#society tells us to delay gratification

[diggerunit]

Mental health and society

Things have been moving fast and lighter lately.

The end of summer always seems to put time in a rush: it's less hot, time is not dilated anymore, everybody coming back from the holidays with such an energy rush. Ready for new commitments, new challenges, changes. Anything, really.

This year, the last 10 days of August have brought me a breakthrough that has probably changed my life (for the best): the release from the constant anxiety I struggled with for the last 15 years, making me feel miserable and unsafe for so much time, in too many occasions.

It's been a long road, it's not been easy and my therapist knows it. But it was all worth it. For the first time in years I start to feel like myself again. I have the energy to do things I like. I have the willpower to stick to the plans that I do and to delay gratification. I have the strength and the focus that I lacked for too much time, leading me to miss too many opportunities.

The importance of mental health is so underrated and yet, taking care of it can be so life-changing. But we live in a world that is sick for being productive, efficient, successful, rich, busy, thin, beautiful and flawless. And if your abs show, then it's even better. Who dares to shout out that you're tired, unhappy, a little lost and freaking scared? It's like a social suicide. It brings shame and loneliness. And not because the rest is doing well, mostly it's just that the rest is too scared to get along with you because you could also uncover their own black hole of fears. Force them to take a look at their inside, and recognize your pain in them. And they can't bare it.

Yesterday I was scrolling social media and I saw a post from somebody working in the cruises business. She was explaining that working on a cruise implies staying onboard for about 10 months per year, no possibility to touch the land for the whole duration of the contract, working at least 10 hours a day, with no days off and/or complicated shifts that mess up with your 6 hours of sleep. The lifestyle that you have is also not ideal, eating what you find from the buffet and with no access to any training equipment. And if on top of that, if there's no good environment with your team, things can get rough. This is hard to bear.

And yet, the first comment below the post was "oh, such a weak generation. Work is work, I'm sure you earn super well money and all you need to do is to fix your attitude. I've been working in the fields charging heavy stuff for years when I had to, and now here I am, doing better in another career". It was basically a "suck it up and stop wailing.

When I read that comment, I'm ashamed to say that my first reaction was a partial endorsement. I am used to tell to myself "you can't change what happens to you, but you can change your attitude towards it". Which is probably what the comment wanted to refer to. I suppose? I was also hurt to read that comment, because I also empathized with the testimony of the cruise worker and I felt like I was being called weak too. Which is something that I called myself for a long time when I wasn't feeling mentally great.

It took me a whole day to process this and come to a conclusion. And my conclusion is: yes, trying to change your attitude is great and it's an amazing tool to help you deal with uncomfortable situations. But being able to do that does not give you the right to judge on other people's feelings. There is not such thing as objective volume of "difficulty" and we all have different sensibility and tolerance to stressors. And it goes without saying that such levels are also dynamic and they change with what you've gone through in your life, your support system (if any), and even how lucky you're been in anything that's happened to you. I'm happy for anyone who's able to change their attitude just like that, but they should also know that it's not just their "merit" alone. It's a positive outcome from a series of lucky coincidence they experienced. Put the same person in a fucked up context and you'll have a completely different outcome.

So the bottom line I guess is, once more, be kind and respectful, you know nothing on someone else's context. Tearing people down and making them feel bad about themselves is such a nonsense. All in all, it mostly has to do with being born in the right part of the world, in a stable family, in a safe environment.

[the-holistic-goddess]

How Astrology and Psychology play a part in our Personalities:

What is Psychology? It is the scientific study of our minds and our behaviors. 

In Psychology, one of the most important psychological approaches to understanding personality is based on the theories developed by Sigmund Freud. Freud proposed that the mind is divided into three components: Id, Ego, and Superego. It is believed that the interactions and conflicts among these components create our personality.

The Id: is represented by the component of personality that forms the basis of our most primitive impulses. It drives our most important motivations, including our sexual drive and the aggressive or destructive drive. The id is entirely unconscious and it is driven by what is described to be the pleasure principle; the desire for immediate gratification of our sexual and aggressive urges. 

The SuperEgo: is represented by our sense of morality and oughts. The superego tells us all the things that we shouldn’t do, or the duties and obligations of society. The superego strives for perfection, and when we fail to live up to its demands we feel guilty.

The Ego: follows the reality principle; the idea that we must delay gratification of our basic motivations until the appropriate time with the appropriate outlet. The ego falls between the Id and Superego because it asks for us to find a common ground between what we want and what is in the best interest of everyone. The ego is the largely conscious controller or decision-maker of personality. 

When taking people’s personality into account there are a few things we should note– while everyone is living in the same world, we all have our own individual maps of what the world looks like. This is described in NLP and Hypnotherapy. Our individual maps of the world are shaped and formed by the life experiences, morals and values and the ability or lack thereof to explore ourselves as individuals when we were children during our perceptual programming stage which is the ages of birth till 7. It is at this age where most of our fundamental values and morals are instilled in making the most lasting impression. It is during these extremely important years that children learn about how the world works, and how they belong in it. 

So if a person experiences lots of neglect, abandonment, lack of resources during these ages. Their map of the world will be distorted and biased based on these experiences. It will impact their ability to trust others, they will have the belief that there is never enough for them, and that they aren’t worthy of love and affection. Completely shaping the dynamic for their future relationships.  

What is Astrology?  The divination of the supposed influences of the stars and planets on human affairs and terrestrial events by their positions and aspects.

It is important to note– that we are all composed of multiple astrological signs. But when taking someone's personality into concern just like in Psychology with the three components of Id, Ego and Superego; in the world of astrology the correlation would be our Sun, Moon and Rising aka Ascendent signs in our natal charts. 

We often hear about situations where individuals will not date someone based on their astrological sign. Many people think the idea is absolutely insane, makes no sense, people are just trying to find another reason to dislike someone. Although even if they aren’t extremely versed in Astrology there is some truth to their logic. Compatibility is a real thing. In many cultures especially those that do matchmaking, doing a compatibility chart would also include a natal chart that explains all of a person's traits, attributes, strengths and weaknesses, what jobs they would be best suited for or not, and which astrological signs they would be more or less likely to get along with based on their astrological placements. 

On a basic level, when people are asking what is your sign. They are referring to the astrological sign you were born into. Which is the Sun sign. For those individuals who are a bit more experienced with Astrology they may go to the extent of asking for your major three Sun, Moon and Rising signs in some cases your North Node as well. For those of us who have a lot more experience we may want specific details about you in order to do a full natal chart. 

The Sun sign: governs our ego and motivations. This is the sign we were born into. For example if you were born in the beginning of January you are a Capricorn but at the end of January you would be an Aquarius. This part of us represents our drive, ego, and pride, our overall attitude and spirit — it is all of our cores. Essentially, the sun sign is the key factor in assessing our overall and generalized personality. 

The Moon sign: governs our emotional nature. This part of us represents a part of ourselves we can’t express literally, but feel on a deep and soulful level. The moon speaks to our memories or our conception of the past, as well as our idea of comfort. It also captures our maternal instincts and the relationship we may have with our main maternal influences. 

The Rising or Ascendent sign: gets its name based on the zodiac sign that is rising on the eastern horizon at the time of your birth. This governs the energy that we put out into the world, or the vibe that people pick up and notice about us off the bat. Rising signs also represent the way we carry ourselves, process information, and connect with others. 

Now in knowing this base information someone can determine if you are someone who is compatible on an emotional, mental or physical level. The planet placement plays a big part in this area to determine these factors. Because each planet is known for being a ruler of particular traits. Such as Saturn, being known for Discipline and Responsibility. Mercury is Communication and Mentality. And Mars is related to Actions and Energy. 

Knowing your astrological sign can also give you a deeper understanding of why you might behave or think the way you do. Many believe that your birth sign has no say in what your personality traits are going to be. In part, it can be true. As I stated we have three primary signs that make the biggest contribution to our personality. But we are all composed of multiple signs. Some people might be more water sign heavy meaning they can be more emotionally attuned, others are more fire so they are more action based and hot tempered, those who are more air sign heavy could be more intellectual with charming witty personalities, while those who are earth heavy, can be more grounded, and concerned about the materials. 

Each sign has signature traits and tells that make it obvious that is what you are. But you may find there are people who may be born under a specific sun sign but don't really show these qualities, it could be because how they are presenting and connecting to the world is more tied to the Rising sign not their Sun sign. But if they were to think about what in life are their motivating factors, they may find the things they consider are more tied to their sun sign traits. Also how they process or handle emotions is based on their moon sign, not their sun sign. 

So if Cancers are inherently known for being emotional, it is because we are the most Intune with our emotions of the zodiacs, we are also the maternal and nurturing sign. Oftentimes when people are referring to cancers being naturally overly emotional it has more to do with the fact that the ruling planet of Cancer is the moon, which is the ruler of emotions/feelings and instincts. We come off as extra emotional due to the fact that our emotions fluctuate with the phases of the moon. Which can make us appear to be everywhere emotionally when in reality it is just us responding to the moon's placement. 

[realityzap]

4:24: “Individual variability is basically the material of evolution, and that diversity—I think that’s the same sort of diversity that we see in human society.” — Frans de Waal

“We do know [primates are] social.  We know they congregate, and we know they have alpha males and subordinates, which is a manifestation of their degree of response to hierarchical stress. […] When your prefrontal cortex is under fire by cortisol, your rational decision-making ability is toast.  You can’t differentiate between immediate or delayed gratification. […] One way to drive up the stress of rats or monkeys is to house them in groups.  Invariably one monkey, through wits, guile, or brute force, will become the alpha male and have the power to maintain social control over the others, especially in regard to food and breeding.  The alpha’s cortisol levels are lower than any other member in the social group.  When provided access to cocaine for self-administration, those on the lowest end of the pecking order are the ones that become the addicts. America’s middle and lower classes suffer from more chronic stress than the rest of the population: not knowing if there will be sufficient money to pay the rent, working two or more jobs, facing mountains of credit card debt, food insecurity, and a general sense of powerlessness—all ramp up your cortisol.  One can argue that this population is at higher risk not only for obesity, heart disease, and stroke but also for drug use and addiction. […] The DSM-V says all you need for addiction is tolerance and dependence (engaging despite conscious knowledge and recognition of their detriment), with resultant misery.  Behaviors and substances that used to be excluded from the definition now qualify under this rubric.  Can you honestly look yourself in the mirror and tell yourself that you have no addictions?  Ben & Jerry’s, eBay, Facebook, porn, video games, coffee?  How long did the rush from the new iPhone last?  Or the new car?  Or the new wife?  As a society we’ve become tolerant by obtaining new stuff at a moment’s notice.”

