#it's the vicious cycle of confirmation bias | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

tangents-within-tangents · 4 months ago

Text

Personally, I tend to interpret it as the other way around (bc of how reg clones treat 99, and bc the Batch themselves are pretty insensitive to Echo). But I think it can really be both. It's a compounding problem, a vicious cycle that over time comes more from confirmation bias.

Maybe originally "Crosshair's superiority complex was a defensive reaction to being shunned by (most of) the other clones" but maybe now it is the cause of the friction. As we see with Jesse and Kix, who were unsure of the Batch but didn't really have a problem with them until Crosshair acted superior. He is the one who drew a divide between them by calling them "regs", not the other way around. But if the Batch did grow up being shunned they probably interpret any hostility as confirmation of a divide, even in cases like this when it's in response to their own actions/attitudes. Maybe all the "good regs" who don't treat them differently are just the exception to them, even though from what we see they're actually, now at least, the majority (like Cody, Rex, Echo, Cut, Howzer, Gregor, Cody's squad on Desix, Mayday and his squad, the network clones, the prisoners in Tantiss... that's a lot.)

"You want to sit with us? That's never happened before." Can be true, yes, but we don't know all the reasons why it's true (and it can change over time). And the Batch probably has assumptions about those reasons, from both experience and just the fact of their creation which probably has made them hyperaware of their differences. I find "no reg ever made any effort to openly associate with them" pretty unlikely (since it's actively untrue of veteran clones at least). But if a reg ever did try how do you think Crosshair would have responded to that? He certainly didn't give Jesse and Kix a chance. Even if it's understandably defensive and coming from a place of hurt, he still pushes people away and then that just confirms it for him and continues the cycle.

We canonically see regs treat 99, a clone who is 'defective' and different, with respect. And we also see reg clones argue and tease each other too (the 501st on Umbara, all the friction in Domino squad (the og "bad batch") including a fist fight between Hevy and Echo), and honestly "Another member added to the Sad Batch" isn't really much worse than "Time to watch the Dominos fall."

Yeah there's a lot that happens off-screen that we can only infer and speculate about. But from what we do see, with both Jesse and Kix on Anaxes and the rookies on Kamino, the Batch are the ones to make it physical (specifically Wrecker who has an enhanced advantage in those situations).

Idk I rewatched the fight scene in s7ep1 recently and it's honestly kinda messed up. Crosshair openly insults his commanding officer and denies his authority, Jesse defends Rex, and then Wrecker immediately strangles him! It's hard to see bc the scene is dark, but Wrecker literally picks him up by the neck. And he's smiling and laughing while doing it! Then he groans disappointedly when Hunter tells him to stop and throws Jesse to the ground. It doesn't matter if they were mistreated growing up or not, Wrecker and Crosshair are the bullies in that scene.

With the food fight too, Hunter had diffused the situation but Wrecker chucks metal trays at the reg clone's head as he was walking away. That's not defense. Throughout the whole scene they bring random bystander clones on the sidelines into the fight for no reason. And again Wrecker is smiling and laughing and cheering. He at least is not hurt by any of this, he's enjoying it. Later he says he found it "amusing" when in the background there are regs literally in the infirmary (most likely) because of it!

The only other fight we see is when Rex punches Crosshair, but I think we can all agree that was clearly provoked. And it shows how the Batch's superiority complex (I don't think it's just Crosshair) is fundamentally hurtful to the clones. "I would have left him for dead too. Besides, he's just another reg" is saying that Echo's life does not matter because he is replaceable. To them all regs are the same, and that makes them expendable. And that is the very antithesis of everything the clones fight for!

When we are first introduced to Clone Force 99 in The Clone Wars, the "regs" make several notes from the get-go of the fact that these commandos are different ("They're clones? They don't look like clones"), but the open animosity starts with Crosshair (Wrecker backs him up, but Hunter and Tech seem more inclined to try keeping the peace). So it would be easy to assume that any issues between CF99 and the regs started with CF99.

But then, in "Aftermath," Tech (one of those who didn't cause any issues with the regs in the intro story, I'll say again) is genuinely surprised by Omega's choice to stay with them in the mess hall, and says:

"You WANT to sit with us? That's never happened before."

And given that Tech isn't one for exaggeration or misrepresenting the facts, I'm inclined to take Tech's word for it that none of the regs ever wanted or made any effort to openly associate with his squad.

Now, I love the regs too, and I'm not saying all the regs went out of their way to pick fights with the Bad Batch when growing up on Kamino; but being ignored and passively dismissed can be very hurtful, especially when it occurs your entire life.

All this to say that I am convinced Crosshair's superiority complex was a defensive reaction to being shunned by (most of) the other clones his entire life, rather than this complex being the original cause of the Bad Batch's friction with the regs.

Also really speaks highly of Cody's and Rex's characters that they have the honor of being regs the Bad Batch actually like.

#this is honestly a peeve i have with the writing #like that's just a weird way to introduce you new characters #by having them bully the characters you already know/like #and echo sentiments that could come from the likes of krell #KRELL!#in the “i'm not just another number!” show thats all about how the clones are individuals?!#like from s1 it was “clones you may be; the same you are not” and “we're meant to be expendable” “not to me”#if they really wanted me to believe that the batch is ostracized for being different they could have done it another way #actually *shown* it instead #like people fill in the gaps with headcanons about their childhood and stuff #but this is what we were actually shown in the show #and ive seen fics and stuff that slander jesse and kix and take wrecker and crosshair's side #and i'm just like????#watch the scene!!#tbb #the bad batch #clone wars #sw tcw

240 notes · View notes

addressingsophism · 5 years ago

Text

Bullying and Culture: A Personal View

I remember being bullied very harshly in school. It was only a few people, but I was attacked everyday. I was told it was because I was "weird". No one ever explained what that meant. I think it was an excuse. I started being bullied in elementary school because I was the first foster child that anyone had seen. It was the adults at first. Rich adults and teachers that had clawed their way into the wealthy areas and school system were scared and prejudiced towards foster children, often touting stereotypes at me. The kids learned to bully from watching the teachers and parents. The kids had to justify what the adults were doing after all. Better to be in the side of power and so on. From that point I avoided arrogant personality types, which often projected their feelings onto me. They often tried to deal with their secret inferiority complexes by declaring someone else was even more inferior, and then they'd attack them, verbally, physically or socially. So I avoided those people, but I ended up socially isolated because they'd seek me out when they either felt at their most low or high. I rarely retaliated, but the disturbances caused by people seeking me out and attacking me lead to routine victim blaming by adults and on Lookers. To pass the time I studied world cultures, creative thinking and critical thinking, which confused my peers and the adults around me, since most of them were radical traditionalists and close-minded. They were obsessed with creating and maintaining over-simplistic worldviews based on stereotype-assessment and attribution. This resulted in me being slandered out of their confusion. That itself resulted in people trying to change me (to be more like them) or encouraging others to mistreat me or reject me socially. Social interference was common. Bullying was also common in my family, but the victims often went back and forth between lodging concerns and praising abusers. They always had their excuses, but they (the excuse) were transparent to anyone with a brain. Some had issues with me because I questioned authority and tradition. Some had issues with me because I questioned culture and localized "normalcy". Some had issues with me because I reacted to bullying instead of being a passive victim. Groups often engaged in group bullying and group victim-blaming in order to assert their group dominance. It was a game of "stop using logic and obey our culture and demands or we will bully you and lie about you". False accusations were common forms of punishments by groups that sought to punish outsiders. They also did it to flex their power and status. It became a vicious cycle were my peers and the authorities around me became obsessed status, reputation, status and rationalization.

You had to walk on eggshells much of the time.

They'd attack anyone that didn't comply with their demands for attention and direction. They'd call people that resisted "crazy" or they'd claim people lacked self awareness, but only if their analysis of how much social support they had dictated they could get away with it (meaning those that thought they were popular would attempt to bully those they thought were less popular). New people were radically quizzed about how many people they knew, what they believed and how strong their relationships were. Not one person in my entire youth ever discussed logic, and neither did the adults. They all valued social status over logic. They even tried to pervert formal logic by saying people each had their own form of logic and objective formal logic didn't exist. They all rejected reading books that contradicted their ego-assembled philosophies.

