of those actions”

“Characterisation and problematic subtext are one and the same” (aka overanalysing and looking for problems where there are none is the death of every story, but failing to see problematic patterns where they are clearly visible is a problem, too).

Don't say anything bad about my favourite character

I think this doesn’t need much further exploration. It’s not my personal way of looking at stories through permanently rose-tinted glasses (I always feel it stalls my experience, but my experience is not everyone else's). Some people prefer that type of escapism, and I’m good with that (although the downside is of course that by not willing to engage with issues, we can unwillingly perpetuate them). Live and let live, ship and let sail. But please, for the love of god: Don’t insult people via their inboxes or messages just because their opinions and preferences don’t align with yours. I’m not going to sugarcoat it or phrase it “nicely”: It’s infantile (and a form of bullying btw), end of.

How can you even like a character who's so horrible? And that author must be equally horrible, too

We have to separate flawed characters, even those who are written to be really problematic, from real-life endorsement of these actions.

Author, narrator and character are three fundamentally different things, and don’t overlap as much as some people seem to think.

We can write vile, despicable characters to make a point (for me, Thessaly was always a prime example for this, and I explained why here). We probably hate them as we write them. I don’t know what else to say, but this facet of writing seems to get more and more lost on people, and it’s a worry. Crying for sanitised characterisation is one step away from censorship. We explore what is problematic about people and humanity through story. That’s how we process and learn. It’s nothing new, but it becomes impossible if we can’t write flawed and even disgusting characters.

Face value…

Since I’m mostly in The Sandman fandom, I often read that its ending is hopeless, and that’s supposedly the entire message.

It is agonisingly sad, yes. But is it truly hopeless? I personally see it as quite the opposite, but of course that’s my opinion, coloured by my life experiences.

I also get that show-only fans often haven’t read the comics, or at least not the whole arc. And as such, their outlook from what they’ve seen so far (and choose to focus on) has to be different by default. I also understand that many people are quite new to the comics, even if they have read them in their entirety. I’ve sat with them for 30 years, and I still find new things on every reread (and I read it more times than anyone should 🙈), and I still don’t feel like I’ve understood it all. Perhaps because I still haven’t fully understood myself (and it’s unlikely I ever will). If there’s one thing The Sandman isn’t, it’s one-dimensional and easy to grasp in its whole depth.

I just wrote a ginormous meta on it, if you’re interested, it’s here:

Subtext, (not so) glorious subtext

This is where it gets complicated:

We shouldn’t mix up characterisation and story subtext. Overanalysing every line to death will always make us find something that’s “problematic”, when it really isn’t in the wider context of the story.

Zooming in is NOT always a good thing. Sometimes, we actually need to zoom out.

But subtext *can be* (accidentally) problematic. Even in stories we love. And none of this negates what I previously wrote.

Stories have real-life implications of sorts, and we need to be able to talk about it. That’s where those slightly flabbergasting, hostile inbox messages come in, and I want to expand on that "topic of contention" a bit:

Neil himself confirmed that the Endless basically warp reality, and that this is why, after Dream’s failed relationship with Nada, many black women in his vicinity suffer terrible fates (Ruby and Carla in particular). And that this spell is only broken when he dies, and that it is the reason why Gwen doesn’t suffer the same fate. And said Gwen then gets used as a plot device to basically absolve Hob (who canonically really is a problematic character, whether show-only fans like it or not) from his slaver past. Once again, very clearly: No one is making this up. Neil confirmed it (for the comics, and that was over 20 years ago. It remains to be seen if his stance has changed as we move into that arc in the TV show).

I don't think it is correct to imply that Dream as a character is racist (I've read that, too) because he logically can’t be. He holds *all* the collective unconscious. He is also, strictly speaking, not white. He is everything and nothing, and he shows up in many different ethnicities throughout the whole arc, depending on who looks at him. But Neil played with a subtext here (reality warping due to a bad relationship which then affects everyone with similar physical traits) that will read very differently to a black person than it reads to a white person, and we have to understand why that is an *extremely* slippery slope.

Plus, we are supposed to see Hob, who *was* a racist at some point (you can’t not be if you’re a slave-trader—it’s impossible by default) as redeemed. And yes, he *does* regret deeply, good for him (and if I were saying this aloud, you would hear the sarcasm in my voice, because it is indeed all about him. We are to sympathise/empathise with him and his character growth while there isn’t much mention of the people he maltreated). But also: it was a black woman who basically forgave him (with dialogue that personally makes me cringe). And that black woman who offers forgiveness is not truly a black woman—she is a character written by a white man. And as much as author and character are not the same (see above), there is an inherent sensitivity in that power imbalance that we can't brush under the carpet.

I don’t think Neil is racist. Probably quite the opposite, and I can even see that his intentions were good from a storytelling point of view. BUT intention and impact are two fundamentally different things, and telling the story this way (comic version) betrays blindspots only white people have. Just like women have blindspots when they tell stories about men, and men have blindspots when they tell stories about women (and there are a few of those in The Sandman, too). And and and…

As storytellers, we can’t always speak from lived experience. It’s impossible. And that also means we occasionally make mistakes that look bad in hindsight, even if our intentions were good.

I guess the proof is in the pudding: What do we do when people who *have* that lived experience tell us it looks bad? If they inform us why it is hurtful, plays into old stereotypes etc?

Are we willing to listen and yield (both are the foundations of allyship btw), or are we insisting that our viewpoint as someone *without* lived experience is right? That lived experience extends to all lived experiences (sex/gender, sexual orientation, age...), and from all we’ve heard from Neil so far, it seems important to him to rewrite what he sees differently today. Whether they’ll always get it right for the show—we’ll see. At the moment, it looks a lot better than in the comics, and certain issues are already being handled with a lot more sensitivity, but a few problems remain.

Pushing back on criticism that comes from people with lived experience is problematic—I’d encourage us to think about what it looks like if a white majority in the fandom is basically saying that the opinions of POC are essentially “overreactions” (and yes, that happened).

It’s complicated. The Sandman was written in a different time, and I think we have to distinguish between things that weren’t really problematic at the time but have aged poorly (again, Thessaly springs to mind, and I have lived experience as a queer person during that time, so I can see it in context while at the same time acknowledging that I would make changes to bring it to the present day), and things that were always a problem due to blindspots. They were a problem in 1990, and if they don’t get changed, they are still a problem today.

This fandom is generally so much more open and nicer than others I know. But that doesn’t mean it’s infallible, because it’s full of humans.

Nuance is sorely needed, in both story interpretation and interaction between said humans.

#sandman #the sandman #dream of the endless #hob gadling #morpheus #the sandman comics #the sandman netflix #sandman meta #fandom blindspots #fandom discourse #sandman spoilers #nada #nada sandman

190 notes · View notes

mbti-notes · 6 months ago

Text

Anon wrote: Hello mbti-notes. Sometimes I (INFJ) come across people, both kids and grown-ups, who insult my appearance and try to humiliate me in front of other people, and I don't know how to handle the situation besides keeping a stone face and keeping it together until it ends and I find an isolated place to let the tears fall out.

I'm still greatly affected by this despite being already past my teenage years. As I said, I don't know how to effectively react. One of the ways frequently suggested is to pretend it doesn't affect me, but it does affect me so I would just be lying to them and myself and in turn feel even worse for not expressing my real emotions, but at the same time these type of people are shallow, and it would be pointless and counterproductive for me to express my real feelings without them dismissing me or taking advantage of my weak spots again.

When I don't react properly and don't say anything to stand up for myself, I start to feel even worse about myself for allowing them to disrespect me, but I am also at loss on how I should deal or react in this type of situation. I don't know how to properly deal with people like this, what to say to them, how to stand up for myself and not allow myself to be humiliated in front of everyone.

When it comes to any other topic, I know how to call people out, but when it comes to my appearance I just freeze, my mind goes blank and I don't know what to say, especially when I am dealing with middle school kids. As I said, if I play it cool, I feel even worse because they just reopened a scar inside me and I don't know how to stop the bleeding.

I tried to address my core thoughts and beliefs on beauty and disprove them, and while I dismantled my automatic toxic beliefs, it still doesn't fundamentally work, the pain I carry inside still doesn't go away, it still doesn't heal and I still feel offended and degraded, so I'm at loss on what to do now.

Getting support from my family is not an option. Getting support from my friends didn't work. I was bullied for my appearance in middle school, and after that I refused to even think or confront the issue, I currently want to confront it and heal from it but I don't know how or what exactly am I supposed to do to heal the hurt and stop getting hurt over the same thing over and over again. It's not feasible for me to have a mental breakdown every time this happens.

Right now my ultimate goal is to obtain a high self-esteem, so I need to find a way to deal with this issue. I want to stop getting hurt when people insult my looks, learn how to effectively respond when it happens, make it clear that I will not take disrespect and learn how to make people back down and respect me.

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

I'm sorry to hear that you've had to experience such terrible bullying. Disproving core thoughts and beliefs is very important but isn't likely to be enough in your case for two reasons:

Like it or not, feelings matter a lot to you as a Feeler, so until the negative feelings get sorted, the problem will persist. And only dealing with the thinking side but not the feeling side runs the risk of triggering self-sabotaging Ni-Ti loop patterns. You've basically only implemented half the solution, so the results will suffer accordingly. (Although, I do doubt how successful you were with the core thoughts and beliefs as well, which I will address later.)

Bullying is a recognized form of trauma. When you're living with significant past trauma that hasn't been properly addressed and resolved, then the problem goes far deeper than core thoughts and beliefs. You haven't gotten to the heart of the matter yet.

Bringing up your teen years is important because those are formative experiences, and negative formative experiences often lie at the root of adult self-esteem issues. Adolescence is a critical time for learning good social skills. Because teenagers are only in the early stages of learning, the way they think about socializing tends to be overly simplistic.

For example, to the average teenager, successful socializing is defined simply as "fitting in", and they jump to the conclusion that the easiest way is to be like everyone else or get approval from those with status and power. This is why social contagion (the spread of attitudes, beliefs, emotions, and behaviors through the members of a group) tends to be much worse among teenagers. When they see someone else get social validation, they rush to do the same thing in order to obtain the same reward.

However, the fact of the matter is that each one of us is an individual, and there is a limit as to how far an individual can conform. If a teenager is unlucky and simply does not share many things in common with their immediate peers, they won't be able to "be like everyone else" no matter how hard they try. Worse, their attempts to fit in or obtain approval can be transparent and make them come off as pathetic and unlikable.