— Robert H. Lustig, The Hacking of the American Mind: The Science Behind the Corporate Takeover of Our Bodies and Brains (2017)

[beauty-and-passion]

Based on Sigmund Freud's Tripartite Theory of Personality, there are ego, superego and id in a person. And what I'm wondering is, if we bring this concept to the series, then which side will take which role?

My my, either this is an incredible coincidence or Anon is a long-time follower of mine, because I still remember when we talked about Freud's Ego, Superego and Id and we asked ourselves which Side would have which role. I even promised a post about it that I never wrote.

Well, time to fulfill my promise, I suppose :P (And it's the second time, after that post about Logan I wrote some days ago.)

First, some background: Superego, Ego and Id are three concepts mentioned by Freud in his model of the psyche. As Wikipedia explains:

The id is the set of uncoordinated instinctual desires; the super-ego plays the critical and moralizing role; and the ego is the organized, realistic agent that mediates between the instinctual desires of the id and the critical super-ego;

Now let's bring all of this into Sanders Sides and let's see which Side could take which role.

THE SUPEREGO

1) "The super-ego reflects the internalization of cultural rules, mainly taught by parents applying their guidance and influence.

The super-ego also takes on the influence of those who have stepped into the place of parents — educators, teachers, people chosen as ideal models".

I think we can all collectively agree this is Patton's role. Thomas himself said Patton embodies all he learned from his parental figures and his general sense of right and wrong.

2) "The super-ego aims for perfection."

POF was clear evidence, considering that Patton basically pushed Thomas towards being so good and holy to pursue martyrdom.

3) "The super-ego works in contradiction to the id. The super-ego strives to act in a socially appropriate manner, whereas the id just wants instant self-gratification. The super-ego controls our sense of right and wrong and guilt. It helps us fit into society by getting us to act in socially acceptable ways."

Again, this is very Patton - and it starts to offer us an insight on who might be the id.

4) "Freud's theory implies that the super-ego is a symbolic internalisation of the father figure and cultural regulations."

PattoN is literally the father. He considers himself a dad. He called himself the Dad! So he's basically the first one who tells us he's the super-ego.

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

THE ID

1) "The Id is the source of bodily needs and wants, emotional impulses and desires, especially aggression and the libido (sex drive)."

The id "knows no judgements of value: no good and evil, no morality."

Mmmh, let's think all together of a Side who is made of impulses and desires, who probably emobies libido too, who literally said "good and bad are all made up nonsense", who knows no morality and does whatever the fuck he wants.

Yes, it's Janus.

Nah, I'm kidding. It's clearly Remus. This Side embodies everything about id. And also, as Freud said, id is "the instinctive drive to create": and what's more creative, than Creativity itself?

2) "The id originally includes all the instinctual impulses...the destructive instinct as well".

Death is another major aspect of Remus, along with creation. We saw that in DWIT and in WTIT: he's not afraid of knives, blood and everything related to death.

But, as you can notice, these aspects are not just Remus'... but Roman's too. He is a creative force as well. He has a sex drive as well (he embodies passion and love).

And Roman embodies the destructive aspect too! Let's not forget Roman likes to duel and slay monsters, so there is a death drive inside him as well.

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

THE EGO

1) "The ego seeks to please the id's drive in realistic ways that, in the long term, bring benefit, rather than grief. At the same time, the ego "attempts to mediate between id and reality" (...) The reality principle that operates the ego is a regulating mechanism that enables the individual to delay gratifying immediate needs: i.e, resisting the urge to grab other people's belongings, in order to purchase those items."

Wikipedia also says the ego is that part of personality that includes "defensive, perceptual, intellectual-cognitive, and executive functions".

Most of them are connected to Logan. Logan is the embodiment of logic and reasoning, he's the most realistic and the one who is more willing to balance between society/super-ego and id's desires. He let Remus have some space, in WTIT he told Remus there will be a time in which he will be useful. So Logan is definitely willing to welcome him.

In addition to that, ego represents reason and common sense, both traits associated with Logan and both in opposition with id's passions. Ego has to hold id back and, as we saw in canon, that's what Logan does both with Roman and with Remus.

But if we think about it, there is another Side whose job is literally to hold Remus back: Janus.

And if we keep checking what Wikipedia says about ego, we find more traits associated with him.

2) "The ego main concern is with the individual's safety and allows some of the id's desires to be expressed, but only when consequences of these actions are marginal."

That's pure Janus. Being sure that Thomas is safe? That's his role as self-preservation. Allowing the id/Remus to express itself, without long-term consequences on Thomas? We literally have an episode in which this is what happens! (DWIT)

3) "The ego seems to be more loyal to the id, preferring to gloss over the finer details of reality to minimize conflicts while pretending to have a regard for reality."

Not only that's another great proof that Janus and Remus are best buddies, but this talks all about Janus. Logan is the one who checks everything, up to the smaller details. On the other hand, Janus glosses over things, bends truth and reality to his own needs, ignores what he doesn't like and he does all of that to pursue his own agenda.

4) "Ego defense mechanisms are often used by the ego when id behavior conflicts with reality and either society's morals, norms, and taboos or the individual's expectations as a result of the internalization of these morals, norms, and their taboos."

So... ego has conflicts due to society and its norms. Does that sound familiar? Aren't those the vibes of our dear Janus "We live in a society" Sanders?

And hey, guess what is the literal first defense mechanism mentioned on Wikipedia? Denial. Goddamn denial. I mean, tell me this is about Janus, without telling me it's about Janus.

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

THE WEAPON

Let's resume: ego's job is to keep balance between super-ego and id. At the same time, ego is more loyal to the id, so it uses several mechanisms to "bypass" super-ego's control or when it struggles to keep balance between the real world, id's desires and super-ego's power.

And the main weapon is a very familiar one:

"The ego breaks out in anxiety - realistic anxiety regarding the external world, moral anxiety regarding the super-ego, and neurotic anxiety regarding the strength of the passions in the id."

Yes, Virgil is a literal weapon Janus can use to grant more freedom of speech to Remus. And that's basically what Virgil did in DWIT: his constant fear (and Patton's control), made Remus stronger and more able to talk.

At the same time, Virgil isn't just Janus' weapon...

"But the super-ego is constantly watching every one of the ego's moves and punishes it with feelings of guilt, anxiety, and inferiority."

Anxiety isn't just on the ego's side, but it can be used by super-ego as well. Just like in canon, Virgil isn't just one of the dark boys or one of the core sides, but he can be both and neither of them.

At the same time, I love how he does not appear just as a simple force, but as a weapon. It emphasizes how powerful Virgil is - and it's a nice reminder, considering how much we keep forgetting it.

[vanquishedvaliant]

Three Houses and Three Ages; An analysis of the perspective of Time in the ideology of each Lord's Route

META ESSAY TLDR: Each house leader represents the idealized preference of a certain period of time; Claude is the Past, Dimitri is the Present, and Edelgard is the Future. Their routes enforce these time periods as what one should prioritize when making decisions, and what is most important when society is revolutionized.

Playing through Three Houses, it's quite clear that each of the three main Lord routes is a unique story with more differences between them than which maps are cleared or what nation you fight for; each of the stories is rich with themes and symbolism asking questions to careful readers, and offering different solutions based on the ideals and values of the characters you choose to follow.

Many have suggested before some strong themes these routes carry, most notably the question of "Do the Ends justify the Means?", and what place memories of the dead should have on the actions of the living. While these hold true on many levels of the story, it never seemed to fully encompass the whole of what the story had to say.

Reading more broadly across the entire text, I have come to think about their messages on a different alternative angle; that each route and lord is also representative of a method of thinking and decisions making that is based on their perspective of Time, ultimately asking the question of where you should look in time to decide what is right when the world is at the brink of revolution.

I propose that Claude, Dimitri, and Edelgard are each defined utterly by the answer they can be seen to represent; the Lessons of the Past, the Reality of the Present, or the Promise of the Future. 

Below, I will go into each character at length and provide specific evidence from the text for my proposal. This breakdown includes detailed spoilers for all routes*. 

Claude von Riegan - Correcting the Mistakes of the Past

Claude, heir to the sovereign dukedom of Leicester, is a man defined by the past. Born of the mixed heritage of two different nation's noble castes, he inherited the expectations and responsibilities of both, and neither. This disconnection from both sides frees Claude from each of their cultural momentum, and lets him to step back to see a global and historical perspective without the biases of a man with a true stake in either.

Coming to be known as the 'Master Tactician' and a brilliant schemer, Claude's harsh biracial youth cultivated a careful and contemplative attitude in him. He learned about others so he can act according to their expectations and fill the role that they want from him. As an adult, Claude uses this friendly attitude as a mask for his true intentions in order to gather information, and then uses his detailed knowledge of people, places, and events to manipulate their behaviour to his benefit.

Claude also makes his decisions based on extrapolation of other’s behaviour based on what they have already done in the past, and he values the lessons learned from their failures. Claude is the only lord to express interest in learning about the history of the Church, and why they came to be the way they are. He is the only lord who confronts Rhea, to ask questions about history, and learn most of the truth of the original sins and offenses that lead to the conflicts taking place in his time.