They were the center of their own universe and their exposure to beliefs in condescending and exaggerated stereotypes not only influenced but controlled their entire worldview, thinking and interactions with others. To question their confirmation bias or ego was akin to madness in their eyes. Everything must be kept simple, and they could never admit to error because the risk of losing face was deemed catastrophic.

They also rejected cosmopolitan-multiculturalism and scientific thinking. There was just this obsession with people judging themselves and others by social acceptability instead of on ethics, merit, strength and intelligence. Instead adherence to beliefs were substitutes for all of those virtues. And so bullying was built around that whole framework. To this day I still look at my peers with disappointment, as most of them are still obsessed with status and fear being judged as an outsider... while promoting adherence to narrow culture instead logic, science and cosmopolitan concepts. So many were guilty of bullying and you can clearly see their current psychological framework is built on making sure that is never exposed and that their statuses are secured.

The foundations of comparative-identity are also seen occasionally, per when they throw judgments into the world based on condescending stereotypes; these are often directed at the least advantaged in society... the homeless, children, the abused, animals, those struggling with substance abuse issues, etc.

I'm sick of keeping these secrets because that just seems to encourage the cycle. People say it's wrong and unsightly to speak about real world issues. I don't think it is. I'm not going to be shamed or bullied into silence. The world has a bully culture problem and it needs to be outed and corrected.

10 notes · View notes

howlnikiforov · 6 years ago

Text

Black Swan

Chapter Fourteen: Are You There?

Pairing: Hyungwon x Reader

Word Count: 3451

Summary: Sequel to Trespass Sometimes, some people can’t handle the idea of another’s happiness. Sometimes those people are those who were once close to you.

You rushed to the window, opening it and popping out the screen. Hyungwon slid in through the window with ease, taking the screen from you, putting it on the floor and closing the window. As soon as that was done, he gathered you up in his arms, and in turn you wrapped yours around him.

“Did you really think I’d leave you alone on a night like this?” he asked, kissing the top of your head.

“What would you have done if I was asleep?” you buried your face in his chest.

“I know you well enough to know you wouldn’t be asleep.” he answered, tightening his hold on you.

“What was all that stuff about being able to get through it and what not?”

“Do you think I was lying?”

“No. It just seemed like I’d have to do it on my own.”

“You’ll never have to do it on your own as long as I can help it.”

“How were you right outside the window?”

“I may and may not have gotten on the roof via the tree that’s just outside and rappelled down. Thank you for opening the window quickly. I was afraid I might fall if I had to wait any longer.”

“Thank you for coming.”

“Is Daniel still here?”

“Probably. You know you broke his nose?” “Ooh score. I wasn’t even trying to do that.”

You laughed quietly, “Really, thank you for coming.”

“Of course my Darling.”

“You’re freezing. Let’s get you bundled up.” you said, pulling him over to the bed and making him sit. You wrapped the blankets around him, making sure he had all the blankets to warm up.

“You’re wearing a nightgown.” he pointed out, looking you up and down.

“So?” you raised an eyebrow at him.

“I’ve never seen you in a nightgown.” he stared at you.

“Oh. Probably because I don’t like wearing them.”

“Then why are you wearing one now?”

“Because it’s my mom’s, and I didn’t have anything to wear.”

“I see. Come here.” he opened his arms out wide, half dropping the blankets around him.

You quickly moved to him, feeling a sense of security as soon as you were in his embrace. You draped your entire being around him, wrapping your legs around his hips and your arms around his neck, taking solace in his presence. “You must really love me for you to come all the way out here.” you mumbled.

“There’s nothing in the world that I wouldn’t do for you.” he kissed your forehead.

“It’s hard being here.”

“I know. I know it is Sweetheart, but you’ll be done here soon.”

“They keep talking down on you.”

“Let them think what you want. You know the truth.”

“One of the worst things said was that it was no surprise you cheated.” “What the hell made them say that?”

“It was Daniel. He said he’s seen you ogling other girls when we’re at the club.”

“That’s such bullshit.” he rolled his eyes.

“I know right!” you agreed wholeheartedly.

“I know for a fact that the only girl I have ever ogled is you.”

“When have you ogled me?” you laughed.

“Remember that one time you wore that pink dress with the really high slit?”

“The one where you told me I better be careful because if I moved a certain way you could see my underwear?”

“Yes, that one. By definition, I ogled you then.”

“What do you mean ‘by definition’?” you cried, instantly putting your hand over your mouth because you were being so loud while simultaneously hitting his chest.

“Well, ogling means to stare in a lustful way. Most of the time I stare at you in a loving, I want to give you the world and show you how much I love you because you are so wonderful kind of way. But that time, I stared at you in a more, I want to tear that dress off you and make you see stars kind of way.”

“Wow, how did you ever hold yourself back?”

“Because there is a time and a place for everything my dear, and it was neither the time nor the place.”

“Mmm...you know you look at me in that ‘loving, I want to give you the world and show you how much I love you because you are so wonderful’ kind of way every day.”

“That’s because it’s how I feel everyday.”

“You’re so cheesy.”

“But you love me.”

Outside the wind started kicking up, grabbing your attention. Hyungwon’s arms tightened around you, reminding you that you weren’t alone in this. You had your anchor in a time when you didn’t think it’d be there, and for that you were grateful.

“I couldn’t sleep last night.” you admitted, hiding your face in his neck.

“Did you have nightmares?” he questioned, running his fingers through your hair.

“Yes. I stopped trying to sleep around three because I was scared they’d get so bad I’d wake my parents.”

“Don’t worry, I’ll be here to fight the demons away tonight.”

“You’re too good for me. How can they actually believe you cheated when you treat me so well?”

“Because they don’t know everything. And when they’re around us all they see is bad because they want to see it. You’re the psychologist, shouldn’t you know that?” he teased, running his hand up and down your back.

“Observer bias and confirmation bias,” you said absently, playing with a thread coming out of his shirt, “I know that.”

The wind got louder as the storm rolled in, causing you to squeeze your eyes shut and hold tightly onto Hyungwon. It was definitely going to be a wild storm tonight, and you weren’t quite prepared for it.

“I brought you a charger for your phone.” Hyungwon told you, hoping to distract you from the wind.

“Thank you. I really needed one. No one knows I have my phone.”

“Good. It’s probably best to keep it that way.”

“Yeah…”

“Hey,” he said softly, gently pushing you back so he could look at you, “it’s alright. Do you wanna watch a movie? Or a drama?”

You shook your head, “No. I don’t really feel like watching anything right now.”

“Okay. How about a kiss? Does that sound good?” he asked, pushing some stray hairs off your forehead.

“I wouldn’t be opposed to that…” you tried to keep yourself from smiling.

His lips immediately met yours in a tender kiss. He cupped your cheek with one of his hands, keeping an arm steadily wrapped around you. You let go of all the worries in the back of your mind as you kissed him, completely losing yourself in him. Nothing but love filled your soul as you two wholly opened up to each other.

The two of you rarely went a day without really seeing each other. Sometimes, on particularly busy days, you’d wake up before him and go to sleep before he came to bed, but in the end you were always able to sleep in each other’s arms. It was hard being away from one another; it wasn’t natural.

You each poured yourselves into each other, holding onto one another as though if you let go, you’d fall into a horrifying abyss. Although, when you really thought about it, it wasn’t the distance or the inability to see each other that caused such desperateness; it was the fact that you needed each other, but you couldn’t be together.

Your day had been filled with such harsh comments towards your soulmate, thoughts that made you sick to your stomach, and an emptiness that filled your chest. On the other hand, not being physically there to comfort you killed Hyungwon. This mission was important, but it took a heavy toll on your wellbeing.

It’s said that when soulmates need each other, but can’t be together, their bond grows. The theory was unofficially proven by you and Hyungwon. In your early years, you two were separated far more often than you should’ve been. First it was your schedules, then it was you being kidnapped. You lost so much time together in the beginning that even now it felt as though you hadn’t been able to properly make up for it.