Not being able to find acceptance in adolescence means the goal of that stage of development remains unfulfilled, which can have a negative effect on ego development. Basically, it can keep a person stuck in the adolescent mindset into adulthood. The more they were denied social acceptance, the more desperately they may crave validation. This is one reason why some people crazily chase affirmation, attention, affection, praise, or social status, as though trying to fill a bottomless void. Or, if they believe it impossible to obtain acceptance for whatever reason, they might develop antisocial tendencies and live in deep denial of their social needs.

Conformity is an unsophisticated socializing strategy. It's the strategy people use when they live under a dictatorship because they don't want to stand out and get their head chopped off. Now, some might say that middle and high school life is very similar to living under a dictatorship, which is fair. Teenagers can be quite harsh in ridiculing and bullying each other into conformity. However, you're not a teenager anymore. As an adult, you have more intellectual capacity for nuanced thought, you have more freedom to get away from toxic people, and you have more resources at your disposal for learning healthier methods of socializing.

Conformity is ultimately a shortsighted strategy that produces negative long term consequences. Any time you desire or attempt to be like someone else, you are denying your individuality, which means you are actively stopping the individuation process. Individuation is a core concept in analytical psychology and considered the main goal of every human being. It is the process through which you bring together all the fragmented parts of yourself to become a whole person. Going against the main goal of life prevents you from living a fulfilling and meaningful life.

Individuation requires you to become more aware of how you define your identity. If you hope to become an adult in mind, not only in body, then at some point you have to be willing to expand your sense of self beyond the narrow confines of your early socialization. Whatever it was your parents/caregivers hoped you could be, whatever it was your peers pressured you into being, whatever it was society convinced you was desirable... these concepts are very limiting, and they do not come close to encompassing the entirety of who you are. Unfortunately, many people never realize this.

The fact that these insults keep shaking you so badly suggests that you are still confined by the images, standards, and expectations of your early socialization. Unconsciously, you still buy into them, you still hope to "fit in" with them, and you still wish to reap the social rewards of living up to them, even when, consciously, you claim otherwise. As a result, you are instantly transported back to adolescence every time you are insulted. In psychology, this is called regression. It's like you are that same person, experiencing the same hurtful rejection. That teenager is still alive and well in you, and you haven't learned what to do with them yet, which is why you have no response available.

Generally speaking, criticism hurts the most when a part of you, deep down, believes it is true or fears that it could be true. That teenager inside you still believes what they were told, so the criticism activates a deep sense of shame or self-loathing. To what extent do you believe it's true that you are indeed physically "ugly"? Are you ashamed of how you look? On what basis do you make judgments about physical attractiveness? Are you using standards of your own making (as a true individual), or are you using standards that were imposed upon you (by your tormentors)? If you have truly "disproved your core thoughts and beliefs" on the matter, then you wouldn't be using any of the standards of the shallow people who insult you. Can you honestly say that is the case?

In psychoanalytic theory, one reason people keep re-experiencing and perhaps even re-inviting similar traumatic experiences over and over throughout life is because they are unconsciously seeking resolution, to obtain closure or to get compensation for what was damaged or lost in the past. Your teenage hurt is still screaming for redress. What got damaged and lost in those experiences? Your self-worth. You say your ultimate goal should be to have high self-esteem, which isn't wrong. But it isn't the root of the problem. To be more precise, it is your self-worth that is being attacked, and then your immature reaction leads you to think poorly of yourself and have low self-esteem.

Self-worth is defined as the degree to which you believe yourself "good enough" and deserving of love. You were basically told, again and again, that you are not worthy of love because of being "ugly", until you believed it. As long as you continue to believe it, the insults will cut you deeply. If your self-worth was damaged or lost during those early experiences and that pain keeps recurring, what needs to change? You need to recover your self-worth. You need to build a self-worth strong enough to withstand the world.

Since self-worth gets tied to social acceptance in adolescence, many people mistakenly believe that self-worth comes from the outside, from the judgments of others. That's not the case. Self-worth is firstly about how YOU judge yourself. Secondly, it is about how to put the judgments of others in the right perspective.

To the first point, reflect on what makes a person worthy of love. Until you can arrive at the right answer for yourself as a true individual, you have no real choice but to default to the ideas you've internalized from others earlier in life. Disproving toxic ideas isn't enough as long as you don't replace them with the right ideas, ideas that you can proudly stand up for.

Healthy self-worth involves:

having a truthful understanding of yourself

being accepting of and compassionate toward the humanity of yourself and others

making good use of your gifts, talents, and abilities

doing things in the world that matter or make a positive difference

When you build self-worth properly, from the inside out, and you fully understand your own worth, who can take that away from you? How could you not feel good about yourself? How could you not feel deserving of love?

At that point, you would understand that the best response to outer negativity is expressing your inner positivity:

With a truthful understanding of yourself, you would be the first to acknowledge your flaws and weakness.

With genuine acceptance and compassion, you could show yourself empathy when others don't, and you could have empathy for whatever was damaging them enough to lash out at you.

By realizing more of your potential, you'll see much more of your positive qualities and your innate power.

By being a good contributor in social situations, you'd be the one to influence others rather than the other way around.

This is what it means to "rise above". People with healthy self-worth don't take things too seriously because they don't perceive every negative thing as a personal attack. They tend to have a good sense of humor, even about themselves. And this easygoing manner can be contagious and encourage others to ease up as well. Imagine what could happen if you were able to meet hostility with such inner strength? Imagine what might happen if you were able to respond to your hurt teenage self with such maturity?

To the second point, reflect on what really motivates people. Fe overindulgence is a pitfall of INFJ development. One common symptom is lack of healthy boundaries. There are two aspects to consider:

- Unexamined desire for affirmation: When you indiscriminately seek "union" with every person you encounter due to Fe overindulgence, what happens? You expect everyone to care for you, you feel pressured to conform to everyone's ideas about you, and you make yourself open to everyone's influence, positive and negative. Is it a good idea to walk around with the underlying expectation that everyone should be good and kind to you? It's not a crime to want love, but you're setting yourself up for disappointment and heartache by seeking love from the wrong people. The smarter way to use Fe is to actively surround yourself with loving people and only pay attention to them, rather than just hoping for the best or waiting around passively for love to appear.

- Unable to separate self from others: What other people think, feel, say, and do is their business; it may or may not have anything to do with you. Until you can learn to "mind your own business", you'll keep getting tangled up in other people's drama. What kind of person goes around insulting others without provocation? A hurt person. An insecure person. A narcissistic person trying to make you bend to their idea of what you should be. These psychological issues are none of your business, so you are under no obligation to attend to them. Don't take on other people's problems as your own. Once you understand that no one is entitled to an answer, agreement, affirmation, or attention from you, you'll no longer take their bait. Having good boundaries means you are assertive in preserving your well-being and honoring your needs. Perhaps you should look into assertiveness training. It is sometimes included in therapy for people who have difficulty setting boundaries.

To recover self-worth isn't easy but it's doable as long as you're willing to put in the self-work. What I've written above should be enough to get you started on the journey. To the final point, you ask me what the best response is in these situations. It depends. Every social situation is unique, so it's important to consider the context. Before I can answer, you'll have to answer this first: Why do you need to respond at all? If what you're really wanting to do is prove that you're "good enough", then you're falling into a trap of depending on others to define your self-worth.

#infj #auxiliary fe #physical appearance #criticism #self worth #self esteem #shame #regression #boundaries #assertiveness #adolescence #conformity #ask

27 notes · View notes

dominik528 · 7 months ago

Text

I'll admit: I'd always been a little skeptical about the rumors regarding Lyn-Z/Lindsey Way, thinking that they were exaggerated by jealous fangirls and bitter former friends--that is, until I learned about the incident regarding a victim who was only 16-years-old when she experienced harassment. Especially when more than one person has backed this up; I doubt it was one person spreading different messages over the Internet. Jessicka Addams herself even admitted to contributing to this!

Someone on the My Chemical Romance subreddit, who claims to be the victim's longtime friend, shared the whole story. If anything, the comment only strengthened the theory that Lyn-Z was the one behind the NoWayMikeyWay blog, a similar debacle that clearly caused Mikey and his then-girlfriend a lot of distress. They definitely have a point with Lyn-Z's insecurity--her having sent the victim an E-mail saying, "If me and Gerard were dangling off a cliff, I know who you would save"--as I recall, on Twitter, the victim believing that Lyn-Z started to dislike her over what Chantal Claret told her about her crush on Gerard, and believed her, rather than acting like a civil adult and talking to the teenager about her feelings for a grown and married man.

I corresponded with this Reddit user, who believes that Lyn-Z and Chantal were the mods of NoWayMikeyWay, as a member of the band divorcing his wife for a fan was apparently Lyn-Z's biggest nightmare come true. The angry and mean-spirited messages she'd gotten, painting her as a stalker, along with being threatened to not attend any of Gerard's solo tour shows, led to having a great impact on her mental health. She lost both online and real-life friends, and job opportunities. She’s not in either the MCR or MSI fandoms anymore, and I can't blame her. Also, Lyn-Z may have apologized privately, but the thing is, she's never addressed her harmful actions publicly. Even after all of this, the victim still has a bit of a soft spot for Lyn-Z, whom she was so besotted by and treasured their initial connection (I guess, hence why she won't take her friend's advice to make a legal case out of this; why it's taken until only recently, in her late 20s, to realize how inappropriate their friendship was).

Before, I'd noticed a pattern of behavior with the similar stories, shared by @lynzuglyliar, @mysterygarbage, @unmaskinglynz and @loverofmenartandpasta, and, while I did say I was skeptical prior, I definitely believe them now. If a man sent a teen girl messages saying, "I think you're super special. Can I keep you?" he'd readily be labeled a predator. I feel like the public has only recently become more critical of female groomers, given the whole Colleen Ballinger situation last Summer. Even if it wasn't sexual, Lyn-Z and the Coven gained this girl's trust, showered her with affection and invited her over, etc. And, really, are these accusations surprising, when members of her social circle have been accused of the same thing (Jimmy, Chantal, Jessicka)?

If Lyn-Z is still this possessive over Gerard today, then it makes the thought of what their marriage has been like behind closed doors heart-wrenching. And all the more infuriating when people continue to brush off these claims as nothing but being made up by jealous fangirls who only want Gerard to themselves.