As the war progresses, Claude goes so far as to forsake his own nation's flag to lead his war, and instead flies the flag of the Crest of Flames. Mimicking the army of Nemesis in history, Claude steps into the past and uses established symbols to his benefit, using the popular story of history to rally support for his goal, but revising the positions to create a more positive result.

As we learn about his own motives, he tells the player he wishes to create a land where people from different nations, races, and creeds can live together without conflict. Claude's revolution can be seen as addressing and correcting the history that lead to these conflicts, rewinding the sins of the original war between Agartha and Nabatea to a time when all of Fodlan was said to coexist under Sothis, and stepping back further in his long term view to encompass the world beyond their continent. He wants to build a world where those conflicts in the past were resolved intelligently, with all they've learned since, and to do so, he must learn why and how those events took place, and he uses his knowledge of history to present a story to accomplish this.

At the climax of his route, Claude comes face to face with the resurrected Nemesis, a literal embodiment of the conflicts and mistakes of the past. He faces down this foe with knowledge and planning based on his fighting style and the heroes under his command, and defeats him by anticipating and counteracting his movements in battle, placing an arrow in advance right where Nemesis will attack. He immediately claims that the victory will be hailed by Historians as a new dawn, and the narrative ending text references changing the history of Fodlan no less than four times in quick succession.

Each of Claude's actions are careful, planned, and considerate. He takes every factor into account, learns everything he can from the way things were, and takes action to reproduce the victories, and correct the mistakes others have made in the past. And because of this, Claude thoroughly represents the decision making perspective of learning from Lessons of the Past.

Dimitri Alexandre Blaiddyd - Conserving the Values of the Present.

Dimitri, crown prince of Faerghus, is a man with his eye locked firmly on the now. Burdened by the death of his family in the Tragedy of Duscur, Dimitri is unable to move on from events that happened in his past, and doing his best to do right by the people around him day by day. Dimitri is unable to rest when things he perceive to be unjust happen around him, and is the first to rush into action heedless of the repercussions.

As the story progresses, Dimitri confides in the player that he regularly witnesses vivid hallucinations of his deceased family members, describing them as if they are still there with him even 4 or later 9 years after their deaths. These memories encourage him to act, to find some kind revenge or salvation as he laments that he was helpless and unable to do anything on his own in the moment of that tragedy.

This manifestation of his trauma is emblematic of how he sees the world, still carrying the despair, anger, and helplessness of that time with him and unable to separate things that once were from things that are now, without properly grieving or accepting their fate. For Dimitri, the past is still happening in the present, and no matter what he does, he can't separate them.

Dimitri is determined to act upon this revenge without delay, and eventually confesses that his ulterior motives for all that he does, including attending the academy, are part of an ongoing plan to enact his revenge. When the perceived target of his revenge is revealed to be Edelgard, Dimitri immediately attacks her in that moment, with no need to confirm the truth of past events, or consider the consequences for the future.

As the war progresses, Dimitri's condition worsens and his anger overtakes him. His decisions become extremely impulsive and reckless. He charges into battle with no regard for the safety of himself or others, refuses to build connections with those around him, and is blinded to everything but what is immediately in front of him, acting on it the only way he knows how; with violence.

Dimitri's decision making during the first part of the war phase represents this need for instant-gratification. Dimitri directs the war effort directly into enemy territory, obsessed with achieving his revenge "Now" and either unable or unwilling to consider that his actions will affect the future of his people or his country.

As Dimitri regains composure and works to put the past behind him by learning the truth of the Tragedy of Duscur, Dimitri makes decisions with more consideration, no longer blinded to the past and the future, but now actively choosing the present. He chooses to return to Fhirdiad not for sake of the future or the past, but because his people are continuing to suffer in the now, and he chooses to continue the war in the fight to bring peace as quick as possible. Dimitri's personal values uphold his priority of the present; he values the culture of chivalry that Faerghus currently embodies, fully believing in their established norms of noble knights and a glorious king protecting the weak and guiding the lost, and correcting injustices happening in the present with direct action wherever possible. Dimitri does not believe that the systems that govern their society are inherently flawed, and that problems can be solved by addressing them one at a time.

One such issue he faces is the prejudice against those of Duscur, which is strongly tied to the Tragedy and his personal motivations. Dimitri wishes to correct this injustice, and acts immediately with whatever power he has to further this goal. In Dedue’s paralogue Dimitri will rush into battle to prevent his own nation’s soldiers from slaughtering Duscur troops, and he expresses intent to immediately address the prejudice. However, Dimitri proposes no definite actions for these reforms, showing that while Dimitri is insistent to act, he does not have a long term plan for the future of reconciliation with Duscur, and is taking things one step at a time. Dimitri is not convinced by promises for the future, and he is not influenced by lessons of the past. He values how things are right now, making decisions based on the good and bad with only the information and ideas at hand. And for these reasons, I contend that Dimitri utterly represents living solely in the Reality of the Present.

Edelgard von Hresvelg - Breaking New Ground for the Future

Edelgard, Imperial Princess of Adrestia, is a woman unflinching in pursuit of her goals. Devastated personally and politically by the corruption in her current government and the manipulation of evils from the past, Edelgard turned the trauma of the gruesome torture and suffering she was made to endure into strength, resolving to 'cut her own path' to the future she envisioned.

Edelgard thoroughly rejects the tradition and culture of the world as it is. She sees the suffering of those in the present, and traces it back to decisions of the past. Seeing how the lingering resentment of both the Church of Seiros and the Agarthans continues to damage the world, she rejects both as wrong, and instead chooses to craft new and revolutionary solutions to combat problems and inequalities and develop a plan for a just society free from their influence.

In everything she does, Edelgard is determined to move forward. Edelgard voices respect and even solidarity for those that resist conventions and forge their own paths, even when she is compelled to oppose them, complimenting the leadership of the disgraced noble turned bandit Miklan, and commending the resolve and bravery of Lonato and his rebellion, refusing to treat them as victims for fighting for change they believed in.

Constantly adjusting her plans with new information at every moment, Edelgard frequently changes course when the costs are deemed too high, or the plan unworkable. Edelgard abhors the experimentation done by Solon in Remire, and long plans to turn against the Agarthans that Slither in the Dark, enacting her vengeance on them during the course of the war.

Support conversations with Manuella and Ferdinand display her understanding of the role of faith in the lives of the spiritual, and the need to produce an environment to uplift individuals. She alters her plans for the future to take both into account; dissolving the church without rejecting the Goddess, and developing plans for universal education and training, understanding the role each of these plays in developing a stronger society with educated and enlightened citizens.

When providing support for the player during their moment of crisis and despair, Edelgard encourages them to look forward. The advice she gives is that world will always move forward, and being held captive by the tragedy of the past, or accepting the present as it is is fruitless when time moves forward for everyone. The only thing one can do to change the past, is to do their best to work for the future, and help others to move forward as well. When Edelgard's true plans are revealed, she dictates the manifesto of her revolution; dissolution of the Church of Seiros, and the abolition of the crest-bearing nobility, two traditions of ancient history which continue to define the world in the present and which are perceived to be sources of injustice and inequality. These burdens of the past, the Church's anger and punishment of mankind, and the legacy of the Crests that persists from the tragedy of a society long since dead, are cast aside in favour of putting all thought towards the future.  Edelgard goes so far as to declare war; determining that the grueling tax of war and destruction in the present is preferable to allowing suffering to continue across society for years and decades to come. She concludes that moderate change is ineffective; and her experience shows this. Political reform in Adrestia was unsuccessful and was met with a coup that separated her family and stagnated their government, allowing further negligence and evil to thrive. Edelgard concludes that the only way for true change to occur is through decisive action, and the need for change outweighs the short terms costs of lives, finances, and industry that war demands. In her personal affairs, Edelgard encourages others to never be satisfied with how things are, and instead work to improve them for the future. She commends Ferdinand and Caspar for constantly striving to improve themselves, she implores Petra not to settle for what is expected of her, and is frustrated by Linhardt's disregard for the fruits of his efforts. All of her relationships are influenced by her constant forward motion and desire for betterment. Edelgard is unsatisfied with the inequalities and inadequacies of the present, and chooses to reject the decisions of history that led to it, not accepting its effects on the actions of those dictating the future. For these reasons, I contend that Edelgard unequivocally represents working hard to chase the Promise of the Future.

Conflicts Between Each Lord.

With each character's ideology established, we can also examine how they interact with each other, and how their perspectives collide to create conflicts between them.

Claude and Dimitri, despite finding themselves against a common enemy, are not able to properly ally in either of their routes, as Dimitri's total concern for the present blinds him to the possibilities of cooperation. In Dimitri's route, he is impatient to assault the Empire, unable to overcome difficulties in communication caused by an enemy from the Past he is unaware of, and chooses to fight through the Alliance army and destroy it rather than be delayed. Claude later implores him for aid, but the history of the Leicester alliance is sacrificed for the needs of Faerghus' war in the present. In Claude's route, Dimitri is likewise unable to communicate, heedlessly rushing into battle without consideration that his brave war does not match the united front that the Kingdom possessed during its first war with the empire, and is defeated utterly. Dimitri and Edelgard, the most directly at odds, represent the greatest contrast in ideology. Dimitri is unable to reconcile the death and destruction that war causes in the now, and does not believe that violent revolution is just. Edelgard is unable to reconcile the disparities and suffering of the present, and does not believe that allowing inequity to continue to thrive is just. These ideals can be summarized most succinctly in dialogue between the two during the conclusion of Dimitri's route, wherein Dimitri states; "We must defend the present... After all, it is all the we truly have," prompting an enraged Edelgard to counter, "We must trample the past underfoot, and move onward to a brighter tomorrow." Each succinctly states the priorities that inform the core motive of each side of the war, and echo their statements in previous discussions. Claude and Edelgard's conflict is far more subtle and nuanced. These two lords fundamentally share the same goals; the revolution of current society to be more equal and just, but they differ greatly in their methods and reasoning. Claude believes that no future can be built without considering history; a future without the flaws of the present cannot be forged without respecting how those injustices came to be. Edelgard on the other hand believes that true change cannot be enacted while you are still beholden to the past; if you are afraid to discard tradition and history, you can never create something truly new. In each of their routes, these Lords bring their conflict to conclusion, and while their methodology and fates differ, each of them ultimately entrusts the future to the other, with Claude offering the Alliance and his allies to forge Edelgard's future, and Edelgard (via Hubert) informing Claude of the true threat rising up from the past. Their methods and their perspectives conflict, but they both accept the present as unacceptable and seek revolution, whether it be through solving the past, or by creating an independent future.