What pulled you away from the kiss wasn’t the need for air, but rather, the sound of something hitting against the window. You stared at Hyungwon with wide eyes for a split second before you hid your face in his neck, clinging to him. What if it was someone else trying to get into your room? What if someone had seen Hyungwon and you by the window? What if-

“Baby, it’s okay,” Hyungwon whispered in your ear, “it’s just the tree that’s right outside.”

“Are you sure?” you mumbled, tightening your arms around him.

“Yes, I’m positive.” he replied quietly.

“Okay.” you still didn’t loosen up on your grip, choosing to hide in his embrace.

“Baby look at me.” Hyungwon prompted, attempting to gently push you back. When you refused, he sighed and began to stroke up and down your back. “Baby you know I’m not going to let anything happen to you.”

“I know. It’s just, that wind is so loud, and I can’t help but remember when I was kidnapped and-”

“Sweetheart breathe,” Hyungwon interrupted, “it’s okay. You’re not there anymore. You’re here, with me. You’re okay. Should I sing to you?”

You nodded in response, too scared that if you spoke, you’d start crying. Hyungwon picked up on this, and began to rock you as he started to sing.

“A special chance given to me I won’t lose it I won’t lose you I believe in destiny, I believe in us I believe in the truth, I believe it won’t change I believe with closed eyes, I believe you’re by my side All of the memories in this vicious cycle Time goes toc-tic It goes backwards Then the ending is complete Our string is already connected Past destiny, destroyer (Destroyer) destroyer However many times it takes, rewind I’ll go to you, rewind”

As per usual, his melodic voice soothed your worries and inner demons. The calm he emitted brought peace to your soul, and you were able to relax and forget about the raging wind outside.

He gently pushed you down on the bed, wrapping himself around you and pulling the blankets over the both of you. He held you close, choosing to stay silent now that his song was over. It seemed that you knew him well enough to be able to imagine him saying that you were okay, that he was there and he loves you. He knew you well enough to know exactly what you needed, and he did his best to give it to you.

Without any warning, the door to your room swung open and your mom’s head popped in. You sat up immediately, trying your best to keep Hyungwon hidden behind you. The last thing you needed was for your mom to see him and tell your dad.

“Hi Sweetie,” she said “just thought I’d check up on ya. Daniel just left and your father got home a little while ago. How’re you feeling?”

“I’m fine. I’m just a bit tired. The wind has been keeping me up.” you lied.

“Would you like some hot chocolate?”

“No, I’m okay.”

“Okay.” she closed the door as she left, leaving you to stare at it until Hyungwon brought you back to your world by pulling you down to him again.

“I don’t think she saw you.” you sighed, full of relief.

“Did you know she’d come in?” he asked, reaching up and touching your cheek.

“No. I really thought no one would try to bother me.”

“Mmm...oh well. Nothing bad happened, so there’s nothing to worry about.”

“I suppose…”

“Let’s not think about the could haves. Lets just think about the here and now. M’kay?”

“Okay.”

“Tell me about your day today? Did you do anything besides daydreaming about knocking Daniel out and possibly killing him?”

“I-” you stopped, shaking your head, “I just watched TV and beaded ornaments with my mom. If I’m lucky I’ll be able to bring them home with me.”

“You beaded ornaments? What did you make?”

“Stars, bells, snowflakes, candycanes, wreaths, and birdcages.”

“You made more birdcages?”

“Yeah. My mom has the right kind of bird for them.”

“You definitely need to bring at least those ones home.”

“I’ll try.”

“Is that-”

Hyungwon was interrupted by the door opening and closing. In came your mom, carrying two mugs of hot chocolate in her hands. You immediately sat up, opening your mouth to say something, but she beat you to it. “Sorry to interrupt, but I figured you two would be up for awhile, and since it’s cold out, you’d appreciate something warm to drink.”

You reached over and turned on the bedside lamp, staring at your mom with wide eyes. ��You knew?”

“Of course I knew, I’m your mother. Also I came in a tad bit earlier and heard you two talking.”

Hyungwon slowly sat up as your mom handed you both a mug. She stared at you with a warm smile on her face.

“I uh...thank you.” you said, staring down at the drink in your hands.

“Are you going to introduce me or no? I’ve never formally met your soulmate Y/n, and it’s been how long now?”

You could feel your face start to turn red as you sipped on your drink. “Mom, this is my husband, Hyungwon. Hyungwon, my mom...”

Hyungwon raised his eyebrows at you, surprised you told her his actual name. He moved his gaze to your mom and offered her a small bow, or as much of one he could give while sitting.

“Ah so that’s your name...I’ve only ever heard you referred to as H.One.”

“It’s a um...alias.” Hyungwon mumbled, still stunned by the fact you said his name.

“I see. I take it nothing happened to your bond then? I had my suspicions when you first came to the door, and I guess I was right.”

“How were you able to tell nothing happened?” You questioned, glancing over at Hyungwon as your mom sat down on the edge of the bed.

“Because, I’ve had a bond break before.” she clasped her hands together, looking down at them. You could tell your mom was remembering something painful, so you reached out and touched her hands.

“So what Daniel said was true.” Hyungwon muttered, more so to himself than anything else.

“What did he say?” your mom furrowed her brows, having heard him speak.

“He said that you and dad weren’t each others first soulmate.” you elaborated.

“Oh. Yeah. It’s true, though I have no idea why your father would tell Daniel that when we haven’t told anyone before…”

“What happened?” you asked.

“My soulmate died. Your dad’s did too. Except I had known mine for two years prior to their death, and your father only knew his for a month. I didn’t have as strong a bond as you two have, but a bond breaking looks nothing like what you were doing last night. Your dad’s bond was still forming when his soulmate died, so I think that’s why he’s oblivious to your act. Because he’s unaware of what a deep bond breaking looks like.” she explained in a quiet voice.

“So wait, what happened to make you and dad soulmates?” you asked, rubbing your thumb along your mom’s hand.

“I’m not really sure. We met, and then we were pulled together and realized we could be together. The danger meter appeared, and we tested it to see if it applied to each other. It did, and so we became secondary soulmates.”

“I didn’t even know that it was possible to do that…”

“It shouldn’t be, and it definitely isn’t possible for it to happen to you. Your bond is far too strong for it to be replaced.” your mom looked towards Hyungwon and gave him a smile, “Don’t worry dear, I’m not going to tell him you’re here.”

You looked over at Hyungwon, realizing how on edge he was. He relaxed at your mom words, though not by much. He was wary, and you understood why. You haven’t exactly presented him with heartwarming family moments. He was trying to make an effort to loosen up because he knew you trusted her, and you appreciated that.

“You can sleep here, I’ll make sure you two don’t get disturbed again. Although I ask that all you do is sleep.” Your mom added.

“I-thank you…” Hyungwon mumbled, scratching the back of his neck.

“Mother!” your eyes widened as you sat up straight.

She laughed, “I’m only kidding. Do whatever, I don’t care. I take it you’ll be leaving soon, yes?”

“Yeah, probably. I kinda only came to figure out the truth about you and dad…” you admitted.

“I see. When will you be leaving?”

“Tomorrow probably. I’ll leave after breakfast.”

“Okay,” your mom turned to look directly at Hyungwon, “thank you for taking care of her. I can’t tell you how happy it makes me to know she has someone like you.” she reached over at pat his knee, “Please continue to take care of my daughter.”

“I will ma’am; I promise I will.” Hyungwon bowed his head to your mom as she stood from the bed.

“Goodnight dears, I’ll leave you be now.” Your mom patted your head before she left, closing the door behind her.

You turned towards Hyungwon, opening your mouth to speak but he beat you to it.

“I like your mom.” he remarked, staring at you.

“Do you?” you raised your eyebrows.

“She’s a lot calmer, and for once someone is happy I’m your soulmate.”

You stared at him, bewilderment washing through you. “You’re not-” you started, then stopped.

“I’m not what?” he raised his eyebrows at you. You could feel his amusement running through you.