#Reddit #My Chemical Romance #Coven of Witches #Lyn Z #Lindsey Ballato #Gerard Way #fans #comment #online bullying #musicians #Chantal Claret #Jessicka Addams #Frances Cobain #My thoughts #rant #criticism #child grooming

16 notes · View notes

swearyshera · 1 year ago

Note

Given your Melog is intelligible to the audience, I wonder if you're going to carry on canon's choice of not giving us one straight answer what the hell Melog actually is. That's not a criticism, I actually like that basically everything about Melog is a mystery. Is it a construct or just some weird familiar-species? Was it's humanoid form a "holding pattern" until it bonded with a new "master", or was that it's form from it's last master? Did it ever have one? Was it controlling the illusions because it saw the team as intruders, if so why did it bond to Catra after she interferes? How autonomous is it with a master vs without one? Does it really have a mind of it's own and can make it's own judgements about what's best for their master, or does it just push them towards their true desire (a healthier relationship with Adora in both cases)

Best guess I have is it takes the form their master needs and became a therapy pet for Catra. Maybe it saw guarding it's home as it's purpose but saw Catra was so profoundly screwed up it decided this was a bigger issue and reprogrammed itself on the spot. Tells you something Catra had to learn how to communicate better from something that literally can't speak.

I'd assume Catra's own species created Melog, since I always assumed Catra wasn't "native" to Etheria just like Adora, but HP absolutely would've bragged about wiping out her civilization at some point, even if he left out it being a pyrrhic victory.

Also if I had a nickel for every time one of my fave pieces of media had some sort of shapeshifting, psychically resonant pseudo-automaton that is sole survivor of it's culture and attaches itself to (one of) the lead character via psychic link that bypasses verbal speech I'd have two nickels. (The first being Torment: Tides of Numenera's Oom)

I really would love to know, but I think part of the charm is in not knowing.

My personal thought is that Melog is the remnants of the magic left behind after Horde Prime slaughtered the inhabitants of Krytis. As such, it's not really a 'species', but a concentration of intense magic that can take a corporeal form and communicate mentally with Catra.

But I don't know if that's really the case here. I'm probably not going to give any answer as to what Melog is because I just don't know.

52 notes · View notes

thisisnotjustkink · 9 months ago

Text

A Good Enough Guide to AI for Authors

Part 1: What the hell is Gen AI?

So just a primer for anyone who doesn't already know about LLMs and GPTs.

At a high level, it's using the same core idea as autocomplete: guess the next word (or words).

Even thinking about this even from the outside, you might immediately suspect some of the problems (and solutions) researchers used to improve this workflow:

You can pull in some context from earlier statements.

You can add randomness to make sure things don't repeat.

You can use feedback from your early versions to improve.

You can expand out your sources to nearly everything online (if you can spare the space and computing power)....

Add all these in (and more!) and things get much, much more complicated... but still the same idea in the end.

To be super reductive, all the AI text stuff today is just this: the autocomplete idea scaled up a million times, with dozens of extra steps before the output.

So now we know Generative AI is just really overpowered "next word prediction" engine. Then way is everything a chatbot?

Nerds love their chatbots. Since the 1960's the "spot the AI in chat" has been a big deal. People have spent decades trying to build little text-only chatbots to prove they can trick humans.

There's a whole rabbit hole you can go down about ELIZA and if talking = thinking, but I'll leave that be. Let's just say academics are really obsessed with making AI talk and "think" like humans.

And the old way of doing this is teaching AI what thing are, what they mean, and a bunch of other systems of information to understand context.

Wait, how did we get from "guess the next word" to superpowered ChatGPT?

The short answer: you stick enough power behind that supped up auto-predict engine, tweak it a bit and it just sounds like a real person?

The best way I've seen it summed up by AI researchers:

This isn't a thinking machine, it's a really really fancy trick that weirdly emulates humans.

You can use to do a bunch of shit a human world normally do, put a little filter at the endpoint with some hard rules... and guess what? It outputs close enough we can slot it into a bunch of processes.

I have a couple of AI academic friends that find the whole "hallucination" label maddening: it's ALL hallucination, we just learned to slice the window of output just right to get it to look friendly.

Again, it's all an oversimplification, but it's critical to keep this all in mind when you ask something of current "Gen AI" models:

They're not thinking in any deep sense. They use prior examples to predict what should come next in a pattern.

They're monstruous black boxes that we somehow tricked into seeming human enough.

#gen ai #chatgpt #ai for authors

11 notes · View notes

cloud-somersault · 11 months ago

Note

I agree with your point on wukong having other priorities that aren't just all Maacque. (as much as I love shadowpeach) I want to see wukong just like...fucking gardening, or building a fence, or shit going to his favorite spot off mountain to have a picnic and oversee a town getting sacked by raiders and just steps in cuz they are gonna ruin his lunch! Yeah I agree, they need to also live their life!

aw, that would be cute! Wukong gardening 🥺💕 Like, actually putting in the work instead of relying on magic. But yeah, he should have hobbies outside of his relationships. Aside from just watching television.

And I think he does in the show, though mostly he is just lazing around, we haven't gotten to see a lot of Wukong just vibing aside from in season 1. I think him having picnics and seeing scenic views and vistas is totally something he would do. Wukong has always liked traveling.

Also, just him going to the Celestial Realm more?? He ofc has his reservations, but the Jade Emperor and the gods aren't the only things up there. Wukong likes to just laze about a lot, let him laze about up there.

In Constellations specifically, since he's refocused on bonds, Wukong spends a lot more time with people in comparison to before. Also with his subjects in comparison to before. SWK was pretty social in JTTW, lots of parties and feasts, having over 70 people that he considered to be close friends. I think he'd return to that a bit, not to the extent as before, but he'd remember how fun it is hanging out with others and having a good time.

Because he also has a lot to learn. After being isolated, the world has changed in large ways. The internet??? Also, one hobby I love for Wukong to have is knitting. He's always been picky about his appearance and put together his own outfits or whatever (tiger skins, etc) so I like him making some of his own accessories or whatever.

Combining that with the internet is also just fun. Wukong just seeing all kinds of patterns and yarn and wanting to make new things for people? Let's go, MK has plenty of sweaters now.

And Macaque! He desperately needs more attention and hobbies. Hello, he loves new information! He'd love to see how the world's changed, how things got from point A to point B. I HC he's into musicals, especially historic musicals. I also think he'd be a bit of a film critic. He'd be particular about what movies he watches, often liking those by certain directors whose style he likes or finds intriguing or interesting premises.

Macaque, loving magic and, while getting caught up in what's changed, gets inspired to make his own spells again.

And Macaque has his own bonds to make and friendships to pursue. I'm here for him being friends with Mei and Tang for sure. And lately, I've been thinking of Nezha and Macaque friendship? I think that'd be interesting. And also Princess Iron Fan and Macaque.

Like there's so much untapped potential, and instead of running away from that or thinking that it doesn't serve shadowpeach, can I emphasize that it absolutely does? In developing Wukong and Macaque outside of each other, they can bring those new perspectives, hobbies, insights back into their relationship.

They've changed, so now their relationship can change. It only gives both the characters, and the way they interact with each other, more depth.

#ask #anon #constellations fic #thanks for the ask!

14 notes · View notes

elistodragonwings · 1 year ago

Text

Yes, stories can normalize things, for better or worse. Knowing something is fake doesn’t mean our subconscious won’t learn and internalize what we’re seeing. After all, horror films wouldn’t have the ability to scare us if our minds on some level didn’t respond to fiction as though it were real. It’s hard to imagine we don’t also unintentionally take in biases and other negative values.

But that process does not exist in a vacuum. People don’t mindlessly and passively have values normalized like by some magic force. Context matters – how something is presented, not just if it exists, combined with a person’s experience and knowledge determines what does and doesn’t get normalized.

Banning everything that might be bad won’t stop things from getting normalized because society can’t control what any individual person gets from a story in the first place. What society can and should do is teach people how to engage critically with stories and with their own perception.

We call out stories that are sexist or racist or ultra-violent or overly-explicit, we call out patterns of bias across a genre, we call out commonly negative depictions, not to ban them but to bring them to people’s attention. To get people to think about what it means that we’re telling stories like this, to discourage people from passively consuming media, to encourage creators to think differently about what they’re making. Because yes, media can normalize things, but it also is a reflection of the already-normalized values and blind spots of the culture creating it; trying separate this chicken-and-egg situation is impossible.

Even if everyone could agree on what stories are or aren’t harmful, no stories can be perfect because creators are not perfect. If you do manage to sanitize everything to the most uncontroversial state, you’re left with nothing that challenges people to grow.

More than that, you can’t both ban something AND teach people to think critically about that thing they’re not supposed to see. Harmful things will always exist, but if people don’t know how to recognize or engage with them, they’re more likely to have it become normalized for them because they won’t know any better.

If you want to ban “bad” content rather than teach people how to analyze, then where’s the data? Where are the studies that say this top-down blanket approach is the best strategy? Where’s the research that shows that people who write violence are more likely to commit violence? Where’s the experts in social change and harm reduction that define what kinds of stories even are harmful? Or are you just looking for a shortcut, a simple authoritarian fix to a complicated social problem of why people do bad things? Because I promise you, no one is a pedophile or a rapist simply because they read about it in some books.

Stories can and are used to teach values. To TEACH values. To try to ban books and information in order to try to passively shape social values is completely backwards from how progress works. When a story truly no longer fits with contemporary values, it doesn’t need to be banned. It decreases in popularity on its own.

An example from my own life:

I loved the Dragonriders of Pern series in high school. Some were in my school library, some were in my regular library’s adult section, and some I bought. These books were written from 1969-early 2000s, and so unsurprisingly, some of the relationships depicted are, let’s say problematic. Some I recognized as not ok and some I did not. And yet none of those problematic depictions got normalized for me. What DID get normalized? The possibility of a society where gay men not only existed but had a respected place in society. Sure, looking back now, their depiction is…not great. But they were there and it was normal and fine. And that was important because nothing else did that for me until many years later.

Why did that stick and nothing else? Because I came to the series with progressive values, an open mind for different ways of thinking about people, a desire for stories that showed me something different, and an awareness that science fiction often is written as social commentary and imagining what could be. Someone who came to the books with different perspectives would have gotten something entirely different from it. Some might even find this too painful and harmful to read. Those are all legitimate reactions.