In Conclusion;

Three Houses is ultimately a story about a societal revolution that spans the continent. It involves breaking the old society into pieces, examining all of its strengths and weakness, and piecing it back together in the method of your choosing. Like a forest fire can cause death and destruction, but also breath new life into its ecosystem, so too does the war in Fodlan provide a means for a new beginning. Through the examples given above, I believe that one of the overarching themes of Three Houses, and questions posed in each of it's routes, is what is most important when you are rebuilding that society in the aftermath. Do you look to the Past, like Claude, and learn from what those in history did right or wrong to make the decisions with thousands of years of wisdom? Do you stick to the Present, like Dimitri, and preserve things the way they are, taking small steps in the now to enact gradual change? Or do you fight for the Future, like Edelgard, making sweeping changes and reforms to create a future that is truly new in the pursuit of betterment. Each of these routes, and each of these characters poses a different answer to this question, without providing any answer that is absolutely correct. The endings of all three of these routes are portrayed as good, happy endings, the most idealized crystallization of their ideology. No matter the player follows, what they decide is what will prevail. There is no wrong answer, and no right answer. Simply solutions with a different priority.

And through these options, a full completion of the game asks the player to decide for themselves; what is really most important to their decisions?

The Past? The Present? Or the Future?

--

If you've read this far, first of all, thank you very much! This is almost totally a full length literary essay! You're a real trooper. I hope you've gained a new insight on a method of interpreting the story. I think there's a lot of different levels to Three Houses and I believe examining it from all different perspectives with a fair and even approach is important to getting the most out of it. I think it's the mark of a truly great story to provide this kind of depth of discussion, and posing multiple themes and questions that the player can think on.

I've found a lot of the same ground tread over and over about the means to an end, fascism vs democracy vs monarchy; (sorry guys, but that ain't it. Edelgard ain't a fascist, Claude ain't democracy, and Dimitri's a monarch... so....), and I've wanted to take it at a wider angle. The quoted lines from Azure Moon really stuck out to me as incredibly poignant, and when I looked back into Claude more i found more and more reference to his interest in history and learning the truth.

I didn’t go into details with Silver Snow in this essay because... well, it doesn’t have a Lord. It shares half of its route with Edelgard, and half with Claude so it poses many of the same arguments, despite contradicting each other. You could consider Seteth to be a pseudo-lord as a replacement, but It’s my personal belief that the themes and motivations posed by that choice aren’t strong enough to provide a story truly distinct from either Verdant Wind or Crimson Flower. One might argue that Seteth stands for “Upholding Tradition” rather than Claude’s revising it, but I don’t think there’s enough evidence. It’s just as likely that Silver Snow has little message, or simply stands as an isolate rejection to Edelgard’s choices. It’s something to explore another time, but I think the bonds between the three lords are what is most important.

So hopefully this gives some juicy fodder for further consideration, and more discussion to last for time to come! Thanks for reading! 

-vanquishedValiant

[96thdayofrage]

The anti-racism consulting industry does deserve both some sympathy and some credit. Its intention, to prod white Americans into more awareness of their own racism, is beneficent. And their premise that white people are often unaware of the degree to which racial privilege has enabled their success, which they can mistakenly attribute entirely to merit and effort, is correct. American society is shot through with multiple overlapping systems of racial bias — from exposure to harmful pollution to biased policing to unequal access to education to employment discrimination — that in combination sustain massive systemic inequality.

But the anti-racism trainers go beyond denying the myth of meritocracy to denying the role of individual merit altogether. Indeed, their teaching presents individuals as a racist myth. In their model, the individual is subsumed completely into racial identity.

One of DiAngelo’s favorite examples is instructive. She uses the famous story of Jackie Robinson. Rather than say “he broke through the color line,” she instructs people instead to describe him as “Jackie Robinson, the first Black man whites allowed to play major-league baseball.”

It is true, of course, that Robinson was not the first Black man who was good enough at baseball to make a major-league roster. The Brooklyn Dodgers decided, out of a combination of idealism and self-interest, to violate the norm against signing Black players. And Robinson was chosen due to a combination of his skill and extraordinary personality that allowed him to withstand the backlash in store for the first Black major leaguer. It is not an accident that DiAngelo changes the story to eliminate Robinson’s agency and obscure his heroic qualities. It’s the point. Her program treats individual merit as a myth to be debunked. Even a figure as remarkable as Robinson is reduced to a mere pawn of systemic oppression.

One way to understand this thinking is to place it on a spectrum of thought about race. On the far right is open white supremacy, which instructs white people to fight for their interests as white people. (Hence the 14-word slogan, “We must secure the existence of our people and a future for white children.”) Moving to the left, standard-issue conservatism tends to discount the existence of racism and treat all problems in pure color-blind terms, as though racism has been banished. To the left of that is standard liberalism, which acknowledges the existence of racism as a problem that complicates simple race-neutral solutions.

The ideology of the racism-training industry is distinctively to the left of that. It collapses all identity into racial categories. “It is crucial for white people to acknowledge and recognize our collective racial experience,” writes DiAngelo, whose teachings often encourage the formation of racial affinity groups. The program does not allow any end point for the process of racial consciousness. Racism is not a problem white people need to overcome in order to see people who look different as fully human — it is totalizing and inescapable.

Of course, DiAngelo’s whites-only groups are not dreamed up in the same spirit as David Duke’s. The problem is that, at some point, the extremes begin to functionally resemble each other despite their mutual antipathy.

I want to make clear that when I compare the industry’s conscious racialism to the far right, I am not accusing it of “reverse racism” or bias against white people. In some cases its ideas literally replicate anti-Black racism.

Glenn Singleton, president of Courageous Conversation, a racial-sensitivity training firm, tells Bergner that valuing “written communication over other forms” is “a hallmark of whiteness,” as is “scientific, linear thinking. Cause and effect.”

This is not some idiosyncratic oddball notion. The African-American History Museum has a page on whiteness, which summarizes the ideas that the racism trainers have brought into relatively wide circulation.

“White” values include things like “objective, rational thinking”; “cause and effect relationships”; “hard work is the key to success”; “plan for the future”; and “delayed gratification.” The source for this chart is another, less-artistic chart written by Judith Katz in 1990. Katz has a doctorate in education and moved into the corporate consulting world in 1985, where, according to her résumé, she has “led many transformational change initiatives.” It is not clear what in Katz’s field of study allowed her to establish such sweeping conclusions about the innate culture of white people versus other groups.

One way to think through these cultural generalizations is to measure them against its most prominent avatar for racial conflict, Donald Trump. How closely does he reflect so-called white values? The president hardly even pretends to believe that “hard work” is the key to success. The Trump version of his alleged success is that he’s a genius who improvises his way to brilliant deals. The realistic version is that he’s a lazy heir who inherited and cheated his way to riches, and spends most of his time watching television. Trump is likewise incapable of delayed gratification, planning for the future, and regards “objective rational thinking” with distrust. On the other hand, Barack Obama is deeply devoted to all those values.

Now, every rule has its exceptions. Perhaps the current (white) president happens to be alienated from the white values that the previous (Black) president identified with strongly. But attaching the values in question to real names brings to life a point the racism trainers seem to elide: These values are not neutral at all. Hard work, rational thought, and careful planning are virtues. White racists traditionally project the opposite of these traits onto Black people and present them as immutable flaws. Jane Coaston, who has reported extensively on the white-nationalist movement, summarizes it, “The idea that white people are just good at things, or are better inherently, more clean, harder working, more likely to be on time, etc.”

In his profile, Bergner asked DiAngelo how she could reject “rationalism” as a criteria for hiring teachers, on the grounds that it supposedly favors white candidates. Don’t poor children need teachers to impart skills like that so they have a chance to work in a high-paying profession employing reasoning skills?

DiAngelo’s answer seems to imply that she would abolish these high-paying professions altogether:

“Capitalism is so bound up with racism. I avoid critiquing capitalism — I don’t need to give people reasons to dismiss me. But capitalism is dependent on inequality, on an underclass. If the model is profit over everything else, you’re not going to look at your policies to see what is most racially equitable.”

(Presumably DiAngelo’s ideal socialist economy would keep in place at least some well-paid professions — say, “diversity consultant,” which earns her a comfortable seven-figure income.)

Singleton, likewise, proposed evolutionary social changes to the economy that would render it unnecessary to teach writing and linear thought to minority children. Bergner writes:

I asked whether guiding administrators and teachers to put less value, in the classroom, on capacities like written communication and linear thinking might result in leaving Black kids less ready for college and competition in the labor market. “If you hold that white people are always going to be in charge of everything,” he said, “then that makes sense.” He invoked, instead, a journey toward “a new world, a world, first and foremost, where we have elevated the consciousness, where we pay attention to the human being.”

Whether or not a world along these lines will ever exist, or is even possible to design, is at best uncertain. What is unquestionably true is that these revolutionary changes will not be completed within the lifetime of anybody currently alive. Which is to say, a program to deny the value of teaching so-called white values to Black children is to condemn them to poverty. Unsurprisingly, Bergner’s story shows two educators exposed to the program and rebelling against it. One of them, Leslie Chislett, had to endure some ten anti-racism training sessions before eventually snapping at the irrationality of a program that denigrates learning. “The city has tens of millions invested in A.P. for All, so my team can give kids access to A.P. classes and help them prepare for A.P. exams that will help them get college degrees,” she says, “and we’re all supposed to think that writing and data are white values?”