“You’re not speaking with your mouth.” you reached a hand up and pointed to said area.

He laughed, shaking his head, “Are you just now figuring this out?”

“I didn’t think this was possible.” You stared at him, completely dumbfounded.

“Why don’t you give it a try. You’ve done it subconsciously quite a bit.”

“How do I do it?” you asked.

“Just think about wanting to speak to me and what you want to say.”

You sat there for a minute trying to figure out how to do it. Once you thought you had a decent grasp on the concept, you tried it. “Like this?”

“Yes, exactly like that.”

“Do you know how long we’ve been able to do this?”

“Not really sure, but it’s fairly new. If I had to guess, it started around the time we had our little park date.”

“Really? I guess that explains why you brought me the food I had been craving a couple days ago.”

“You were very loud in your hunger my love.”

“Thank you.”

“Really though, your mom is completely different from your father.”

“Yeah. I really don’t know what’s gotten into my dad…”

“It’s like your mom said, he doesn’t know what a real bond is like. He can’t possibly begin to imagine the kind of bond we have. Especially since it’s one where we can feel each other and speak to each other like this.”

“You’re right. I feel bad for him. Even my parents aren’t all that strongly connected. He’ll never know what it’s like…”

“It’s better than having no bond though.”

“That’s true. You’re happy.”

“I am.”

“Is it because my mom thanked you?”

“That is exactly why. It’s nice hearing ‘thank you for taking care of my daughter’ for a change. I’m tired of hearing ‘get the fuck away from her you piece of shit.’”

“I know, me too. I hope one day he’ll come around.”

“I know. I do too.”

“Is it too late to take you up on that offer for a drama?”

“Not at all my love. That is, as long as it isn’t Goblin.”

“Oh come on, Goblin is a great drama!”

“Yes, but I’m not prepared to face the emotions it’ll bring right now.”

“Oh my gosh, seriously?”

“Yes, seriously.”

“Okay, if not Goblin, how about Do Bong Soon?”

“Yes. I’m totally down for watching that again.”

“Good.”

Hyungwon reached into his pocket and grabbed his phone. You laid down with him next to you. As he brought the drama up, you laid your head on his shoulder, wrapping an arm and leg around him. He hit play, allowing the two of you to settle in for a night of love and distractions.

68 notes · View notes

is6621 · 6 years ago

Text

Behind the Buzz: Women in Tech and Entrepreneurship by Hannah Fay

It’s hard to consume business (or even mainstream media) news in 2018 without coming across the same few tech buzzwords again and again...and again. We mentioned a few last class -- “AR,” “blockchain,” and “crypto” come to mind -- and the industry discusses them ad nauseum. But what about the tech industry buzzwords that are a little more uncomfortable to talk about? The ones that make headlines but not classroom discussions? What about wage gaps? Sexual harassment? #MeToo? As I prepared for a discussion group that I help lead for BC’s Women Innovators Network, I thought I might try to share what I’ve learned and what has surprised me with our #IS6621 crew.

By this point in your business school careers, you’re all likely well aware of the mythology of Silicon Valley, startups, VC, tech companies, and the like. You’re probably also well aware of its reputation of being an unwelcoming environment for women professionals. Just as a refresher, here are some (slightly jarring) statistics: women own merely 5% of startups, make up just 7% of partners at venture capital firms, have an industry quit rate over twice as high as men’s, and received $56.7 billion less than men in VC funding (you can find more similarly disturbing facts here).

GETTING THERE

Why are these numbers so dismal? Many suggest that it’s simply because not enough girls pursue degrees in tech or entrepreneurial fields, and that they simply aren’t careers that women are interested in or suited for. Similarly, the Arrington Theory states that women are simply more risk-averse than men, making them less likely to become entrepreneurs or seek venture capital funding, thus explaining those dramatic gaps. When those two ideas are combined, it results -- theoretically -- in a proportionally small pool of qualified hires for companies. The tech industry (especially startup companies) is seen as a young, progressive field, succumbing to none of the stereotypes ingrained in traditional Wall Street industries. Its perception is that of a meritocracy, where the best man -- or woman -- wins solely based on their talent and qualification, regardless of their background.

Is this all true? Not really.

While it is accurate that fewer women than men pursue tech degrees, this is not necessarily because an inherent lack of skill or preference. It is possible that the foundations for these disparities originate in childhood and are reinforced over the years as programs push boys and girls in different directions in everything from classes to try to games to play with.

But even if this isn’t the case, and the simple truth is that fewer women pursue these degrees, qualified women are still getting turned away from these types of careers before they even begin. Recruiting sessions often discourage women from applying through environments that alienate and intimidate. Similarly, research has found that women become risk-averse because of stereotypes in a sort of vicious cycle -- when stereotypes are ingrained in women’s minds, they are more likely to conform to them, regardless of individual characteristics.

This doesn’t fully explain, though, the gender disparity in investment funding. Women get asked different questions during funding rounds than men do, affecting their confidence, the types of answers they give and the amount of funding they get. Men get asked promotional questions focusing on the potential for growth and profit, while women get asked preventative questions that emphasize risk minimization and planning for potential losses -- unsurprisingly, people tend to respond with answers that reflect the type of questions they were asked. This means that women spend a disproportionate amount of time defending their ideas without getting the chance to pitch their potential for success.

And the mythology of meritocracy? Not entirely accurate. Even the tech world -- startups especially -- is subject to bias. Like hires like, and especially in companies without a formal HR department or hiring process, founders of companies tend to hire their friends (or people that remind them of their friends). Since most startups are founded by males, this means that far fewer females break into the field.

STAYING THERE

The battle isn’t over even once women make it into the industry. As mentioned before, the quit rate for women is twice that of men’s. Why is the rate so high? Many point anecdotally to differing priorities, an inability to take the pressure of a high-paced workplace, and again, to a simple lack of skill or talent. But research tells a different story -- one of subtle bias, differing standards, compensation issues, and sexual harassment.

It doesn’t immediately make sense that the archetypal tech workplace -- known for flexible work days and nontraditional office spaces -- would be one unwelcoming to women. One would expect, for example, that it would be ideal for mothers that need to attend to their children’s schedules. But in reality, startups are a place that inherent bias can lurk and thrive. Women are frequently judged on their appearance before their skills or achievements. They’re held to higher standards, even to the point of perfectionism. They’re frequently asked to contribute in a way that requires them to be representative of all women, not just themselves. And diversity training programs meant to address the problem can sometimes make things worse by putting forth the notion that such bias is normal and inadvertently confirming it as “OK.”

Besides culminating into a toxic environment, these factors have real, concrete consequences. One is the problem of the wage gap. Though legislation has been introduced to address this, it remains a prevalent problem: it is estimated that it will take 100-217 years to close the wage gap worldwide, and women still make only 82% of what their male counterparts earn. This is often attributed to the idea that women simply choose lower-paying careers or don’t negotiate enough for their salaries -- but this is not necessarily the case. A moving testimony I heard recently from a powerful woman at Google made clear that she had done everything correctly: negotiated her salary, performed highly at her job, spoken up, etc. Yet, ten years into her time at the company, she discovered that men that reported to her were making significantly more than she was. The issue was eventually resolved, but this is not the first (or only) time this type of situation has arisen.

Another real consequence is sexual harassment, as revealed over the past year as #MeToo has taken flight. Seventy-eight percent of women startup founders say they or someone they know has been sexually harassed. The degrees of severity are, of course, varied, from minor annoyances to major assaults. I won’t dwell on this at length, but if you’d like to read further on the topic, some powerful stories can be found here and here.

GOING FORWARD

So what should women and men do going forward to mitigate these problems? What has changed recently, and how far do we still have to go? For one thing, the awareness of the problem has increased dramatically. Since the dawn of #MeToo and other similar movements, people simply talk about the issue more. This has the potential to increase social standards and accountability levels across the board, but raises the issue of desensitization and alienation.