Should the series be banned for showing lack of consent? Gay stereotypes? The fact that gay men exist? That abortion in this world is simple and not a big deal? Because some people will find these books personally harmful or upsetting?

Or do we let the books exist, available, as we teach people to think about their values and how to analyze both stories and the world around them? As we let individuals decide for themselves what helps them and what hurts them?

#book bans #censorship #purity culture #critical thinking #education #social progress #elisto

11 notes · View notes

sapphic-agent · 1 year ago

Note

Hi, thanks for answering my questions. I have tons of them mha is a gold mine for "learn what not to do in a story"

Izu gets absolutely no credit and...I want to talk about smth. The cleaning beach episode.

"Heroes dont do good deeds to seek rewards" is a fine lesson. It has its merit and I do like the whole idea.

My issues goes to

1) AM didn't notice anything odd about Izu? How he views himself or act? Again, not saying AM should read his mind nor investigate every lil thing but sure having a talk about "why you want to be a hero" could lead to am learning Izu's self steem issues.

2) Heroes do get credit! They do their jobs sure but at the end of day "wow thanks hero" can be heard. Why Izu cant get credit for cleaning the beach? (According the wiki it became a point for romance)

3) I do like the cleaning beach. I do. But how menaged to attract no one's attention? A kid comes from the beach for 10 months and cleaned up all on himself. People would be impressed.(wanna show how humble your character is? Make him interact with fame)

4)it open a pattern. Izu can split the ocean and people would ignore. Bk does nothing and people will fawn over it.

The list goes on and on but why Izu cant get any credit or reconigtion and became the butt of a joke.

"Heroes dont do things for glory" all fine and dandy, but this only applies to Izu.

"Heroes font do things for glory. Izu, now break yoir bones and mind for everyone and expect nothing"

Funny bc...AM has fame. He is the #1 and he wanted Izu to follow his steps...(I totally get why there AM bashing) but at the same time, he does nothing for his heir.

No problem, I love answering asks! (sorry for the wait with this one)

1. As much as I love All Might, he isn't always as on top of things as he should be especially concerning Izuku. Could be a lot of reasons for this, but I think it really boils down to the smile through it mentality that he takes on. He thinks that because Izuku keeps the smile on that he's strong enough to handle whatever issues he's facing on his own. A toxic mentality for sure. He should have been more vigilant and it's 100% valid to criticize him for it. BUT in his defense he seems to be a lot more aware during and after Dark Deku (one of the only bright spots of that arc). He loosens on that thinking a little bit and tries his best to support Izuku the best ways he knows how. I think this was also the arc when he realized how that mentality was negatively affecting Izuku, like when he ran off.

2. I certainly think Izuku should have gotten credit! Not necessarily immediate praise or recognition. But it would have been nice if some of his classmates discovered it and started complimenting it. Could have made for a very sweet moment.

3. It's definitely odd how no one noticed. Maybe because no one went near the beach do to it being so dirty? Maybe they were training super early in the morning when no one was awake? Idk.

4. Best example of this is the Sludge Villain. Bakugou panicked and made the situation worse with his quirk and got praised for it. Izuku was the only one who even tried to help the situation and got reprimanded for it. Double standards I guess

#izuku deserves better #mha critical #bnha criticism #ask

16 notes · View notes

asexualtuckerfoley · 4 months ago

Text

Prue Halliwell Appreciation Week Day 4 - Favorite Non-Family Relationship

So I'm a Prandy girl at heart, but I decided instead to continue the pattern I have from days 1 and 2 where I talked about where I thought/hoped the show would go. (Sorry in advance to any Prue/Jack fans this post gets pretty critical of their relationship trope.)

Back on my day 1 post I said that I expected Prue's future relationships to follow this pattern of "find a guy, learn a lesson, find a guy who's the opposite, learn a lesson," and so on. We kind of already saw that with how she went from Andy to Bane- from this big long-term romance to a fling that could never last. But with him we also see danger and betrayal, leading her to want someone more lighthearted.

Enter Jack, self-professed man-child. Usually when I see this trope of serious, professional women dating immature men, I see it as a method of control. These women at some subconscious level know that these men are all wrong for them, but they need companionship and they know the guy isn't likely to leave because they want a mother, not a partner. By the end of this relationship, Prue wants someone steady and consistent that she can rely on.

That leads us to Dick, Mr. Boring, though as I mentioned in my day 1 post, Prue realizes that boring isn't what she wants, she wants someone who can keep up with her, taking us to TJ. He can keep up, but he's reckless and selfish.

I think Prue's first romance in season 4 would be a doctor, nurse, or paramedic. He'd be responsible and mature, but with his job he's able to keep up with Prue, and they'd have a lot of shared values around helping others. However, I also think this guy would become overbearing an anxious about Prue being a witch, but they wouldn't even it that far because they'd both have odd schedules and end up hardly ever seeing each other. It takes us back to Prue needing someone who can be there for her, albeit in a different way than she did after Jack.

Now we could keep this cycle going for a while, but I think Prue's been through enough and would be ready for something permanent by this point, but it won't be what she expects. I know that there are a million real-world reasons for a character having several one-off love interests that don't stick, but part of this guy-hopping thing screams comphet to me. Unfortunately, I think Prue would need a lot of help to get to a point of self acceptance- think Alex Danvers's storyline in Supergirl but regress it to 2001. Hell even in the show Piper weaponized queerness against Phoebe when they were fighting over Leo, and that wasn't even meant as an insult.

So maybe Prue signs up for speed dating. She would frame it as a fast and efficient vetting process, which is very Prue, but when she gets there, it's all women. The organizer spots her as she tries to leave, realizing she signed up for the wrong event, and they have an awkward little back-and-forth that ends with the organizer telling her to keep an open mind and gives Prue her business card.

Prue goes back home and kind of brushes off Piper and Phoebe when they ask how it went cause she's back way too early, but oops! All of a sudden she can't stop thinking about it. About how she joined the student council as a freshman to spend time with the cool senior girl who was president at the time. About how she always kept her eyes down in the locker room after cheer practice and this overwhelming sense of shame if she accidentally looked at one of the other girls. About the nurse who held her when she broke down crying after the car accident that injured Phoebe.

And oh. Oh.

#charmed #prue halliwell #prueweek2024 #shannen doherty #dailycharmed #long post #op

2 notes · View notes

randomfoggytiger · 1 year ago

Text

Personality Typing: Bringing Up Baby

Happy early Birthday, @baronessblixen!

I wanted to whip you up a post that had a few of your interests all blended in one; and-- wouldn't you know?-- it has an INTP main lead, too!

Now, let's attempt to type these characters as they run amok with two leopards, a yappy dog, butterfly nets, leashes, and not one braincell shared amongst them.

MAIN CHARACTERS

David Huxley- INTP

“Now it isn’t that I don’t like you, Susan; because, after all, in moments of quiet I’m strangely drawn towards you. But… well, there haven’t been any quiet moments.”

David Huxley is an INTP, which places him neatly as a Background Type and trips him right into the Intellectuals (xNTx) group. Background Communication Types are Informative (discuss a topic while providing all the possible information without taking a decisive stand on anything, allowing the other person to decide their own role in the mutual conversation), Responding (prefer to wait for the other person to initiate a conversation, then stay in the passive role while allowing the conversation to be guided by someone else), and Outcome (value the goal of the journey, carefully planning their steps to a specific endpoint and deliberately taking a measured pace to obtain the right result the first time.)

David’s 8 cognitive functions dictate how his brain intakes information, processes it, and makes decisions.

INTPs leads with Ti Hero, which is all about distilled logic, “if this then that”, facts, verification, criticism, and deductive filters: if it doesn’t make sense, it isn’t true (hence his near infuriated frustration with Susan Vance’s illogical nature and decisions.)

Ne Parent balances the Hero function: it is constantly aware of others’ intentions and the end results of other people’s choices; and that instinct is always right (which is why David is always spot on with assessing how much trouble Susan will get into… and how much she gets him into.) Not only does Ne Parent allow them to become masters of “I told you so”, but it also makes them spot patterns of human behavior easily… and become easily bored with human nature's predictability (which is why he ends up falling for Susan, who he can’t predict and who keeps the thrills coming; because INTPs have a bit of the thrill seeker in them, and this one in particular found he really likes them.)

Si Child is capable of incredible, unwavering steadfastness, conviction, endurance, discipline, and faith; and to “abuse” the child would be to imply an INTP is, somehow, disloyal-- which sends them into apathy mode, not caring if the accuser sticks around or leaves (hence why David isn’t too fussed about his fiancee leaving after she implied he was a philanderer.)

Fe Inferior (the last of the four dominant functions) is easily guilted as it fears making other people feel badly; which, in turn, allows them to be easily maneuvered, exploited, and rug matted all in the name of being a good person (hence why David won’t walk away from Susan, despite all her messes-- because he is compelled to help her out of them.) If INTPs are accused of being uncaring, they shift into protective (and havoc-wrecking) Demon mode: their apathy kicks in, and that person becomes effectively dead to them (again, what happens with his fiancée, but also his “who cares what others think of me anymore” attitude by the end of the film.)

Te Nemesis is in constant battle with the Hero function (serving as its “villain” to war with and become stronger for it): Te is all about outsourcing information or opinions to others around them; and it challenges (and thereby worries) the Ti’s logic to see if it’s “out of date.” If an INTP is wise, this will force them to outsource their current information, ridding themselves of stagnant or outdated facts (which is what David learns to do with Susan: constantly check in with her to see what new story or lie she has concocted so he isn’t caught off-guard.)

Ni Critic is the cynical parent figure to the Parent function: it takes note of Ne Parent’s observations-- that no one is responsible with what they want-- and chooses not to want anything, which locks the INTP into a paralysis or inaction. This is why INTPs become so solitary or stuck in unproductive (and unhealthy) ruts, professionally and personally (as David does with his first relationship: wanting to marry a partner who railroaded him without apology), and are drawn to (and can fall back into) the familiarity of those cycles-- healthy or toxic-- for comfort’s sake (being drawn to Susan who overrides his concerns like Alice did… but at least Susan reflects and changes whereas Alice never did.)