Ibram X. Kendi, another successful entrepreneur in the anti-racism field, has a more frontal response to this problem. The achievement gap — the long-standing difference in academic performance between Black and white children — is a myth, he argues. The supposed gap merely reflects badly designed tests, he argues. It does not matter to him how many different kinds of measures of academic performance show this to be true. Nor does he seem receptive to the possibility that the achievement gap reflects environmental factors (mainly worse schools, but also access to nutrition, health care, outside learning, and so on) rather than any innate differences.

Kendi, like DiAngelo, argues that racism must be defined objectively. Intent does not matter, only effect. Their own intentions are surely admirable. But the fact is that their insistence on denying that America provides its Black children worse educations inhibits working toward a solution. Denying the achievement gap, like denying the gap in how police treat white and Black people, seems to objectively entrench racism.

It’s easy enough to see why executives and school administrators look around at a country exploding in righteous indignation at racism, and see the class of consultants selling their program of mystical healing as something that looks vaguely like a solution. But one day DiAngelo’s legions of customers will look back with embarrassment at the time when a moment of awakening to the depth of American racism drove them to embrace something very much like racism itself.

[sciencespies]

Cuttlefish Show Impressive Ability to Exert Self-Control

https://sciencespies.com/news/cuttlefish-show-impressive-ability-to-exert-self-control/

Cuttlefish Show Impressive Ability to Exert Self-Control

Cuttlefish are full of personality, as behavioral ecologist Alexandra Schnell found out while researching the cephalopod’s potential to display self-control. One test subject, named Franklin, was so impatient, she would shoot water at Schnell until dinner time. Other cuttlefish were better at waiting, and they were rewarded for it.

While working at the Marine Biological Laboratory in Woods Hole, Massachusetts, Schnell tested six juvenile cuttlefishes’ ability to delay gratification to get their favorite meal. The experiments showed some cuttlefish could resist a less-preferred piece of food for between 50 and 130 seconds if they knew that they would be rewarded with something better, Sarah Keartes reports for Hakai magazine.

A follow-up test showed that the most patient cuttlefish were also better at learning than the impatient ones. The results of the study appear in the March 3 issue of the Proceedings of the Royal Society B.

“Self-control is thought to be the cornerstone of intelligence, as it is an important prerequisite for complex decision-making and planning for the future,” says Schnell, who now works at the University of Cambridge, to Yasemin Saplakoglu at Live Science. “Why cuttlefish evolved the ability to exert self-control is a bit of a mystery.”

The new study used a modified version of the “marshmallow test,” which was first used about 50 years ago in a psychology study at Stanford University, to test the animals’ self restraint. During the original marshmallow test, psychologist Walter Mischel presented children between age four and six with one marshmallow. He told them that if they waited 15 minutes and didn’t eat it, he would give them a second marshmallow.

A long-term follow-up study showed that the children who waited for the second marshmallow had more success later in life. Mischel cautioned against overgeneralizing the results, and another study published in 2018 that controlled for the kids’ socioeconomic background showed a much weaker correlation between patience and later success, Jennifer Ouellette reports for Ars Technica.

The cuttlefish version of the experiment looked a lot different. The researchers worked with six cuttlefish under nine months old and presented them with seafood instead of sweets. (Preliminary experiments showed that cuttlefishes’ favorite food is live grass shrimp, while raw prawns are so-so and Asian shore crab is nearly unacceptable.)

Since the researchers couldn’t explain to the cuttlefish that they would need to wait for their shrimp, they trained them to recognize certain shapes that indicated when a food item would become available.

The symbols were pasted on transparent drawers so that the cuttlefish could see the food that was stored inside. One drawer, labeled with a circle to mean “immediate,” held raw king prawn. Another drawer, labeled with a triangle to mean “delayed,” held live grass shrimp.

During a control experiment, square labels meant “never.”

“If their self-control is flexible and I hadn’t just trained them to wait in any context, you would expect the cuttlefish to take the immediate reward [in the control], even if it’s their second preference,” says Schnell to Hakai magazine, and that’s what they did. That showed the researchers that cuttlefish wouldn’t reject the prawns if it was the only food available.

In the experimental trials, the cuttlefish didn’t jump on the prawns if the live grass shrimp were labeled with a triangle—many waited for the shrimp drawer to open up. Each time the cuttlefish showed it could wait, the researchers tacked another ten seconds on to the next round of waiting before releasing the shrimp. The longest that a cuttlefish waited was 130 seconds.

Schnell tells Live Science that the cuttlefish usually sat at the bottom of the tank and looked at the two food items while they waited, but sometimes, they would turn away from the king prawn “as if to distract themselves from the temptation of the immediate reward.”

In past studies, humans, chimpanzees, parrots and dogs also tried to distract themselves while waiting for a reward.

Not every species can use self-control, but most of the animals that can share another trait in common: long, social lives. Cuttlefish, on the other hand, are solitary creatures that don’t form relationships even with mates or young. The fact that cuttlefish are so different than the other species is part of what makes the new research exciting.

“We don’t know if living in a social group is important for complex cognition unless we also show those abilities are lacking in less social species,” says Oakland University comparative psychologist Jennifer Vonk, who wasn’t involved with the new study, to Hakai magazine. “There’s still so much room to understand more.”

Future studies could puzzle out the evolutionary benefit of patience in cuttlefish. One hypothesis is that it might have to do with hunting strategy, Schnell writes for the Conversation. Since cuttlefish lose their camouflage when they spring for prey, they might learn to wait until the optimal meal swims past.

#News

[bewaretheundead91]

A very Eventful Christmas Part 3: The unanticipated

Summary: You are on your way back to Washington D.C. to spend time with your family for Christmas. On your way you run into a man from your past.

Duncan Shepherd X Reader (Y/N)

Warnings: none, but this is a slow burn, inspired by cheesy Christmas rom com tropes. So there are a lot of rom com tropes/clichés here. There is plot here.

A/N: I’m a sucker for the slow burn so there is no instant gratification here, but there is cuteness. Will be re-edited for mistakes. Also this plot can sound really unrealistic and it’s not supposed to be...it’s fiction. Is it a little AU? Maybe.

Part 1 Part 2

My Michael Langdon Fics

You sit back in your seat giving yourself some time to calm your nerves and the prickling embarrassment that stung the parts of your body that Duncan quickly held to prevent you from being injured. You stare out the window to see country side covered in a thick layer of snow, that seemed to make the darkness of night time not so dark. Along the tracks were tall lights that kept everything illuminated outside as far as you can see. The tall lamps creates a magical scene with the landscape.

You take another breath in, feel your phone buzz, and pull it out to see a text from Erica and from your sister who was expecting to be married soon. You slide open Erica’s message. Wine huh, she responds, thats something, just try and relax. You slide open the message from your sister. Hey Y/N, She greets, I’m so excited for my big sister to be back in town. I have so many people need to meet. We have so much to plan for my wedding. I love you and I’ll see you soon. And you’re going to love the bridesmaid dresses. At that moment you wished the train would just move off the tracks or find a way to delay your arrival back to town. Nothing was going to be more embarrassing than arriving back with stories to tell of Duncan Shepherd sort of being a gentlemen and your sister potentially being married off before you. In high society, these sort of things don’t go unnoticed among families. I’m still young, you think to yourself, in my 20s and young.

Suddenly a phone in the distance starts ringing and Maria Carry’s All I want for Christmas starts playing. Instantly the image of Duncan Shepherd in a Christmas sweater singing at your door step pops back into your head. Oh please don’t, you think to yourself, I can’t deal with this. You remember how soft his appearance was in your dream, with his loose dark hair and warm smile and at the same time materialistic, comparing you to a diamond. You shake your head and a pang of pain shoots through your heart. Of all the men and even women you’ve been around, Duncan was the guy to star in this Christmas movie theme dream you had. I saw him today and that’s it, you think again, it was only because I keep running into him. Jessica walks down the isle and you shoot a hand up to get her attention.

“Jessica,” You practically shout. “May I have a glass of water.”

“Opposed to the wine you refuse from me.” Duncan says loudly in the distance and you hear a round of laughter.

“Please anything, that isn’t alcoholic.” You say looking sorry.

“Yes, right away.” She smiles.

“Thank you.”

Suddenly there was a need for the bathroom. You stand up looking around the car for the nearest bathroom and to your luck and of course surprise, it was located in the very front of the car. You curse yourself as you eyes land back on Duncan’s luscious hair moving as he was talking to yet another train attendant and having a full on animated conversation. Once Jessica catches onto her fellow attendant getting more attention than her she makes a stop by Duncan. My water, you think to yourself, my damn water Jessica.

“So what is a man such as yourself doing taking a train to D.C.,” Jessica buts in, placing a hand on her hips. “Shouldn’t you be riding first class on a plain? You look like you have great taste and great taste…”

You shake your head at the very blunt comment Jessica is making. You step out of your seat and watch as the train attendant leans over and presses her hand to Duncan’s shoulder. His eyes lock on her physical contact. Your body holds in a rich laugh remembering how easy he had with the ladies growing up and you begin to walk towards the bathroom.

“I like to avoid a big commotion and at least once a year I take the train just to have some time to myself,” He says with a big smile. “There is just something so relaxing about looking out the window and watching the scenery as the train passes by.”

“Oh pardon us.” Jessica politely says moving aside to allow you to walk through. 

Duncan sits up straight in his seat and you walk by. You swear you hear him take in a deep inhale. Quickly you shover yourself into the small bathroom and empty your bladder. As you wash your hands you look up in the mirror and point a finger at your reflection.