Legislative changes have also furthered the cause. Recent supreme court rulings have overturned precedents that left room for wage discrimination. Additionally, California -- the home of Silicon Valley and arguably the hub of the tech world -- is in the process of passing legislation that requires publicly traded companies with more than six board members to have at least one woman on their board.

But what about some more immediate fixes? I began to wonder if there were any ways groundbreaking technology had the potential to help women with any of the issues described above. Some of what I found had the opposite of the intended effect -- like this story about Amazon’s AI hiring tool that inadvertently discriminated against women. Most of what I found, though, was positive. It was also more low-tech than you might expect.

The most significant common factor in what I found was their role in closing the information gap -- though many of the systemic problems women face in these fields can only be truly resolved in the long term, what we can do in our own lives starts with what we know. For example, online salary tools like Glassdoor have the potential to help close the wage gap by allowing women to see what men in their field are making and negotiate accordingly. Sites like Muse allow women to research company culture and make decisions about the type of environment they want to work in without having to experience harassment first. Even our good old friend Twitter is making a difference by amplifying voices and holding people and companies accountable. Perhaps most significantly, research is showing more and more that diverse teams simply perform better.

If companies want to stay ahead of the curve, especially in the fast-paced world of tech and entrepreneurship, they’re going to have to start listening to the buzz -- to the research, to the women, to the truth.

youtube

5 notes · View notes

opiumrals · 3 years ago

Text

Self-sabotaging (relationships, jobs, etc.) is a fairly common habit of people with borderline personality disorder (BPD). Personally, I think I sabotage myself without even knowing it, mainly because I feel like I don’t deserve anything good in my life. When things are going well, my anxiety actually increases, because I’m afraid things will fall apart at any second. I’m not used to stability — it’s a foreign concept to me — so it makes me feel uncertain and suspicious.

I will subconsciously try to sabotage my relationships, because I am terrified and paranoid the other person is going to hurt me, and I tell myself I’d rather force them to leave me on my terms and be alone than live with the torment of having them leave me because they wanted to. Basically, my mindset is “reject them before they can reject you."

Of course, I don’t actually want to end things at all, but I literally cannot cope with being hurt, the pain is physically unbearable, so I’m just trying to protect myself at all costs. People with BPD develop a lot of defense mechanisms like this to help them cope. Everything I do is a way of protecting myself somehow. I know you have to let yourself be vulnerable in a relationship, but I can’t afford to do that — the risk is too great.

So, I continue to push people away so they can’t hurt me, or as a test to see how much they really care about me. Obviously, this behavior really will drive some people away, so it’s a self-fulfilling prophecy. I’ll then indulge my confirmation bias and tell myself, “I told you so, you’re unlovable,” and the vicious cycle starts all over again.

0 notes

leconcombrerit · 3 years ago

Text

OH GOOD POINT

I think Dissaya and Ming would care less about Pa and Pran being friends because of projection. Here's how I see it :

Ming was trying to turn Pat into a younger version of himself (and for a while it kinda worked), so it makes sense that he'd want Pat to be better than Pran. It doesn't extend to Pa because he doesn't see himself in her, so the family feud applies in a more impersonal way there. And also yes, I'm not sure if he put as much effort in raising Pa anyway, I'd love to read your essays ! GO AHEAD I WOULD

And the same probably kinda goes for Dissaya. As far as she knows, Pat acts and looks like Ming. Pran probably didn't tell her half as much about Pa (eg he does tell his parents he fought with Pat), so she hates her for being Ming's daughter, but not for... Being a mini-Ming, basically. There's a dimension of fear and defiance in Dissaya's rules about the neighbors' kids, and what she's seen until now (fueled by both families in very vicious cycle *sighs*) kinda confirms her bias, so Pat's persona non grata X2 compared to Pa.

Not that she wouldn't have forbidden Pa and Pran from being friends, obviously she would, but... Maybe she would have come to terms with it easier I think.

you know pa’s role in the whole family feud is really interesting because obviously she was never actively pitted against pran, that was on pat, and it’s not like the siridechawats had another kid so she’s kinda just… there??? like she openly calls pran hot in the first ep and while her parents discourage it they also don’t seem super mad at her?? and like pran saved her so she’s obviously always cared about him and their friendship is just as much of a betrayal to pran’s mom (since she emphasized she didn’t want pran bringing home EITHER of the kids next door)… but it’s not really talked about at all? idk it’s just interesting. i could probably write a whole thing on how ming’s obsession with the feud and having pat and pran compete led to him severely neglecting pa if i wanted to like skdkdkd

#I think it tells SO MUCH about the expectations that were placed on Pat #and of the toxic masculinity there too #Pa is more free because Ming cares less #not as in 'loves less' I think #but more like he doesn't use her as a mirror so the stakes aren't the same #the feud was there for personal reasons especially for Ming #Dissaya I can accept was also trying to protect Pran #partially #not Ming though #ANYWAY TAG NOVEL SHIT I DID IT AGAIN #bad buddy

53 notes · View notes

donalddo-cxp306 · 4 years ago

Text

The fake news, ‘mass migration’ and political persuasion

After various red flags on Donald Trump’s Tweets, conservatives including Donald Trump, Senator Ted Cruz and netizens (more than 3.5 millions as reported by WIRED, 2020) had moved to another social media platform Parler: A platform similar to Twitter claims itself as ‘censor-free’ besides from spam and illegal materials.

Source: https://www.wired.com/story/parler-app-free-speech-influencers/

Social media plays a huge role in political persuasion where political disagreement and civil reasoning are important elements for persuading (Gil de Zuñiga et al., 2018). However, with the differences in political views and especially on the concerns over "Fake News", the political talk between the left and right seems to be disconnected and tearing apart. Social media platforms are no longer silent while start intervening users posts by hiding sensitives threads and inserting warning misinformation labels.

Source: https://news.sky.com/story/twitter-is-warning-users-when-they-attempt-to-like-misinformation-12140940

This consequently leads to the "Mass migration" (Kraychik,2020) to other "free-speech" social media site namely the Parler, Gab and MeWe.

Source: https://screenrant.com/parler-vs-mewe/

The debate on fake news?

The term "Fake news" has been widely used and misused. It has a very board meaning and unclear until Quandt (2019) summarised this term as misleading, additions, deletion or fabrication of information without factual basis from the aspect of core content, meta-information to context (Quandt et al., 2019).

However, the grey area is always between addition and deletion. Taking the 2020 US presidential election as an example, the democrats would treat the "election fraud" news as the addition of wrong information while Trumpers argue that major media agencies are hiding fraud-related information.

Galileo’s declaration in Heliocentric theory was also labelled as "Fake News" when the Church and the public believed the earth is the centre of the universe. Fake news does not necessarily mean it is factually false.

"Figure of the heavenly bodies" by Bartolomeu Velhomade, 1568

The belief of fake news in both campaigns could be getting vital based on individual psychology theories: confirmation bias and implicit bias.

People with strong political belief think their opponents are intentionally ignoring the fact while themselves as a group are backed by evidence (Braucher, 2016). Meanwhile, people involved in the debate tend not to doubt the credibility of the source unless it violates their preconceptions or they are reinforced to do so (Lazer, 2018).

More importantly, this became a vicious cycle when happening on social media as the algorithm tend to feed more similar information (Valie Wright,2019). The "Mass Migration" make opposing-party information less circulate.

Source: Elena Lacey; Getty Images

From ambivalent to earnest, no more fake news?