Se Trickster, the bane of an INTP’s existence: they have no physical awareness, whether that be how they come off to others, their comfort over aesthetics fashion sense, or the various potholes, ditches, sidewalks, cars, or other places they fall into or flat on. However, they are masters at remembering how to spot and avoid various Se Trickster traps when trained (ex. David never getting caught in the same kerfuffle twice, even though he gets roped into an entirely new faux pas via Susan’s next misadventure.)

And lastly, Fi Demon pops up when INTPs have been hurt either by their Si Child (calling them disloyal or flaky… or a “butterfly”) or their Fe Inferior (that they aren't caring enough despite the shirt being guilted off their backs): full-on depraved debauchery-- anything that will self-soothe or make INTPs feel good is indulged and indulged and indulged, effectively causing willful self-destruction (David snapping in Susan’s white robe at her aunt and snarkily commenting in the jail cell are moments where his Fi Demon is starting to come out. They end rather quickly because new developments happen so fast that they shake the situation up-- and by proxy his annoyance or aggravation.)

Susan Vance- ESFP

"Oh, David, if only I could make you understand-- you see, all that happened happened because I was trying to keep you near me and I just did anything that came into my head."

Susan Vance is an ESFP, flinging her in the Starter category and jamming her into the Artisans (xSxP) group. Starter Communication Types are Informative (communicates all possible information while discussing a topic without taking a decisive stand in the conversation), Initiating (seeking out others in social situations, starting conversations, and keeping others in the information loop), and Progression nee Movement (moving toward any result without a fixed destination, plan, or outcome because they fear inaction and stagnation more than optimizing for the best outcome.)

Susan’s 8 cognitive functions help her intake, analyze, and process information so she can output them with decisions.

Se Hero took me by surprise: normally, Se is completely in-tune with the physical world around them (its performance, finesse, observation, and physicality of a person’s body as well as the tangible realm around it.) However, Susan is such a klutz that I thought there was no way she as an ESFP-- but facts don’t lie, and the other assets of Se (short term memory, seeing what others are doing and wanting to participate or involve others in its activities) fit her to a T (not to mention, one of her last lines-- admitting her shenanigans aren't well thought-out because she wanted to keep David around-- clarifies why she is so out of tune with her Se Hero: desperation.)

Fi Parent is there to keep ESFPs responsible with their morality to behave socially or ethically. The problem is that this translates-- to an immature ESFP-- that they must have others think they are good people to feel good about themselves even if they truthfully aren't (which is why Susan collapses in tears when it finally dawns on her that David doesn’t really like her… which prompts his Fe Inferior to comfort her) rather than reflecting or putting any work into themselves to become a good person (although she changes this about herself by the end of the film.)

Te Child is smart, very very smart, with an incredible field of knowledge (which explains how Susan knows so many odds and ends tricks, i.e. lockpicking, olive throwing, purse snatching, etc.); but is easily wounded by others’ assumptions that an ESFP isn’t smart or believable (which is why she is hurt by some of David's assumptions and also why she creates an elaborate alternate identity that the cops and psychologists would believe while in jail.)

Ni Inferior is unconquerable in achieving anything they put their mind to… to a point, as ESFPs often hold themselves back from their plans because they fear it won’t work (i.e. Susan losing confidence in her madcap strategies the more the film dragged on, which led to her more active Ni Inferior in the climax and end of the film-- understanding how much trouble she gets David into and wishing to atone for her ways.)

Si Nemesis worries that it lacks discipline, duty, and honor, which forces ESFPs to evaluate themselves constantly and fear that tomorrow might not be as good as today. To overcome this failure to decide anything, they must exercise maturity by fulfilling the obligations and commitments they’ve made that they can’t seem to, or are afraid to, finish (which is why Susan dragged David with her everywhere: because without him, she wouldn’t have done any of those things-- just floated around and worried.)

Fe Critic is super selfish and hypocritical, wanting the best for themselves while thinking the other person hasn’t earned it; and ESFPs have to learn not to assume the worst in others because it reflects their own poor character back on themselves (i.e. Susan not meeting Alice but immediately wanting what she has-- David-- for herself; and then learning she doesn’t really "deserve" David, regardless.)

Ti Trickster believes that there are no absolutes, that anything can be true or false, and overall can’t figure out how to logic a situation. If they learn to take the time to carefully evaluate and assess thoroughly before making a decision (taking in everything before acting first), ESFPs will then become master strategists, angling her solution different ways until everyone wants to take a bite (her first conversation with the constable, her conversations with Aunt Elizabeth and Major Applegate, and her big charade with the police in jail.)

Ne Demon is activated when they are given no freedom of choice, causing them to strip everyone else of that freedom, too (ex. Aunt Elizabeth holds a million dollars over her head, so Susan holds that million and a leopard and a bone and the dog over David’s; and later, Susan also holds a faux fess-up in-exchange for her freedom over the police's heads.)

MINOR CHARACTERS

Alice Swallow- ESTJ

"Stop it! Really, David, there's a time and place for everything."

Alice Swallow (David Huxley’s overbearing fiancée) is an ESTJ, setting her into the Structure category and slotting her in the Guardians (xSxJ) group. Structure Communication Types are Direct (communicate in clear, specific, and concise language so that there is no doubt behind their intent), Initiating (take an active role in conversation or social situations, seeking others out to keep them informed or “in the loop” ), and Outcome (value the carefully planned, focused, and deliberate steps to achieve the right end goal the first time.)

Her 8 cognitive functions dictate how Alice’s brain intakes, processes, and outputs information to analyze and make decisions.

Te Hero: metrics, achievements, reputation, societal standards, labels, beliefs, and rules (which is why Alice immediately squashes David’s physical affection while both are in front of a superior, stating “There’s a time and place for everything. What will Professor think?”)

Si Parent gives ESTJs a drive to experience everything once, but tempers it with vast amounts of self-discipline and duty (i.e. Alice getting married but insisting she and David come right back to the museum, curtailing both their present and future for “his work”) and responsible, tested-and-tried loyalty (which is why she immediately breaks off her engagement after learning about David’s “disloyalty.”)

Ne Child dabbles in metaphysics, seeing all possibilities and somehow making anything come true by pulling a few strings (hooking David up with an interview to get a donation of a million dollars, for instance.)

Fi Inferior is afraid they lack the principles to be moral enough; but if they seek meaning and prove their worth, there is no one who can invest more into values or people (declaring "Oh, David, what did you do?!" can be a sign of Fi Inferior; because if David messes everything up, then Alice has cosigned her reputation to his foolery.)

Ti Nemesis is the reverse of David Huxley’s process: Te Hero’s aggregated knowledge is constantly picked at by the nagging voice of “that doesn’t make sense”, causing them to verify the accuracy of their collected beliefs (which is what Alice does not do at the end of the film.)

Se Critic creates elitist hypocriticism in ESTJs: appearance, to them, represents intelligence; and they heavily criticize others that are a bit off or have a hair out of place (reproving her fiancé for his slang) while not noticing their own inappropriate apparel or behavior (talking down to David next to both their superior.)

Ni Trickster tricks ESTJs into thinking they know what they want when they don’t-- never let them make big decisions alone, let alone mutual ones (hence why her plans for their future are so unattainable and wouldn’t have lasted long for either Alice or David.)

And lastly, Fe Demon ruptures if ESTJs are accused of being unfeeling or uncaring: they are very loving and caring but express it differently. If they aren’t given their dues, they strip away their care and vindictively take away that other person’s ability to receive care from others, usually by offering them love on a platter… which turns out to be poisoned (ex. Alice getting fed up with her fiancé’s actions and “lovingly” or "calmly" or "peacefully" giving him sole blame in the end.)

Alexander Peabody- ESTP

"Dr. Huxley, when I play golf I only talk golf. And then only between shots."

Alexander Peabody is an ESTP, putting him in the Structure category and placing him in the Artisans (xSxP) group. Structure Communication Types are Direct (communicate in clear, specific, and concise language so that there is no doubt behind their intent), Initiating (take an active role in conversation or social situations, seeking others out to keep them informed or “in the loop” ), and Outcome (value the carefully planned, focused, and deliberate steps to achieve the right end goal the first time.)

His 8 cognitive functions dictate how Alexander’s brain perceives and outputs information.

Se Hero is an observer and master of the physical environment as well as the people in it, as effortlessly good at directing others (David Huxley, the constable, and psychiatrist) as well as his golf balls.

Ti Parent is skeptical over what others state is true or false, requiring tangible proof before they make final judgements or decisions (which is why he came to the jail before stating definitively his client wasn’t there.)

Fe Child is very loving and giving, willing to hand out prizes and favors to anyone close by (or a million dollars and a dinner to talk it over to David); however, ESTPs are deeply wounded if someone takes the unfiltered truth (and sometimes harsh truth) of their Ti Parent and uses it to label them as uncaring, unfeeling, or even malevolent.

Ni Inferior makes ESTPs (and ESFPs like Susan Vance) afraid of making the wrong decision, tying them up in indecision (hence why he wants a second conversation with David Huxley to absolutely know for sure before making a final decision.)

Si Nemesis fears that they are not dutiful enough to carry out the demands of whatever the future holds, again contributing to their indecisive nature (i.e. previous example.)

Te Critic assumes everyone else is stupid, including massive societal structures, sources, or even religions; and ESTPs must individually test every single thing they’re told, lighting the falsehoods on fire and clutching the tried-and-true to themselves forever (again, dropping into the jail personally with promise of swift punishment if proven correct.)

Fi Trickster believes anything can be good or bad, leading them to have (basically) no moral principles and to do what they believe is good or bad for them (ex. being hurt that “David” impolitely throws a rock at his head instead of being affrighted that “David” is scrounging around in his yard late at night.)

And Ne Demon (like Susan Vance the ESFP) will destroy everyone else’s freedom of choice if they aren’t given it (hinging the donation of a million dollars on his terms-- golfing and dinner-- and seriously thinking of revoking it when David Huxley skips out both times.)

Dr. Lehman- ISTJ

"I have no doubt you will find you made a very important haul."

Dr. Lehman is an ISTJ, stamping him in the Finisher category and check marking his status in the Guardians (xSxJ) group. Finisher Communication Types are Direct (communicating clearly in concise language leaving no doubt as to their intent), Responding (letting the other person initiate and guide a conversation, or waiting for others to keep them “in the loop”), and Progression nee Movement (always progressing forward without a specific goal in mind-- movement is better than stagnation, the journey is more enjoyable than the endpoint.)