“No,” You say to yourself. “No, yes he’s handsome and yes one of the most eligible men in D.C., but no bitch! No!”

You point at the heart beating unbearably fast in your chest and curse at it.

“No!” You practically shout. “He’s probably with someone else anyways.”

You dry your hands off and step out of the bathroom to see the train attendants were gone and Duncan was now gazing outside of his window with his head resting in his hand. You could faintly see the snow coating the ground outside and fir trees with a dusting of snow. He perks a head up as you start walking back. A smile appears on the corner of his mouth.

Then unanticipatedly, the train begins to jut back and forth on it’s tracks. You take a step and your ankle twists flinging your forward down the isle. You land with a loud thud. Duncan shoots out of his seat and rushes down the isle toward you. The train juts again and the power twitches, he shoots forward and falls in your direction. He lands with his body almost on top you with his own strong arms keeping him up in a push up position. 

“Are you okay?” He ask looking down at you. He presses his lips together tightly trying to keep up right.

“I’m fine,” You say gazing up at him with large eyes. You look down at this arms, shaking in their locked position. “I should have listened to you.”

“You should have stayed in your seat,” He laughed warmly. The power goes out on the train and a round of screams are heard from near by cars. “Looks like we are in a predicament.”

“Looks like it.” 

The train juts again making Duncan arms give out and lose his balance. His body comes crashing down on top of you knocking the air out of her chest and making you wrap your arms around his back. In reaction you open your legs to soften the blow. The scruff of his beard scratches at the side of your neck and jawline and his hair ticks at the high peaks of her cheeks bones. You feel his chest breathing heavily.

“I’m so sorry,” He says instantly being helped off of you. You see Jessica giving you a disapproving look. He extends a hand. “Are you okay? I’m asking genuinely concerned. By now you have to be bruised some where.”

“I think so.” You say cautiously grabbing it. You stand up and press a hand to your chest still feeling the weight of his body on top of you.

“Everyone don’t panic it looks like we have ran into some train trouble.”

“You don’t say.” You were secretly thankful.

You step off the train and meet a wall of wintery mixed precipitation. Your hand quickly grab the lapels of your jacket to hold it close. Due to the inconvenience of the train, the train station was offering half price for hotel stay at the closest hotel. Those who were willing to pay for a room ventured out in the weather to find it.

You arrive at what looks to be an oversized log cabin lined with Christmas lights. On the lawn were lit up Christmas gifts shapes along with lit up deer. It made you smile. Approaching the door you realized that Duncan Shepherd had not followed you or made his way to this specific hotel. The thought brings a feeling of relief to your body and the embarrassment from earlier dissipates and is was being replaced with the idea of of a relaxing shower or bath.  

Mounted on the doors were two large Christmas wreath decorated in glittery animal shaped ornaments and holly. With relief in sight you pull open the door and instantly get whiff of fresh baked gingerbread cookies and the scent of fir trees. On the back wall of the hotel lobby was a crackling fire surrounded by cushioned chairs and couches. You take a deep breath in feeling like you were someone how in a cheesy Christmas movie. Quickly you search for a check-in desk, and standing with a cheerful smile across her aged face, stands an older woman wearing a Christmas sweater of snow flake and fir tree print. You shake off remaining snow from your hair and approach the desk.

“Hello, this place looks unreal,” You greet with wide eyes taking in all the details. “This place is real right?”

“Yes it is!” The woman laughs. “I just love Christmas and tend to go all out, we didn’t put out the snow, the weather did that, but it’s a nice touch isn’t it?”

“It is,” You say laughing at her joke. “I was wondering if you had any rooms available for the evening?”

“Let me check.”

At that moment the door opens to the front of the hotel revealing wavy side swept hair and slender frame of no other than Duncan Shepherd. In his hand was the handle of a rather large piece of luggage. He looks down at the leather bag in your hand and shakes his head.

“I’ll take a room please,” You say pulling out your wallet. “Any room, small or big.”

“I’ll also take a room.” Duncan rolls his luggage and stands besides you.

“Okay let me take a look, I know we told the train station that we had a few vacancies, but it looks like the folks who got here already took every room except for the honeymoon sweet.”

“Surely there has to be other rooms available, as in plural.” You side eye Duncan and feel your cheeks start to burn.

“I’ll take the room,” Duncan interjects handing over a black credit card. “If Ms. Y/L/N does not want it I’ll take it.”

“I was here first and I’ll take the room. He can sleep on the couch in the lobby if that is okay.”

“You two know each other?” The woman side eyes you and then looks at Duncan with a particular grin that makes you feel anxious. “A lover’s spat perhaps?”

“Excuse me?” You ask and Duncan starts to laugh. 

“Yes,” Duncan’s eyes light up. He extends an arm around your shoulders. “We will take the honeymoon sweet, my girlfriend and I just got into a terrible fight since our travel plans have been delayed due to the train. Therefore I’m paying for the room. I’ll find a way to make it up to her. You wouldn’t have any red wine on hand would you? I know it’s late.”

The woman lets out a strange giggle and you shove his arm off from around you. The woman swipes Duncan’s card and hands it back to him then hands him a set of keys. Lastly she hands him a menu for room service.

“The kitchen is closed, but I can grab a bottle for you. Glasses should already be up in the room. Just follow me.”

Anger was boiling in the pit of your stomach and you internally were having a conversation with yourself questioning if you should share a room with Duncan or not. He looks at you and grabs the leather bag from your hand and shoots you a smile.

“I’ll sleep in the bathroom,” He whispers and your eyes lock on his romantic lips. “Don’t worry about it. We just want sleep right? It’s only for the night.”

“What if someone finds out?” You ask leaning down to grab you carryon. 

“No one will find out. No one knows who I am here. No one knows who you are here.” He assures you.

“I don’t like this.”

“Of course you don’t, you haven’t liked anything since you left D.C.”

“Excuse me?” You ask.

“Are you both coming?” The woman asks. “Follow me. In the morning you along with the rest of the guests will have a nice breakfast. It comes with the room. We have a lovely dining area where there is a fire place. You both will love it.”

It sounds like something you would enjoy if you were not around Duncan Shepherd of all men. You shoot Duncan one last glare and start to follow the woman up a flight of stairs. You can feel his eyes on the back of your head or at least you were assuming he was watching you.

[gkindshivani]

Learning 676

As humans, we’re born with an innate tendency to focus on the present. Biological needs demand this, from eating to sleeping to going to the bathroom. But we aren’t usually raised to remain focused on the present. Society tells us to delay gratification, including the fulfillment of biological urges. Schools discipline us to study; even though it’s no fun, we know that studying now will improve…

[caerbannogmochi]

I'd (personally) say that "mental age" as a sign of maturity is more universal than "can this person do X Y Z, which we as a society deem important for basic functioning" (after all, there are many reasons why someone can't perform task Z — physical disability, lack of time/money, mind that is geared toward different things, etc — that can be worked around by a mature individual.

Rather, I'd define mental age as "If you heard what they did/how they acted without context, what age would you peg them as?" For example, - Is this individual able to effectively stand up for their needs/the needs of others (E.G, comfort someone who needs it, identify when they're about to lose their temper and act accordingly*, refuse to be belittled when something is seriously wrong)? - Is this individual able to solve problems independently (E.G, consult google for help appropriately, be comfortable with trial and error, know what constitutes acceptable risk (and how to regulate danger), identify when it's time to get help/who to contact)? - Is this individual able to tell the difference between needs and wants (E.G, delay gratification, identify when someone else's needs are greater, GYAIG (Get Your Ass In Gear) as needed, know when to throw in the towel, know how to finish what they're doing**)? - Is this individual able to form their own opinions, and identify good sources? - Is this individual able to be polite? - Is this individual emotionally mature>

These aren't the only standards I'd use, but there are so-called "adults" I know of who can't do these things, which just 2 years ago I would have seen as the mythical 1%, showing up on the internet simply due to noteriety. Now, I'm in college. I have seen a woman who, when asked to write down which 2 chemicals we would need for a reacton, insisted she had no clue what to do, even though she had the chemical equation [Chemical X + Chemical Y = Chemical A + Chemical] directly in front of her. I know of people whose automatic response to math problems is "I will get the answer from the tutor". I used to think I wasn't tenacious.

I know better now.

*Often this means exiting the situation to calm down, but sometimes the situation warrants brisk language/action (for example, if someone is being attacked, sexually harrased or is in immediate danger, normal courtesy goes out the window). **I mean this mostly in a work sense: Can this person be trusted to do what they say they'll do within a reasonable period of time, or will they look at their phone for 8 hours, or just decide that "But I don't WAANT to do this" constitutes an excuse to do something you didn't expect them to do, or do the bare minimum, ETC. Would you trust that they'll do what you asked them, or would you have to look over their shoulder 24/7 to stop them from wandering off? I am fully aware that not everyone can work a 9 to 5, but people who can be trusted like this will tell you if they need to take a break/get a reasonable accomidation/are having a problem.

“mental age” is bullshit by the way. we all develop at different rates, and we all hit milestones at different times. an adult who is disabled, needs a carer, and/or still lives at home is still an adult

an individual disabled person may feel like they age differently from their peers, or they may feel as if they individually are “mentally a child”, but that is not a label you should slap on someone other than yourself

[scrollofthoth]

Preview

Big announcement coming soon. Here’s a transcript of an interview I did for Welcome to Tarotdise that will be posted soon. Wanted to share it with my folks here first.

How long have you been a practicing magician?

I’ve had in interest in mythology and the occult for as long as I can remember. It didn’t seem unusual then, but the public library where I grew up as a kid had a copy of Crowley’s Magick in Theory and Practice. I checked it out several times before it got stolen. Didn’t understand a word of it then. I remember making a magick-square talisman when I was in middle-school and doing a candle-magick love spell. A friend of mine brought a copy of Anton LaVey’s, The Satanic Rituals to school once. We tried to summon a demon out a drain in the boy’s locker room and ask it for magical power. Stupid kid stuff, but who knows, maybe it actually worked.