Based on the assumption of confirmation bias and implicit bias, the migrates could build up a utopia without "Fake News". Similar to geographic polarization in the US, a homogenous social network also reduces tolerance of counter perspectives, more likely to accept the news with similar ideology but more protected from new information. This setting created a context which factually false news can spread to the audiences (Lazer, 2018). The split of the social network could make political persuasion almost impossible and creating the largest echo chamber ever. Reference

Braucher, D. (2016, December 28). Fake News: Why We Fall For It. Psychology Today. https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/contemporary-psychoanalysis-in-action/201612/fake-news-why-we-fall-it

Gil de Zúñiga, H., Barnidge, M., & Diehl, T. (2018). Political persuasion on social media: A moderated moderation model of political discussion disagreement and civil reasoning. The Information Society, 34(5), 302–315. https://doi.org/10.1080/01972243.2018.1497743

Kraychik, R. (2020, June 29). Parler CEO John Matze: ‘Mass Migration’ of ‘Almost a Million Users’ in Weeks Due to Twitter’s Censorship. Breitbart. https://www.breitbart.com/radio/2020/06/29/parler-ceo-john-matze-mass-migration-of-almost-a-million-users-in-weeks-due-to-twitters-censorship/

Lazer, D. M. J. (2018, March 9). The science of fake news. Science. https://science.sciencemag.org/content/359/6380/1094.full

Pardes, A. (2020, November 12). Inside Parler, the Right’s Favorite “Free Speech” App. Wired. https://www.wired.com/story/parler-app-free-speech-influencers/

Quandt, Q., Frischlich, L., Boberg, S., & Schatto-Eckrodt, T. (2019). Fake News. Fake News, 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118841570.iejs0128

Fake News with Chrysalis Wright, PhD. (2019, August 21). [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dmW8THeY5BY&feature=emb_title

Weir, K. (2017, May). Why we believe alternative facts. American Psychological Association. https://www.apa.org/monitor/2017/05/alternative-facts

0 notes

infiniteglitterfall · 8 years ago

Text

I've been exploring monosexism and the concept of privilege a lot lately. I was just reading a Facebook conversation, among bisexuals, about how we (supposedly) have "passing privilege". And it really made a lot of stuff gel for me.

The problem is that by calling it passing privilege, we confuse it with what is usually meant by privilege. You do not have to pay for privilege. You can't pay for privilege. I am white; I have white privilege no matter what I do. There is a whole system in place that puts a ton of money and effort and privilege into giving me and other white people privilege by stealing from people of color.

I can choose to play into and support that system to perhaps, arguably, access a little more of that privilege, and to help keep the racist system going. Or I can work to unlearn racism and learn the ways I have been feeding the system, and work to cut them off, and work to support and defend people of color. But I don't earn white privilege through some kind of points system. It's just there.

If I have to pay for privilege by giving up who I am, lying about who and what I am, hiding my past and present, then it is not privilege.

By definition.

Because I am paying for it - paying a very high price.

If safety and danger are thrust upon me at random based on people's perception of me -- as they are also done with my gender, as a genderqueer, and as they are done to gays and lesbians all the time as well -- then that, likewise, is not privilege. It is Russian roulette.

This does not only happen to bi/pan and trans people, of course. Asexuals get the same bullshit. Biracial people get it. All sorts of light-skinned people of color get it. Femme women of all types get it. Butch gay, bi, ace, and trans men get it. Intersex people get it. People with invisible disabilities get it. All us liminal people get it. Who am I leaving out?

Privilege is when you have access to safety and acceptance that others don't, based on things you cannot control. It especially becomes a problem when we accept it and use it and (no matter how obliviously or intentionally) support the harm of others.

Whether that's active, like telling bi people that we should stop whining about erasure, or passive, like ignoring bi experience, politics, and culture in favor of the vicious cycle of bias confirmation.

(Like only hearing about bi history as bits of tiny scraps in the context of gay history, where it's not mentioned when major figures were actually bi, or when something specific to the bi community happened. And then assuming that's an accurate picture of community history instead of specifically of one piece of our community. And then assuming that bi people are in the minority, don't do much of the work, and don't have many problems. And then assuming that people who say differently are being divisive and self-centered, because they aren't really oppressed, because you haven't heard anything that says they are, so....)

Passing is not privilege. It is a form of blackmail, a threat.

"Pretend you are gay in this community, pretend you are straight in that one, and pass, and we'll treat you as we treat each other. Admit you are bisexual, and we will take you down." That is not what privilege sounds like. That is what it looks like when people WITH privilege turn on you.

You can also tell it's not privilege, because the same communities that shame and reject us when we DON'T pass, immediately turn around and use "passing privilege" to tell us we're not oppressed -- and certainly not oppressed by them!

The word for that isn't "privilege". It's "abusive mindfuck".

#i thought i had posted this two years ago but apparently i only said it on facebook?#monosexism #bi politics #i'm very bisexual tag #radical bi #bi separatism #wall of words

2K notes · View notes

mastcomm · 5 years ago

Text

The suffocation of the American dream

With one case of I can’t breathe after one other, the American dream is being chocked to demise

A Information Evaluation

“I can’t breathe,” African-American George Floyd struggled to repeat as Derek Chauvin, a white police officer, knelt on his neck final week within the U.S. metropolis of Minneapolis.

Eight minutes and 46 seconds later, Floyd died.

A day later, protests in opposition to racism and police brutality erupted, spreading quickly throughout the USA in six days.

Floyd’s determined dying plea echoed the final phrases of Eric Garner, one other African American man who died in police custody in 2014 in New York.

Garner’s demise additionally ignited high-profile protests nationwide. U.S. TV community NBC information exclaimed on Monday that “from Eric Garner to George Floyd: protests reveal how little has modified in 6 years.”

Racism has been a persistent downside in the USA, with a historical past nearly as previous because the nation itself. Floyd’s demise serves as a brand new, chilling reminder that racial discrimination appears to be exhibiting no indicators of enchancment among the many American inhabitants.

In a report entitled Race in America 2019, launched in April by the Pew Middle, 58 % of People surveyed in 2019 say race relations in the USA are unhealthy, and of these, few see them enhancing. Some 56 % suppose the present administration has made race relations worse.

The ravaging coronavirus pandemic, in the meantime, has served to focus on the lengthy custom of racial inequality in the USA, after current knowledge compiled by the non-partisan APM Analysis Lab revealed that African People are struggling a disproportionate share of the adverse well being and financial impacts of COVID-19.

With a demise toll of greater than 20,000, African People are dying at a price of 50.three per 100,000 individuals, in contrast with 20.7 for whites, the info confirmed.

What’s extra, Washington’s promise of equality and justice for all within the nation has remained hole at finest. For a lot of black and different minority teams, the American dream of equal alternative and upward social mobility regardless of race is slipping away.

Take the job markets for instance. Even earlier than the pandemic hit the USA, the unemployment price amongst African People was nearly twice the nationwide price. As of now, the coronavirus outbreak has been distributing financial ache much more inconsistently. With the nationwide unemployment price rising to 14.7 % in April, black and Hispanic unemployment charges have jumped to 16.7 % and 18.9 % respectively, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported early Might.

Nevertheless, these issues themselves should not essentially the most horrible a part of a deeply-divided America — Washington’s continued failure to provide you with any severe solutions is. And the present White Home administration has made issues worse.

Amid the continued anti-racism protests within the nation, decision-makers in Washington, as a substitute of attempting to appease the ache and anger of the general public, have been fanning the flames, calling protesters “THUGS,” and threatening them with “essentially the most vicious canines, and most ominous weapons.”

Enjoying the race card has been the trademark of this administration. It stays recent within the thoughts that this administration rolled out an government order that banned international nationals from seven predominantly Muslim international locations from visiting the nation and suspended the entry of all Syrian refugees indefinitely just one week after assuming energy.

And in the midst of the rampaging COVID-19 pandemic, this administration has been busy deporting Latin American migrants again to southern-neighboring international locations, exhibiting little care that such mass deportation may make the pandemic state of affairs within the area worse.

And due to Washington’s reckless disinformation marketing campaign to scapegoat China for its personal fiasco in dealing with the outbreak, prejudice and hate crimes concentrating on Chinese language and different teams of Asian origin have additionally shot up.

An Ipsos ballot in April discovered that over 30 % of People have witnessed COVID-19 bias in opposition to Asians. The STOP AAPI HATE reporting middle, tasked to trace coronavirus discrimination-related instances, has obtained 1,710 incident studies from Asian People throughout the nation since mid-March.

It appears the incumbent U.S. administration has been main the nation in an more and more polarized American political setting by dividing the American public, and interesting to the worst of humanity. That divide-to-win tactic will solely kind and reinforce a vicious cycle the place division triggers extra hostility, and additional hostility begets higher racial alienation.