The 8 cognitive functions of Dr. Lehman’s Type help him perceive, process, and output information.

Si Hero is defined by duty: loyalty, endurance, faith, effort, steadfastness, habit, and sharing; and an immature ISTJ is more willing to boast about what it can endure rather than be humble in what it has endured. ISTJs crave loyalty; and will discipline themselves to give the best “experiences” (how they come across to others) to earn that loyalty, striving to be "above reproach."

Te Parent is all about names and titles-- metrics, rules, labels, reputation-- desiring those accolades for itself (and thinking it’s earned a VIP status with all the hard work ISTJs put in to polish themselves.) It also seeks a proper routine, system, or algorithm to quickly find, evaluate, and streamline beliefs or reference points. They rely heavily on this framework, using it to figure out why people behave irrationally (hence why he immediately diagnoses David Huxley one nothing more than a simple, one-sided question from Susan Vance.)

Fi Child has miraculous sympathy, but is often ignored by other people because of an ISTJ’s “soulless” pursuit of trying to understand life with their metrics and tried-and-true rules (i.e. when he distances himself from his and the constable’s mistakes after Mr. Peabody insinuates what terrible people those mistakes would make them-- and it also affected his Si Hero's "above board" reputation.)

Ne Inferior is afraid of the “what ifs” and metaphysics and intangibles of life; but once they use common sense to walk themselves through every possibility, ISTJs no longer fear or catastrophize their future (ex. Dr. Lehman almost losing his cool over the purse mix-up.)

Se Nemesis feeds into their Si Hero: ISTJs worry they are giving others a bad Se experience, which would smack them right in the face of their Si; so, they work overtime to check and check and check this blind spot constantly (for instance, whenever Dr. Lehman corrects his posture or monocle or carefully seats his wife at the table.)

Ti Critic assumes ISTJs are the smartest people in the room; and believes the other person is guilty because they perceived that person as guilty (assuming and affirming Susan Vance is insane because he misinterprets her actions, for example.) ISTJs must be made to verify these beliefs, comparing their initial impressions with actual facts.

Fe Trickster gives ISTJs zero social awareness-- hence why they come off as robotic or disconnected to some people-- and blinds them to the fact that others do not share the same values or goals that they do. Those others can then read an ISTJ's disinterest in the subjectives of societal or social norms as terrible or heartless behavior, which kicks an ISTJ’s Fi Child in the ribs and sets off their demon function.

Ni Demon becomes a high-chair tyrant if an ISTJ’s needs aren’t met: catapulted by the fear of others’ intent (Ne Inferior) and further goaded by someone accusing their Fi Child, ISTJs will launch into a self-indulgent focus on only themselves and their needs, seeing that their detractors have abused their Si Hero’s willingness to honor the Te Parent rules (and is why Dr. Lehman leaves the constable to bear the brunt of the mistake alone: Lehman thinks he did everything right and the constable did everything wrong-- especially after observing said constable's lack of interrogation techniques; and doesn't think he deserves any blame for the series of misadventures that unfolded.)

Mrs. Lehman- ISTP?

"Frederick, where is my purse?"

Mrs. Lehman is just a guess, but I'll put her down as an ISTP, sliding into the Finisher category and settling into the Artisans (xSxP) group. Finisher Communication Types are Direct (clear, concise, precise communication leaving no room for misinterpretation), Responding (preferring that the other person to initiate and guide a conversation), and Progression nee Movement (forward movement and a wonky end product is better than some of the stagnation that comes with measured planning for the perfect end goal.)

Mrs. Lehman’s 8 cognitive functions help her intake and output information and make quick, actionable decisions (and is a near perfect match to her husband’s ISTJ Type.)

Ti Hero is identical to David Huxley’s Ti Hero; but their differences become very pronounced with her Se Parent, which is a very physical, actionable, “fix things with my own bare hands” function (i.e. grabbing at her purse from David’s hands before bossing her husband to fix the problem… the implication being “before I do.”)

Se Parent is also responsible with its physical and mechanical prowess, using it to get others out of destructive comfort zones and to team up with their Ti Hero to become excellent hands-on teachers.

Ni Child is the equivalent of literal, definable “lady luck”-- somehow surviving impossible scenarios with very little injuries or long term consequences (in Mrs. Lehman’s case, getting her purse and diamond broach back intact because it wasn't even stolen.)

ISTPs share Fe Inferior and Te Nemesis with INTPs (David Huxley)-- fear of making others feel bad and worrying if others are factually correct respectively-- but differ with Si Critic: they have a hard time committing to anything or anyone, yet expect others to commit to them. Once ISTPs develop self-discipline, they then also have to admit that they have the memory of a goldfish while erroneously thinking that they, an elephant, never forget.

Ne Trickster thinks that something isn’t real until they can touch it or see it, which leaves them weak to others’ intentions and open to covert or subtle attacks; and when the bus hits, they scramble to figure out what happened.

And lastly, Fi Demon self-soothes via the INTP method: depraved debauchery all the way down.

Aunt Elizabeth- ENTJ

"Heh. Susan, imagine giving a dinner party with your husband stalking like Hamlet's ghost all through the meal."

Aunt Elizabeth Random is an ENTJ, zipping her into the Structure category and firmly squeezing her into the Intellectuals (xNTx) group. Structure Communication Types are Direct (communicate in clear, specific, and concise language so that there is no doubt behind their intent), Initiating (take an active role in conversation or social situations, seeking others out to keep them informed or “in the loop”), and Outcome (value the carefully planned, focused, and deliberate steps to achieve the right end goal the first time.)

Aunt Elizabeth uses 8 cognitive functions to make decisions, perceive the world around her, and process new and startling information.

Te Hero is focused on the beliefs-- what the collective believes to be true having greater weight than what the meager dissenters prove to be true-- as well as the rules, the metrics, the systems, and the titles of the world around them. They work hard to earn and wear their accolades with pride (ex. Aunt Elizabeth expecting others to respect her requests or demands because of her family name), rising up any successful ladder with diligence, speed, and focus.

Ni Parent wants everything responsibly, letting themselves give in to very little of their temptations-- and only then because of their Se Child.

Se Child is the epitome of a kid at a birthday party, spoiling themselves and others with quality excess and delighting in both receiving and giving (or, in Aunt Elizabeth’s case, having her nephew ship a leopard so she can keep it as her extravagant pet.)

ENTJs share Fi Inferior and Ti Nemesis with ESTJs (Alice Swallow)-- afraid they aren’t moral enough and worried they aren’t intelligent enough respectively-- but their Ne Critic separates the path again: ENTJs feel abandonment more than any other Type, and constantly assume others will betray them constantly. This leads them to loyalty check those closest to them constantly (ex. Aunt Elizabeth calling her own niece crazy and second-guessing if she should give her a million dollars.)

Se Trickster forgets EVERYTHING; and they need constant reminders or notes to refresh their recollection. As a result, their brain latches onto only the most important information… which are their worst memories because of the self-preservation paranoia of the Ne Critic (and causes Aunt Elizabeth to remember most clearly the things that annoy her presently or hurt her in the past.)

Lastly, Fe Demon ruins everyone else’s opportunities to feel loved or connected if an ENTJ’s Se Child is accused of being unloving or uncaring (which Aunt Elizabeth never had an opportunity to exercise.)

Major Applegate - ENFJ

"Gentle as a kitten? Well, I don't know you why didn't mention that before--"

Major Applegate is an ENFJ, hopping him into the Structure category and pinning him soundly in the Idealists (xNFx) group. Structure Communication Types are Direct (naturally communicated clearly, concisely, and precisely so that nothing is misconstrued from their intent), Initiating (chooses an active role in social situations, seeking others out to keep them “in the loop”), and Outcome (deliberately plan their steps to reach a perfect end point or achievement.)

Major Applegate uses his 8 cognitive functions to perceive, inform, judge, and process the world and information around him.

Fe Hero is tied directly to inclusivity, acceptance, collective ethics, support, and bonds, striving to outreach and care for those around them (ex. Major Applegate trying to help Susan with the correct time, teaching Aunt Elizabeth a leopard’s call, trying to help David and Susan catch the wrong leopard, and correcting Aunt Elizabeth’s error about her niece not being in jail.)

ENFJs share their Ni Parent and Se Child with ENTJs-- responsible with their wants and extravagant with their sharing-- but their Ti Inferior is their own: ENFJs are afraid they are unintelligent or incorrect, often being portrayed as the stereotypical dumb blonde. In reality, they are quite smart but largely held back by the implication or accusation of being stupid (i.e. Major Applegate stumbling over his words in the police station when the constable and his men start to look at him funny.)

Fi Nemesis is worried about their own moral self worth, overcoming their doubts by doing good and helping other humans (for instance, “saving” Aunt Elizabeth from the leopard and teaming up with Gogarty to hunt it down.)

ENFJs also share Ne Critic (assuming others will betray them) and Si Trickster (forgetting everything but the worst moments) with ENTJs; but separate once more with the Demon function.

Te Demon destroys the voice of others when no one will listen to them, especially if their Inferior has been trampled consistently and labelled as "worthless." They then squash and trample and make themselves be heard; and if they still aren’t, ENFJs rip the structure out from underneath everyone and let them fall to their destruction (Major Applegate never got that far, but the equivalent would be to not correct Aunt Elizabeth’s assumption and let everyone stay in jail and out of his hair.)

Aloysius Gogarty- INFP

Aloysius Gogarty is an INFP, setting him into the Background category and startling him into the Idealists (xNFx) group. Background Communication Types are Informative (discuss a topic while providing all the possible information without taking a decisive stand on anything, allowing the other person to decide their own role in the mutual conversation), Responding (wait for the other person to initiate a conversation, then stay in the passive role while allowing the conversation to be guided by someone else), and Outcome (value the goal more than the journey, carefully planning their specific endpoint and taking deliberate steps to obtain the right result the first time.)

Aloysius uses 8 cognitive functions to perceive, make, and output impressions into decisions.

Fi Hero is concerned about one’s own personal morals: their principles, their investment, their worth, and their mood. INFPs mature from their initial pride about what they value (ex. Gogarty complaining about the double standards of the house’s raucous meal and his own expected behavior) to tempered humility about said moral values.

INFPs share Ne Parent (ability to “predict” the outcome and consequences of everyone’s decisions) and Si Child (deeply wounded if they are accused of being disloyal) with INTPs (David Huxley); but differ with their Inferior function.