I did some magick in my twenties when I explored neo-paganism. But I didn’t become a serious practicing magician until 2010. I came to it after an existential crisis with the realization that I wasn’t the person I thought I was. I learned the self was a construct and I could be anything I wanted, so why not a magician?

 What first interested you in magick/the occult?

Dungeons & Dragons was definitely the gateway drug for me. Looking back, it’s hysterical how we all tried to argue in the 80s that D&D had nothing to do with the occult. Mythology, demons from the goetia, the concept of planer travel, it’s all in there. Gygax did his research well. It’s also interesting to note that RPGs give you many skills useful to a magician. Invoking other personalities, understanding how to structure a story for group participation, all the reading involved. I’ve met many magicians that still play one RPG or another. I still play regularly.

How would you describe your practice?

I call what I do, Emergent Animism. The Emergent part, I just wrote an entire book on that, but I’ll try my best to sum it up here. In Emergent Magick, the magus builds their own paradigm based on the results of their magical work. It’s not quite shifting paradigms, like Chaos Magick, but continuously adding to your core beliefs through magical experimentation. You then share that paradigm with a group of magi and develop a group paradigm. The goal is to create “tribes” of magi who use magick as their bond. We seek a future where people once again create their own culture, instead of having it sold to us, and have a means to create more open and equal societies.

The Animism part refers to my personal paradigm, which involves ancestor veneration, communicating with spirits of place, such as spirits of the land or physical objects, and alien spirits, such as demons and gods.

 What would you say your current big magickal goal is?

The big goal, something I think a lot of magicians share, is to immanentize the eschaton. To bring about that change in human consciousness and create a world based on acceptance, love, and freedom. But that’s a long term goal. I don’t know if we can actually achieve that goal. Maybe the eschaton is something that is just constantly unfolding before us. It takes lifetimes.

My current magical motto is, “Ego Sum Legio.” Which means, “I am Legion.” It expresses my will to build what I call a “Spirit Court.” A group of spirit allies that I can trust and turn to when I need to get shit done. Also, on some level, bringing upon the eschaton will require making peace not only with ourselves but with the spirits.

 What do you feel is your strongest magickal skill?

Everything comes down to writing for me. Through the word I create. I consider all writing to be a magical act. The universe was created with the word. When we name things, we have power over them. To me, it’s the most human ability. Other animals dance, make music, you can even teach an elephant to paint. But writing, as far as we know, remains unique to us talking apes. It’s the power of our ideas that shape our world, which we express in words. Money, nation-states, religions, all these things have no objective reality. We just made them up with words.

 Your weakest?

I’ve never had innate psychic ability. I don’t feel energy or a magical presence without putting some effort into it. While I have always been magically inclined, magick never came easy to me. I had to work for it. Even now, when I do tarot, I can’t just slap some cards on a table and read them. It always requires ritual. I need to deliberately shift my consciousness first before I can perceive anything beyond the physical. I’m fine with that. I’m willing to do the work. In some ways, it makes my magick more precise. While I have had plenty of strong synchronicities and a few straight up paranormal experiences, they only come after doing magick.

 What do you consider to be your most effective working/s?

Writing the novel, My Babylon, opened a lot of doors for me. I’ve gone back and re-read it recently. It’s not a great book, but it’s not horrible. I had written a lot of short stories and other things before that, but it was the first novel I completed. It proved to me personally what I was capable of. It was the first story I wrote that was really about me digging up my own emotions and trying to deal with them. It’s also a personal devotion to the Red Goddess, and earned me quite a bit of attention from Her. That has been both wonderful and terrifying, but never boring.

 Your most powerful?

For the past two years I have been given the honor of co-writing the main ritual for the Babalon Rising Festival. This last year, I also played a major role in the ritual. If you’ve never done ritual with 250+ thelemic pagans out in the middle of the woods at night, I highly recommend it. Numbers do matter. Most magicians only do ritual for themselves or maybe for a small group of people. Doing it with that many people raises it to a whole other level. I consider myself blessed for having the opportunity and look forward to doing it again in the future. This is why my own magical philosophy focuses so much on group ritual. There’s really nothing else like it.

 What paradigm or philosophy do you most align yourself with?

You can probably tell by now that I operate firmly in the Spirit Model. I believe that people can change things directly through magick, but that requires brute force. Spirits innately do things that living humans cannot. Spirits have a perspective beyond space and linear time. That insight often brings about results that are closer to your True Will instead of just delivering what you think you want.

Of course, Emergent Magick is my overriding magical philosophy. As Blake said, “I must create a system, or be enslaved by another man's. I will not reason and compare: my business is to create.”

 Is there one that particularly interests you that you would like to learn more about?

Shintoism, being a currently operating major religion with strong animist roots and principles, holds great interest for me. Not that I want to become a practicing Shinto priest. I want to take what that tradition has learned and apply it to my own Western heritage.

 Where do you find inspiration and motivation for your practice?

Like a lot of people, I just want to make the world a better place. I want to see and experience less suffering. I express this in all of my magick and even in my day job.

Inspiration has never been an issue for me. The myriad expressions of human culture have always fascinated me. That well springs eternal. Some scientists try to convince us of our insignificance in the universe. Nothing could be further from the truth. We hairless apes built pyramids. The mere fact that we contemplate the nature of our universe makes us special in a lot of ways.

The nature of our species fascinates me as well. What are we made to do? What makes us truly happy? I read a lot on pre-history, anthropology, primatology, and related subjects to try and grasp what it truly means to be human.

 Where do you find inspiration and motivation for your artwork?

When my decisions and actions run contrary to what I believe, it forces me to reexamine those beliefs. I need to know why I do the things I do. The best way to do that for me is art. Art never turns out exactly how you intended it. It’s always a journey. Things you see as mistakes at first turn out to be the parts you appreciate the most. Oftentimes, the big point you were trying to make is subsumed by the process, and you learn that maybe that wasn’t the important part to begin with. Art is Will made manifest.

 What do you find is the biggest challenge to your creations?

Writing is a lonely process. It’s an exercise in delayed gratification. Performing artists have it easy in that respect, although they have to practice like anyone else and are constantly subject to the approval of others. Graphic artists put in their time, but it’s generally a much shorter process. Writing a book means putting yourself in a chair alone, for days, months, and sometimes years before you have anything that even looks like a finished product. It leaves lots of room for self-doubt. The process is sometimes so long you immediately go back and look at it and think to yourself, “I know better now.” You never write a beautiful sentence and get applause. It always comes later. Often much later.

 What is your favorite medium, and what draws you to work with it?

With writing you can show the process much better than other mediums. Just like it takes a long time to create, it takes a long time to consume. You get to explain why you did what you did. The reader gets to learn along with you.

Stephen King once called writing genuine telepathy. I think that’s true. I can put a thought in someone’s head across time and space. It’s an amazing ability. You can do anything with writing. You can put a picture in someone’s head, a sound, or even a smell. That feeling will never be exactly what you intended as a writer, but that’s the beauty of it. It always gets filtered through the reader’s perspective. They get to participate in the creation of the story long after the words have been put on a page.

 What do you feel like you could improve on?

Any writer that cares about the art form is always trying to improve on their use of the language. It’s the beauty of the language that inspires just as much as the content. There’s always a way to make language more dynamic and interesting. Strunk & White’s first rule in the Elements of Style is, “Omit needless words.” That’s the battle. Which words do I truly need? What best illustrates the thoughts and feelings I want to inspire? How do I make something personal and conversational, but also with precision? You have to make people feel something before they will listen to you.

 Which item that we're carrying are you most proud of?

I love doing the year-long tarot readings. I treasure the moments when the same themes keep popping up and each time provide more clarity. Everyone I have done it for has become a personal friend of mine. You don’t go through something like that without bonding. I’ve gotten to know some amazing people that way.

 Is there anything you would like to branch out into either magickally or artistically?

The problem is I have too many branches already! RPGs, magick, and cooking already take up a lot of time. Writing novels and writing books about magick are really two separate things with much different approaches. I would like to learn some basic musical skills. I’m almost completely talentless in that department. I know I’ll never be great, but I just want to know enough to make a pleasing noise every once in a while. I do occasionally practice drawing and other graphic arts, but they are not my forte.

 Is there any advice you would like to offer from your own personal experience?

Do the work.

Research. Do magick. Contemplate. Repeat. There is no other way. You have to be doing magick. I would be happy if all of my customers learn to do their own tarot. I occasionally get readings from other magicians because another perspective can be useful. But nothing replaces being able to do it for yourself. The most powerful magick is always the magick you do for yourself. Know your limitations. If you know you don’t have the skills to build a magical tool, don’t be afraid to buy it. But if you have any inkling that you can do the work yourself, do that first.