Many in the USA love to explain their nation as a nation of immigrants. It as soon as actually was. However now, with one I-can’t-breathe case after one other, the day when the American dream that used to have fun ethnic variety and equal alternative will lastly be choked to demise appears not distant.

Associated

from WordPress https://mastcomm.com.ng/opinion/the-suffocation-of-the-american-dream/

#Opinion

0 notes

sunshineweb · 7 years ago

Text

Latticework of Mental Models: Echo Chamber Effect

A few weeks back I was reading a report penned by Amay Hattangadi and Swanand Kelkar from Morgan Stanley. In that report, I came across a very intriguing word called “Echo Chamber”. The authors wrote –

The most telling reaction post Brexit was from a London based friend who apart from lamenting the outcome went on to say that he didn’t know of a single person who was likely to have voted “Leave” and hence felt that the outcome was rigged. This is what we called the “echo chamber” in one of our earlier essays. We tend to be surrounded by people who are like us and share our world view. Social media accentuates this by tailoring our news and opinion feeds to match our pre-set views. To avoid falling into this homogeneity trap, one needs to seek out and dispassionately engage with people whose views differ from your own and that’s true not just for current affairs but your favourite stocks as well.

The word ‘echo chamber’ painted such a vivid picture in my mind that I decided to give it a permanent place in my mental attic. Echo chamber has thus become an important node in my latticework of mental models.

Echo chamber effect feeds on a fundamental cognitive error called confirmation bias (sometimes referred to as commitment and consistency bias). Famous psychologist Robert Cialdini has written about this bias extensively in his seminal book, Influence – Psychology of Persuasion.

Just like every other human bias, the roots of confirmation bias can be traced by stepping into the jurisdiction of evolutionary biology.

Millions of years of evolution has wired the human brain to shun the inconsistencies in the environment – either by avoiding or by resolving. It’s extremely hard for us to harbour two conflicting pieces of information in our mind at the same time. This mental discomfort created by entertaining two or more contradictory arguments is known as cognitive dissonance.

The three-pound grey matter inside our skull has been designed by mother nature in such a manner that it’s optimized to conserve energy by getting rid of (by hook or by crook) cognitive dissonance. Even if it means being delusional.

Charlie Munger calls this Inconsistency Avoidance Tendency. The result of this tendency is what psychologists have termed as confirmation bias.

Rolf Dobelli, in his book The Art of Thinking Clearly, writes –

The confirmation bias is the mother of all misconceptions. It is the tendency to interpret new information so that it becomes compatible with our existing theories, beliefs and convictions. In other words, we filter out any new information that contradicts our existing views (‘disconfirming evidence’). This is a dangerous practice.

Image Source: hamiltonsthoughts.com

Confirmation bias manifests itself in our behaviour by making us seek those things which validate our prior beliefs. We tend to hang out with those people who agree with our views. We selectively watch those news channels which bolster our existing political inclinations. At the same time, when we come across a contradictory piece of information, our mind tends to either ignore it or call it wrong.

The biggest danger with confirmation bias is that, although it starts small, it compounds very rapidly. As we unconsciously construct an environment which is devoid of any conflicts and contradictory information, we get embedded deeply into our cocoon of beliefs. Beliefs that are prejudiced about how the world works.

There’s a vicious cycle at work here. The echo created by constant reinforcement and repetition of the same ideas inside our mental chamber turns us into someone who knows only one side of the argument. Modern information technology and ease of access to information has further exacerbated this problem.

In their article in livemint, Swanand and Amay write –

..social media systematically finds ways to ensure that we are fed with more of what we find appealing. Our Facebook feed is filtered based on previous history of “likes”. Amazon suggests books to buy based on our pattern of previous purchases. Twitter suggests whose tweets we should “follow” based on those we are already following. The online world has magnified the decibel level of the reverberations in an echo chamber manifold.

The positive feedback loop amplifies the effect and results in a mind that can believe in anything no matter how implausible or irrational.

Organized religions and cults have been the biggest beneficiaries of echo chamber effect. People of same religion flock together, share same myths and have the same world view.

For centuries, the term black swan was used as a metaphor for something which didn’t exist or something impossible. People believed that all swans were white. No one had seen a black swan before and every time someone spotted a white swan they would cite that as an evidence to confirm their hypothesis i.e., all swans are white.

However, one single observation to the contrary invalidated a belief derived from millennia of confirmatory sightings of millions of white swans, write Amay and Swanand. “But unfortunately, that is not the way we typically function. We do quite the opposite, which is to form our view and then spend the rest of the day finding all the information that agrees with our view.”

The best armour against confirmation bias is to actively look for disconfirming evidence. The best way to arrive at truth is the process of eliminating what’s untrue. This is known as the process of falsification.

The father of evolutionary biology, Charles Darwin, was known to practice this diligently. Whenever he encountered an observation which did not fit his hypothesis, he would immediately make a note of it. He was aware that his brain would conveniently forget about exceptions if he didn’t take extra care in acknowledging and capturing it.

A year, according to Charlie Munger, is a wasted year if you haven’t destroyed one of your most cherished ideas. He likes to say –

We all are learning, modifying, or destroying ideas all the time. Rapid destruction of your ideas when the time is right is one of the most valuable qualities you can acquire.

On another occasion Charlie said –

Ask yourself what are the arguments on the other side. It’s bad to have an opinion you’re proud of if you can’t state the arguments for the other side better than your opponents. This is a great mental discipline.

As an investor, another important trick to avoid confirmation bias is to not talk about your investment ideas in public. Many successful investors, including Mohnish Pabrai and Guy Spier, follow this principle. They understand that the more they discuss and defend their investments in public, harder they pound it back into their own head, and tougher it is to change their opinion later.

Guarding against confirmation bias doesn’t mean that one remains indecisive. Making a decision under the spell of confirmation bias and going ahead with a decision in spite of disagreeing with it, are two different things. For that matter, you don’t always need all the evidence and agreement to make a decision.

Warren Buffett and Charlie Munger have starkly different personalities, plus both are ruthlessly independent in their own thought processes. It’s unlikely that they would have never disagreed with each in their half a century of partnership. But that hasn’t stopped either of them in making decisions despite the disagreement.

If you’ve attended our annual meetings, says Buffett, “you know Charlie has a wide-ranging brilliance, a prodigious memory, and some firm opinions. I’m not exactly wishy-washy myself, and we sometimes don’t agree. In 56 years, however, we’ve never had an argument.”

Disagreeing and having an argument about who’s right are two very different things. Argument stalls the decision making. Disagreeing doesn’t.

In his 2016 letter to shareholders, while talking about high-velocity decision making, Amazon’s CEO Jeff Bezos wrote –

If you have conviction on a particular direction even though there’s no consensus, it’s helpful to say, “Look, I know we disagree on this but will you gamble with me on it? Disagree and commit?”… I disagree and commit all the time. We recently greenlit a particular Amazon Studios original. I told the team my view: debatable whether it would be interesting enough, complicated to produce, the business terms aren’t that good, and we have lots of other opportunities. They had a completely different opinion and wanted to go ahead. I wrote back right away with “I disagree and commit and hope it becomes the most watched thing we’ve ever made.” Consider how much slower this decision cycle would have been if the team had actually had to convince me rather than simply get my commitment.

Note what this example is not: it’s not me thinking to myself “well, these guys are wrong and missing the point, but this isn’t worth me chasing.” It’s a genuine disagreement of opinion, a candid expression of my view, a chance for the team to weigh my view, and a quick, sincere commitment to go their way.

Warren Buffett once wrote –

What the human being is best at doing, is interpreting all new information so that their prior conclusions remain intact.

That’s why you need a devil’s advocate who can challenge your assumptions. Someone who can ask uncomfortable questions.

As an investor, it’s very important to have your own small group of intellectual peers to bounce your ideas. But be careful in selecting these folks lest your sounding board turns into an echo chamber for that would not only be futile but outright dangerous for your decision-making process.

The post Latticework of Mental Models: Echo Chamber Effect appeared first on Safal Niveshak.