Te Inferior is a collector of others’ knowledge and opinions, becoming unrivaled in its scope of information (if it chooses.) However, INFPs are afraid of what others think of them-- their reputation is everything to them; and they need others to think well of them even if those things might not be true (ex. Gogarty lying about petting the leopard to Major Applegate and immediately starting a fight with the police when he is accused of stealing Dr. Lehman’s car.)

Fe Nemesis worries that it is selfish (because Fi Hero puts its needs above others’); and it moves mature INFPs to empathetically care for and serve others to fight that concern, either personally with their loved ones or publicly with volunteer work (for instance, Gogarty teaming up with Major Applegate’s natural inclination to protect everyone from the leopard.)

Again, INFPs share Ni Critic (avoiding risk with inaction) and Se Trickster (unaware of their surroundings and others' impressions of them) with INTPs; but they, again, separate at the Demon function.

Ti Demon rips its way out of their peaceable chest if no one thinks highly of them (Te Inferior) or listens to their input (Ne Parent), or if anyone casts aspersions on their loyalty (Si Child): INFPs will make sure no one else’s opinion matters, either, by building a trap for their tormentors with the truth. They then stand aside casually as their enemies fall into it one by one (Mr. Gogarty was never pushed this far; but there is an inkling of Ti Demon: cheerfully acknowledging his connection to Susan Vance after the police locked him up, expecting them to get in big, big trouble at the mention of her name.)

Constable Slocum- ISFP

"Young lady, it might interest you to know that you're under arrest."

Constable Slocum is an ISFP, fumbling him into the Background category and dumping him in the Artisans (xSxP) group. Background Communication Types are Informative (provides all the possible information about a topic without taking a decisive stand on it), Responding (prefers the more passive role in conversation or social situations), and Outcome (walks a measured pace so they can carefully plan the perfect plan for their perfect end point.)

Constable Slocum uses his 8 cognitive functions to perceive and process the world around him.

ISFPs share Fi Hero with INFPs (Aloysius Gogarty), concerned more with their own personal “good or bad” morals over “true or false” ethics.

ISFPs also share Se Parent (responsible mastery of the physical environment) and Ni Child (“lady luck” and feeling trapped if they are not given the freedom to make their own choices) with ISTPs (Mrs. Lehman.)

Again, they share Te Inferior (afraid for their reputation) and Fe Nemesis (worry that they are selfish) with INFPs.

And, again, they share Si Critic (expect commitment while being unwilling to commit) and Ne Trickster (unaware of others’ machinations) with ISTPs.

Even though ISFPs share their 8th function with INFPs, they have a different, more personalized “mode.” Ti Demon will let their enemies’ fall by the truth if they aren’t listened to, but while INFPs make the ultimate trap to passively snare their enemies, ISFPs will make the ultimate weapon to hands-on obliterate them (which is why Constable Slocum keeps threatening even more disastrous, personalized punishments the more his prisoners annoy him.)

Thank you for reading~

And, again, Happy (soon to be) Birthday, Anika! :DDD

Disclaimers: This is a self-assessed analysis. This information is not based on the abominable MBTI system (which has been butchered from its original Jungian typology since ~WWII); instead, it’s a combination between the works of Jung’s type psychology, Dr. Linda Berens’ Communication styles, Dr. Dario Nardi’s EEG complied research with brain scans, and others’ data and practices as compiled and simplified by CSJoseph. This system is based only on the Nature side of Nature/Nurture; and each “type” is not a “box” to fit everyone into– simply a tool to help understand the basics of the human mind that science has only begun to fathom in its limited scope.

**Note**: I am definitely not an expert, so these assessments are subject to change with corrections or scrutiny.

#Typing #Personality Typing #Bringing Up Baby #Jungian Typology #MBTI #but not #Types #Carrie Grant #Katherine Hepburn #analysis #mine #happy birthday post #baronessblixen #Happy Happy Birthday to you~!

10 notes · View notes

sparkplug02 · 8 months ago

Text

One of my favorite relationship tropes (sexually, romantically, or platonically) is mutual slow-burn earned loyalty/trust. Thank you for asking what that is, I shall gladly explain in more detail than necessary:

We start with two characters who are not on the same side for whatever reason. They don’t necessarily have to be enemies, they could probably even know each other before the plot starts, but they can’t know each other well. This probably works best if they have goals that overlap but don’t align perfectly.

Something forces them to cooperate, whether it be forced proximity, common enemy, something plot-related, whatever. It’s these two individuals who would not work together under normal circumstances finding enough common ground to accomplish something whilst collaborating. Both of them are aware that this is a short-term arrangement because they aren’t on the same side, this kind of cooperation isn’t sustainable long-term given current conditions.

Whatever makes them cooperate gives them an incentive to trust the other (however fleetingly) but they both need to have motivation to do not do that as well. They both need to have some reason to distrust the other. Character A needs to think that Character B has something to gain by betraying Character A, and Character A needs to also be aware that they themself have something to gain by betraying Character B. Likewise, the same goes for Character B. It’s mutual distrust. I know you could betray me, and I know I could betray you, but due to extraordinary circumstances, I have no (some? but not enough) choice but to work with you in this instance.

The temporary alliance works, and A and B go their separate ways. If this relationship is sexual or romantic, now would probably be an appropriate time to introduce some of that.

Off they go, each to accomplish their own goals in life, but their paths cross again. Along comes another opportunity for cooperation, but this one isn’t as critical or urgent. They don’t HAVE to work together again, but for reasons, they do. Their feelings still haven’t changed, though.

They could still betray each other and have something gain from it, and they both know it goes both ways. The only two things that are different from last time is 1) At least one character is not as desperate as they were last time, and 2) historically speaking, they have a 100% probability of not betraying each other.

They’re not idiots. They know that just because the other person didn’t betray them last time doesn’t mean all is safe and well this time. They were desperate last time. This is different.

Now would be a good time to introduce what about their character/personality makes them so distrusting. A history of being betrayed, innate paranoia, personal biases, general worldview, pick your favorite. Bonus points if A and B have different reasons.

They cooperate again, and this begins a series of cooperative sessions, I say a good minimum here is three (3). Over the course of at least three shown cooperations, I like to see:

1. Growing compatibility. This can be sexual, romantic, or platonic. They learn to work together efficiently and effectively, to navigate being around one another, to not cross certain boundaries and know where the lines are. No giant gains on trust made this time, but by now they’ve probably established some habits and patterns so at least they know what to expect. For the extremely paranoid or anxious, it gives them places/scenarios to EXPECT betrayal. Give them something to overthink between team-ups. Now Character A can come up with warning signs and blind spots and armor chinks while Character B is Not Doing That TM. (A is for Anxious and B is for oBlivious)

2. Growing comfort/chemistry. Again, can be sexual or romantic or platonic. Now that they know the dance this team-up requires, it comes easier, more naturally, more instinctively. As long as the rhythm doesn’t break, there’s nothing to worry about. They don’t spend as much brainpower thinking about betrayal, so there are more brain cells available for small talk/casual conversation/trauma-dumping/flirting/philosophical debates/ethical debates/etc. The guards are slowly coming down, one at a time. Not too fast, they could just be trying to get the other to show enough vulnerability to stab them in the back. The trust is building, though, even if they deny it to themselves. Especially if they deny it to themselves. Especially if they deny it to OTHERS, who are becoming increasingly aware that this person who is Not On Our Side is getting a little too close for Others’s comfort.

3. Stress. Maybe the stakes are raised, maybe one person is catching some flack for teaming up with the other, maybe one person accidentally crosses a boundary they didn’t know about or touched a nerve they didn’t know existed. It’s not outright betrayal, no. Chances are, whoever introduced the stressor (if either of them did) wasn’t being malicious and had no idea this would be the response. This wasn’t intended to bring harm to the other, and the damage isn’t permanent or unforgivable or unreparable, but it is there now. Their chances of not betraying each other are still, historically speaking, 100%, but now there’s this great big thing in the way of what used to be a smooth partnership. What was easy and natural and instinctive last time is now tense and frustrating. I recommend some buffer time after this. Either A and B have at least one more cooperation during which tension dissipates, or they just don’t see each other for a while.

After the minimum three shown cooperations, the Thing happens. Remember how A and B have overlapping goals but not quite aligned goals? The Thing presents the grounds for a last-minute unification of Our Side and Not Our Side (as seen by both A and B’s sides). The leadership of the sides may not see it this way, but it has to be more than just Character A on A’s side and more than just Character B on B’s side.

Now, it’s one thing if Character A does something that risks Character A being betrayed and getting hurt. It’s another thing if Character A does something that risks Character A being betrayed and getting their friends/family/allies/peers/mentors hurt. Same goes for Character B. The Thing is absolutely a situation in which it would be beneficial for A or B to take advantage of their past team-ups and propose another, more robust, probably more permanent, and more widespread alliance. It also increases the risk involved exponentially. If there was ever going to be a betrayal between the two of them, it would be now. This is the perfect opportunity for the other to destroy Our Side and it would absolutely work, no doubt about it.

It doesn’t matter who proposed the idea first. Let’s say A and co goes to B and co. This can go one of three ways:

1. A reaches out to B. B brings it up with their friends/leadership on their side and is immediately met with suspicion, doubt, and criticism for it. There’s no way the other side would ask for our help. B argues for A, putting their neck on the line, and eventually gets at least some of their side (could be just a handful of close friends, could be the leadership unit) to agree to the alliance. B gets the word back to A and they get to work.

2. A reaches out to B, but before they do, they have to fight tooth and nail to get their friends/leadership to agree to even ask for a truce, and friends/leadership probably don’t believe they’ll get a ‘yes’ anyway. A argued for B, putting their neck on the line, and eventually gets at least some of their side to agree to ask for the alliance. B and co agree relatively quickly and they get to work.

3. A combination of 1 and 2 where both A and B have to stick their necks on the line for the other and both sides resist the idea of a truce before some/all members of both sides give in and agree.

It takes a lot of good faith and benefit of the doubt, but the sides cooperate. This leads to A and B being the main points of communication between the conjoined sides because they know the most about the Other Side as well as Our Side. Once the bare bones of the truce/alliance have been worked out, whichever side resisted the truce/alliance (or both sides in the case of option 3) somehow reveal the risk that was taken. If A had to advocate for B and their side, the B hears about how much A fought for them. If B had to advocate for A and their side, then A hears about how much B fought for them. If they both did it, they both find out separately.

In hearing about this, that character realizes what the other risked and went through to make this work. Maybe they had to give up their pride, or their safety, or their position/rank on their side, or maybe they’re just receiving a lot of shit for this decision. Now, this isn’t just risking a betrayal in order to gain something. It is also now that the other gave up something else (ideally something else important) in favor of trusting that they would not be betrayed.

Looking around, it worked. The start was rocky, but the gears are slowly starting to turn and a new machine has awakened and it’s working. The risk was worth it. There was no betrayal, even at the point when it would have been easiest and most beneficial. Despite that stressor from earlier, they chose trust over caution. This plan is working.

It is at this point that whichever character is discovering what the other gave up decides, right there and then, that the other is worth trusting from here on out. 100%, no reservations, no second-guessing motives or loyalties. If the other character could risk all of this for their partnership (friendship? Romance?), then they can commit too. Besides, isn’t it too late now anyway? They’re already here. If the other character is setting up the biggest betrayal of all time, then there is nothing that can be done anymore. Might as well go all in. (For option 3, both characters go through this, so double the fun.)

The final conflict happens, and once again, A and B are working together. Because it’s the final conflict, the stakes are probably about as high as the first initial cooperation, if not higher, but this time they know how this works. There is less desperation, less butting of heads, more understanding, more accommodation, more trust, and more loyalty. At the turning point of the final conflict, whichever character did not take the risk is presented with a choice (for option 3, pick one or the other).

This choice is two things: important and urgent. The choice is important because they now have to choose between the risk-taking character and something they would have chosen over the risk-taking character before their partnership started. No contest, they would have let the other character die before they gave up this other thing. The choice is urgent because there is no time to debate or deliberate. Choose now or you lose it all.

The choice character chooses the risk-taking character. Immediately, with no hesitation, with no remorse or regret.

Whether the risk-taking character processes this in the moment or after the final conflict, they come to these two realizations: firstly, if this had happened before their partnership, the choice character would have given the risk character up, and this has now changed. Secondly, this must have changed a while ago because the choice character answered right away, meaning they had already decided this before the final conflict happened. There wasn’t enough time for the choice character to think about their answer, which means they didn’t. Their reflexive response was to choose the risk character over the other choice.

Neither A nor B dies. This is a happy trope. Fight me.

After the final conflict, A and B are sitting alone together. Maybe the unification of sides is transitioning to a more stable phase, or maybe everyone is packing up to go home, but at least they’re parting on better terms than they arrived. Maybe they’re mid-celebration party. In any case, the two are actively sitting in the product of their relationship. The entire victory hinged on their trust and loyalty to each other. It’s sitting in the air between them and they both know it. Maybe it needs verbal acknowledgement, maybe it doesn’t, but some kind of relationship is confirmed between the two of them by the end of their conversation.

After all, historically speaking, the likelihood of them not betraying each other is still 100%. Both of them plan for it to stay that way.

#tropes #writing trope #enemies to friends trope #i care about you and i know you don’t trust me but i have done this for you and i do not regret it #trust #loyalty #relationship tropes #platonic #romantic #betrayal #I have needs okay

6 notes · View notes

computerpeople · 2 years ago

Text

ugh i have never liked lets players in general but one of the worst things i've ever heard from multiple different lpers was that josh was "too obvious" at the beginning because they made him too creepy and too strange at the beginning but i kind of dont think it matters. i mean, i do? i think that supermassive should've put less stock on THAT mystery specifically, because they DO make it obvious at the beginning. but i don't think it being obvious from the beginning is a flaw in its self, what else are you supposed to assume? that josh is totally fine and okay and normal? or? because the thing is that directly contradicts everything you learn about his character that its not even like "hes not okay now" its that hes not okay EVER and has never been, and its always been glossed over. i do think that its a valid criticism in the way that SUPERMASSIVE GAMES THEMSELF seem to put a lot of importance and stock on how easily spotted it is, they actually talked about this with the psychos speech patterns, but i personally think that the more important twist is the idea that josh did all of these things, and then you slowly unravel it and realize hes always been crying for help, and all of them had turned a blind eye to it. the shocking part isn't that josh did something bad, its that the warning signs had been there, there had been countless times to have prevented it, and they didn't due to their OWN issues. i always like that josh is sort of noticably off from the beginning. i like that he acts neurodivergent from the start. its cool

#txt #until dawn #josh washington

19 notes · View notes

fandomsoda · 7 months ago

Note

I do not think you’re a bad person, I do think you need to realize you’re part of the problem. People leave for a reason, and yes you do deserve better communication, you also aren’t innocent

I never said that I was.

Listen, I absolutely know that various struggles of mine are part of the equation. I’ve known since almost say 1 of being on this site that I was a total spitfire and needed to start finding a way to get a handle on myself and learn how to shut the fuck up/manage my tone and emotions.

And trust me, the first person I blamed was myself. Even if I still felt what the others did was shitty, I still went “ok if I’m the common denominator, it must be me”. And I’m not saying it’s not. However… I did endless internal searching and battling, I practically tore myself apart trying to figure out what about me was wrong. And of course I could point out my issues I was already aware of, and these were things I was actively working on… but I couldn’t figure out the exact behavior patterns that were the issue, much less how to spot them or curb them.

Because most people, myself especially, can’t solve their own problems all on their own. Self awareness is hard, and once you’ve achieved it, trying to figure out how to change things is even more of a mountain to climb. With the things I have problems with, I’m effectively blind to myself most of the time, and while I’m trying to become more aware of myself I still need people to help me identify my problems. This is something I have been saying up-front for a very long while now, this is a disclaimer most people get when they start getting chatty with me. “Hey, I struggle a lot with regulation and tone, if I screw up let me know”. That’s been part of most first conversations I’ve had with to-be friends.

I’m trying to trudge through things and improve myself by myself as much as I can, but learning is a very slow and painful process and I won’t get there alone. I need someone who actually cares to be willing to talk to me. Because the people who I do talk to acknowledge and see my flaws, but none of them really have the ability to grasp what others’ problem with me is. Of course I’ve come to them with “hey, this is a problem I have, a thing I keep doing, a mistake I keep making, do you have any advice?” and while I’ve gotten some good answers, nothing life changing has come of it.

I need someone who is willing to tell me what’s wrong with me in an actual proper conversation format, I need and want to have these difficult conversations, I want honesty from someone who wants to see me grow. Because the things I get told via anon can’t actually help me. A lot of the time I don’t know what the specific criticisms mean or are referring to, so I need to be able to have a dialogue and ask questions and I shouldn’t have to do that via the damn ask box.

And I know a lot of people have said “well if you’re snappy in public or casual conversation, you’re probably gonna be worse in serious ones”, but at least in my case that’s just not true. I struggle more in casual conversations due to it being just that: casual. I’m watching myself less and it’s harder to catch things if I’m trying to be a bit loose. However, if someone asks me to have a serious conversation? I am sitting down, I am gathering myself, I am watching myself, I put every single break on to try and ensure that conversation is productive and that person is heard.

And yes, I know I can’t expect someone to just come along and start trying to help me fix myself, but I also know that nothing else I have at the moment is doing much. I wish I wasn’t so helpless, I would have fixed myself a long time ago.

Thing is, so far my journey of growing on this site had been going great.. because the first time I had a bad moment on this site, someone didn’t say “what’s wrong with you?”, they asked if I was ok. And I was able to have important and difficult conversations with people, I’ve been able to grow, the people I cared about were also the people who were willing to call me out and tell me what was up without damning me or treating me like garbage.

But for some reason, that’s really not the case anymore. And since this whole thing started, I can feel myself getting worse. The pure mental strain has been making it harder and harder to manage myself, which has just led to more and more problems.

And let me be frank… a lot of the shit that’s gone down can’t solely be blamed as a byproduct of my own behavior. There is no excuse for a lot of this shit.

If someone is genuinely asking you if you’re uncomfortable, if there’s anything they can do to make you more comfortable, if they’ve upset you, if you’re ok, etc, and you chose to lie to that person, then that is on you. No matter how you slice it, that’s your fault. The blame falls squarely on your shoulders for actively choosing to keep that person in the dark. You cannot then get mad at that person for not changing if they didn’t know that anything needed to change and had even been told that everything was good.

And there are many times where I actively chose to handle something in a more mature and nuanced manner due to the fact that my head was clear enough for me to consider that choice, and have been totally flamed for it. When every single adult or more mature person in my life that I told about that situation told me that what I did was the right thing to do. And then I’m called a hypocrite for displaying growth. Total fucking bullshit.

And look, I very much understand that basically everyone involved in this whole mess (myself included) are a bunch of disoriented depressed mentally ill teenagers, and people aren’t always going to handle things well or in a way that makes sense and that’s ok. But that courtesy is never extended to me in these conversations. And even then, like I said, there’s a massive difference between coping with things differently and actively neglecting things.

And most importantly… all these punishments just don’t fit my crimes. What I’ve done doesn’t warrant this level of mental and emotional torture, it really fucking doesn’t.

I know people always look at others bringing up their mental health or emotional pain as some sort of excuse, but I am dead serious when I say that given the amount of physical and mental pain this has caused me, the amount of strain, the amount of pure desolation it’s left me with, a lot of people wouldn’t survive something like this. It’s a pain I wouldn’t wish on anyone, but I genuinely wish I could convey just how terrifying and horrible everything has felt.

This whole mess has left me with scars that may never heal. But to the people who wronged me? This was nothing more than an inconvenience.

The reason that that whole “people are tired of you” anon tipped me off was because… this time I genuinely can’t figure out what I’ve done wrong. Any other day that would have either been something I ignored or would have made me despise myself even more. But this time? I can’t figure out what I did… at the moment it seems like all I did was tell someone that I cared about them too often. And I’m certain that’s not the actual reason, just saying that sounds incredibly stupid and woe is me, but it’s all I can glean right now.

I’m not angry at you anon, and I appreciate it, you seem great and like you would have good advice, but I need you to understand that while I am not innocent, that doesn’t change that what’s happened to me is uniquely wrong, at least from how everything has looked and felt from my end. If this was normal friend break-ups, I wouldn’t resent them so much. I just… I understand where you’re coming from, and change on my end is also very important, but… there’s no such thing as a perfect victim, and I can’t fix myself on my own or in a short period of time.

5 notes · View notes