Latticework of Mental Models: Echo Chamber Effect published first on http://ift.tt/2sCRXMW

0 notes

heliosfinance · 7 years ago

Text

Latticework of Mental Models: Echo Chamber Effect

Just like every other human bias, the roots of confirmation bias can be traced by stepping into the jurisdiction of evolutionary biology.

Charlie Munger calls this Inconsistency Avoidance Tendency. The result of this tendency is what psychologists have termed as confirmation bias.

Rolf Dobelli, in his book The Art of Thinking Clearly, writes –

Image Source: hamiltonsthoughts.com

In their article in livemint, Swanand and Amay write –

The positive feedback loop amplifies the effect and results in a mind that can believe in anything no matter how implausible or irrational.

Organized religions and cults have been the biggest beneficiaries of echo chamber effect. People of same religion flock together, share same myths and have the same world view.

A year, according to Charlie Munger, is a wasted year if you haven’t destroyed one of your most cherished ideas. He likes to say –

We all are learning, modifying, or destroying ideas all the time. Rapid destruction of your ideas when the time is right is one of the most valuable qualities you can acquire.

On another occasion Charlie said –

Disagreeing and having an argument about who’s right are two very different things. Argument stalls the decision making. Disagreeing doesn’t.

In his 2016 letter to shareholders, while talking about high-velocity decision making, Amazon’s CEO Jeff Bezos wrote –

Warren Buffett once wrote –

What the human being is best at doing, is interpreting all new information so that their prior conclusions remain intact.

That’s why you need a devil’s advocate who can challenge your assumptions. Someone who can ask uncomfortable questions.

The post Latticework of Mental Models: Echo Chamber Effect appeared first on Safal Niveshak.

Latticework of Mental Models: Echo Chamber Effect published first on http://ift.tt/2ljLF4B

0 notes

medium-isthemessage-blog · 8 years ago

Text

identity pt. 1

Writing this essay and reviewing our course readings forced me to face an enigmatic question: How much of my identity is original? The occasions and degrees of media influence are countless and unimaginable, so this analysis of my identity’s construction is merely a minute scope of the potential origins of each aspect of it. I have attempted to reason through identity construction in general and media’s role, and secondly my own identity construction and the qualities of the commodities that it is comprised of.

We have already established that media are entirely and inescapably an influence on and product of culture. It is not surprising that as a result, media are “a primary source […] for forming and maintaining social identity” (Devereux 14). This, however, is limited in its capacity as to how much it can represent us. We are capable of feeling connections to the images, meanings, etc. that we find in media, but how can this be manifested? When these qualities meet capitalism, the possibilities for the construction of the self and social identity are now limitless. Media and capitalism have a crucial symbiotic relationship in our state of modernity, being “inextricably bound up” with each other (Devereux 18). In this respect, images, specifically in advertisements, appear to be the primary facilitator in making the leap from processing the meaning of media messages to materializing those aesthetics and connotations into a comprehensive self-image and social identity. There also exists a middle ground, “cultural capital”, a term engendered by sociologist Pierre Bourdieu and a means of leveraging our own tastes and styles with where we want our social identities to be (Sturken and Cartwright 275-6). Cultural capital, like images, motivate us to materialize our perceived self-image into a projected social identity by means of commodities. Especially in today’s world, commodities are endlessly available, allowing individuals to diversify and personalize their image in any way they choose, to any extent that they choose; and the progression of history has shed light on our growing tendency to embellish and style beyond our means into a vicious cycle.

Why does this happen? The social sphere has proven to be a powerful motivator in constructing identity, with the agency of media. Consumerism is fueled by comparison, in my opinion. Each of us has a perceived real self-image and a perceived desired self-image, to which we determine the difference between the two and subsequently strive to match the desired image. I liken the creation of a desired self-image to that of a fanzine; the miscellany of a fragmented identity, the pieces that we have yet to attain to assemble our aesthetic puzzle. Just as you would clip newspapers and magazines as inspiration and ‘zine material, we too select what commodities or media content is compelling and appealing to us to build a personal and social image, as well as a sense of belonging. Essentially, this socially-constructed identity and consumerism alike thrive on an idea that commodities, used as building blocks, will offer and satisfy self-fulfillment (Sturken and Cartwright 269). Self-fulfillment by these means can arguably be very misleading and detrimental, as seen by the harmful effects of gender stigmas in Miss Representation. In this way, we are capable of being influenced without our being cognizant of it, limiting us to how much we consciously “select.” Society becomes, in part, responsible for defining personal characteristics and constructing identity.

After giving some thought to my “commodity self”, I found that my intake is less fueled by the negative ideologies that you might expect from a female of my age, as suggested by Miss Representation. While I am not exempt from those ubiquitous harms, my media influence is more characterized by entertainment and intellectual texts. Music would be one of the primary commodities that constitutes my identity. I am endlessly influenced by songs, artists, festivals, etc., and in the same degree my overt identity on social media and in-person reflects this. While this is very broad, I more recently was swept up in the revival hysteria of vinyl records. It has proved to be a unique, more physical representation of an otherwise abstract musical “identity”. Pierre Bourdieu, mentioned above, also elaborated on the topic of taste and its implications. Taste involves a more generally and culturally accepted standard, and in my mind, constantly subject to change (Sturken and Cartwright 56). Certainly, vinyl records are now associated with connoisseurship and are of higher value, but in their original use were quotidian and standard. Similarly, the literary canon is a manifestation of “good taste” and subject to change. My book collection is comprised of many classics and works of the canon, but will this aspect of my media identity be obscured in 50 years? My social identity too, is likely to change along with changes in the qualities of media content.

My identity is also comprised of less tangible media commodities. That is, time and progressive media advancements have allowed me to use these commodities in a decreasingly tangible way. My favorite movies and television shows are showcased more and more through my Netflix queue rather than lining the shelves next to my books. Other services like Spotify incorporate networks of other users, heightening the degree of social influence and perceptions of taste, and also contributing to my desired image. For example, I might see that a friend was listening to Frank Ocean. I want to be cool, so that social estimation encourages me to listen to Frank Ocean. What began in the 1960s as a marketing tool is now increasingly being taken over by individuals (Sturken and Cartwright 294). My interaction with news sources too is very different than methods of 50 years ago. While I still grab a copy of The New York Times and take some time to read a few articles, my consumption of this content is largely online, on Facebook. This could be said to represent a more ideological aspect of my identity, as it deals more with politically liberal matters. I am constantly seeing content and discourse that confirms my identity and reflects my ideals, and therefore I allow it to continue its heavy influence in my scope of the world. It is unreasonably easy to participate in this confirmation bias, as we discussed earlier in the semester.

For my first elaborated media commodity I would like to discuss the advertisement of a brand that I patronize, Aerie. Aerie is a lingerie retailer in a market targeted towards young women, but the brand employs less harmful representations of women and their bodies than you might expect from a brand like Victoria’s Secret, or any lingerie brand, for that matter. Female-representative advertisement is typically destructive to the mind and self-perception. It would be safe to say that all advertisements of this kind employ a “standard” of Western cultural beauty that is ridiculously tangled with ideology. It involves distorted body proportions that we perceive as ideal and natural. Interestingly, the definition for propaganda in

Practices of Looking

could reflect the aims, whether intended or not, in advertisement for women: “the crude process of using false representations to lure people into holding beliefs that may compromise their own interests” (Sturken and Cartwright 23). The compromised interest, in this case, is self-esteem. This type of advertising, like many, adhere to the concept of “therapeutic ethos”, coined by T. J. Jackson. Its foundation is grounded in a feeling of inadequacy by the viewer/audience, and proposes acquiring commodities to fulfill those inadequacies (Sturken and Cartwright 268-9). Consumerism could be said to be based on desire for the better, but in this context would be more accurately characterized by dissatisfaction. The image is impossible and unattainable, but the message makes you feel as if it is and will be attainable. Aerie has sought to change this, beginning with the dismantling of the entire female advertisement strategy. If you pay a visit to their website, you will notice the difference immediately.

0 notes