[longluxe]

Superego definition psychology

#SUPEREGO DEFINITION PSYCHOLOGY SERIES#

#SUPEREGO DEFINITION PSYCHOLOGY SERIES#

Freud argued that personality is developed through a series of The most controversial, and least scientifically valid, part of Freudian theory is its explanations of personality development. A person creates music or art to sublimate sexual drives. Pushing anxiety-arousing thoughts into the unconsciousĪ person who witnesses his parents having sex is later unable to remember anything about the event.Ĭhanneling unacceptable sexual or aggressive desires into acceptable activitiesĪ person participates in sports to sublimate aggressive drives. Retreating to an earlier, more childlike, and safer stage of developmentĪ college student who is worried about an important test begins to suck on his finger. Jane is sexually attracted to friend Jake, but she claims in public that she intensely dislikes him. Making unacceptable motivations appear as their exact opposite Generating self-justifying explanations for our negative behaviorsĪ drama student convinces herself that getting the part in the play wasn’t that important after all. Table 11.4 The Major Freudian Defense Mechanismsĭiverting threatening impulses away from the source of the anxiety and toward a more acceptable sourceĪ student who is angry at her professor for a low grade lashes out at her roommate, who is a safer target of her anger.ĭisguising threatening impulses by attributing them to othersĪ man with powerful unconscious sexual desires for women claims that women use him as a sex object. We may wish to scream, yell, or hit, and yet our ego normally tells us to wait, reflect, and choose a more appropriate response. The id and the constraints of society contained in the superego ( Figure 11.6). The ego serves as the intermediary between the desires of The ego is the larg e ly c ons c i o us c ontroll e r orĭ ec ision - mak e r of p e rso n alit y. R e ality prin c ipl e-the idea that we must delay gratification of our basic motivations until the appropriate time with theĪppropriate outlet. In contrast to the id, which is about the pleasure principle, the function of the e gois based on the The superego strives for perfection, and when we fa il to live up to its demands we feel guilty. The superego tell us all the things that we shouldn’tĭo, or the duties and obligations of society. In stark contrast to the id, the superego represents our s e nse of morality and oughts. The id is why we smokeĬigarettes, drink alcohol, view pornography, tell mean jokes about people, and engage in other fun or harmful behaviors, often at the cost of doing more productive activities. Pl e asu r e prin c iple-the desire for immediate gratification of our sexual and aggressive urges. According to Freud, the id is driven by the The id is entirely unconscious, and itĭrives our most important motivations, including the sexual drive ( libido) and the aggressive or destructive drive ( Thanatos). 1 According to Freudian theory, the id is the c ompon e nt of personality thatįorms the basis of our most pr i miti v e impuls e s. These behaviors are often forbidden and lead to bad consequences, punishments, or feelings of guilt and remorse.Available under Creative Commons-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.įreud proposed that the mind is divided into three components: id, e go, and sup e r e go, and that the interactions andĬonflicts among the components create personality (Freud, 1923/1943). The conscience includes information about things that are viewed as bad by parents and society. Obeying these rules leads to feelings of pride, value, and accomplishment. These behaviors include those which are approved of by parental and other authority figures. The ego ideal includes the rules and standards for good behaviors. The superego provides guidelines for making judgments.Īccording to Freud, the superego begins to emerge at around age five. The superego is the aspect of personality that holds all of our internalized moral standards and ideals that we acquire from both parents and society-our sense of right and wrong. The last component of personality to develop is the superego. The ego functions in both the conscious, preconscious, and unconscious mind. The ego is the component of personality that is responsible for dealing with reality.Īccording to Freud, the ego develops from the id and ensures that the impulses of the id can be expressed in a manner acceptable in the real world. This aspect of personality is entirely unconscious and includes the instinctive and primitive behaviors.Īccording to Freud, the id is the source of all psychic energy, making it the primary component of personality. The id is the only component of personality that is present from birth. Sigmund Freud talks about three components of human psyche.

[defenestrata]

slowly slides in and places fred + all on ur desk :) time for Perishing !

sdjfsdhjfsdhi’m love you. okay so ladies and gents we are taking a trip away from london and korea and heading to the united states which is where this is set, massachusetts most specifically. onto freddie —

QUESTIONS FOR YOUR OCs

What’s the maximum amount of time your character can sit still with nothing to do?

a solid five minutes. he’s not hyperactive or anything, but just, the feeling of doing nothing is so awful to him. he has no chill. meditation isn’t real. also like, he sometimes gets little intrusive thoughts if he’s tired.

How easy is it for your character to laugh?

surprisingly easy ! fred laughs at a lot of things, despite how preppy and harsh he may seem at first. of course, half of it is either fake or a bit overenthusiastic but he’ll laugh. he’ll laugh at a lot of things. 

How do they put themselves to bed at night (reading, singing, thinking?)

usually studying for a bit — he does that before bed anyway. otherwise, it’s usually not that hard for him to fall asleep. he works hard and sleeps harder. 

How easy is it to earn their trust?

no one has ever earned frederick michael estelle’s full trust. not his father, not his mother, not his two step-mothers, not his brother, not any of his friends. it’s for the better that way, in his opinion. superficial trust for small things though, is easy to earn, so long as you’re a decent human being. 

How easy is it to earn their mistrust?

well, whatever someone has done really has to bother him on a very moral level in order for him to genuinely refuse to trust someone even superficially. otherwise, because he rarely shares his secrets or deep considerations, trust isn’t even a big deal to him. 

Do they consider laws flexible, or immovable?

at the beginning of his character development, he has an enormous respect for law, and considers them completely immovable. over time, he comes to understand the flaws of modern america and adopts a less extremist point of view. 

What triggers nostalgia for them, most often? Do they enjoy that feeling?

drives with packed cars. diners. marble floors. loads of things. fred’s childhood was peak americana, with an upper class vibe to boot. he spent a lot of time at dinner parties and in tuxedos, in debates, getting a convertible for his sixteenth birthday and so forth. what in generally triggers the most nostalgia for him is his home city ; boston. god, he loves that place, despite all its flaws. and he loves that feeling, especially because he can always relive many of his memories that are related to the city. 

What were they told to stop/start doing most often as a child?

fred was a good kid, to be quite honest. he was always determined to impress everyone around him, so he’d bend to their will if they wanted him to act a certain way. refinement? you got it. charisma? work up the charm. intelligence? bring it on. if anything, he had some frustration and anger issues in his teens, especially in between his father’s marriages, and he was told to shut up and deal with it. and that’s what he did. 

Do they swear? Do they remember their first swear word?

like a motherfucking sailor. he may be WASP-y but he’s seen how much high society curses, so go ahead. swearing is a more effective way of getting rid of anger than — breaking things, or whatever other people might do. and fred is bad at bottling things up. first swear word was probably ‘fuck’. a classic. and he has immense respect for classics. 

What lie do they most frequently remember telling? Does it haunt them?

fred doesn’t lie too often, but he does make a lot of false promises, mostly related to visiting his family. he hates going back home, which is unfortunate considering he studies less than an hour away from his hometown. he’s tried everything from the ‘i’m sick’ excuse to ‘declamation club’ to ‘broken ankle’ to avoid visits. 

How do they cope with confusion (seek clarification, pretend they understand, etc)?

perish. he’s a stubborn fool who will try to understand everything on his own terms, and if he gets an incomplete picture, too bad, he’ll live with it. although he knows he probably won’t get an incorrect picture in the first place, he’s just way too thorough for that. 

How do they deal with an itch found in a place they can’t quite reach?

get a friend to scratch it for him. duh. 

What color do they think they look best in? Do they actually look best in that color?

fred looks pretty good in sober colours, and its what he usually wears too. but, just as a wild card, he does look really, really, good in more adventurous choices, especially stark whites, blacks and even reds. but he’ll never wear them, he hates looking loud and attention-seeking. 

What animal do they fear most?

no animal. why the hell would you be scared of animals in new england —

How do they speak? Is what they say usually thought of on the spot, or do they rehearse it in their mind first?

extremely confident, and he’s well-capable of thinking as he talks without much hesitation. it’s really one of his best talents, making sense while giving great presentations with fantastic oration. he doesn’t need to rehearse jack. 

What makes their stomach turn?

people crying or screaming, it just has him totally taken aback, which he’s not as used to as you’d think. he is utterly incapable of handling debates in a rational manner if he’s being goddamn screamed at. 

Are they easily embarrassed?

surprisingly, yes. underneath that façade of utter and sheer confidence, he’s really concerned with maintaining that impression with others. he doesn’t take kindly to being humiliated or having his pride attacked. he won’t respond with embarassment as much as he’ll respond with unbridled rage. and angry fred is terrifying. 

What embarrasses them?

levity in situations which do not need it. so pranks, mocking jokes, being teased or belittled in public. compliments don’t embarass him one bit until they become on the subject of his looks. then he gets a little flushed, but flattered nonetheless.

What is their favourite number?

why does that even matter ?? ( it’s 9. ) 

If they were asked to explain the difference between romantic and platonic or familial love, how would they do so?

he’d bark at being asked to define familial love, he’d say it doesn’t exist. and then if you asked about platonic and romantic love he’d tell you to buzz off. it’s one of the questions he just doesn’t know how to answer. in his conception, if he’d want to kiss them and marry them, it’s romantic. 

Why do they get up in the morning?

because you don’t get rich and hit it big without fucking working. he’s actually really driven, half out of demonic pressures to do well, and half out of spite for his brother, who he has to out-do in every respect.

How does jealousy manifest itself in them (they become possessive, they become aloof, etc)?

jealous fred is the worst. he will get so aggressive and possessive and rude, with seemingly little control. however, it takes a lot to push him to that limit, and he’s usually good at warding off encroachers on what’s his before they even try to make a move. 

How does envy manifest itself in them (they take what they want, they become resentful, etc)?

there’s really only one thing that he’s envious about — the love and attention his parents give his elder brother nicholas who’s just as much of a prick as he is, except just a little less concerned with doing the right thing. and he’s pretty much made it his life’s goal to get to the world of finance quicker than nick and do better. 

Is sex something that they’re comfortable speaking about? To whom?

kind of ? he’s a hot-blooded teenager so it’s not like sex is something sinful or foreign to him, but he doesn’t really discuss it with people anyway because there’s no one he’s close enough to talk to about it. also, why would you talk about it anyway — it’s not even something worth discussing. 

What are their thoughts on marriage?

to summarise: marriage is great, but only if you’ve found the one. since finding your version of the ‘one’ is impossible, and will likely lead to at least two divorces that permanently fucksup your kid’s perceptions of family and marriage — don’t ever get married. @ his dad. 

What is their preferred mode of transportation?

his own car. that kind of freedom can’t be beat. 

What causes them to feel dread?

situations that he’s unprepared for, essentially. if some kind of curveball comes at him (and he didn’t know that there would be curveballs involved), he’ll panic. it’s why he needs his more inventive friends around to be at his best.

Would they prefer a lie over an unpleasant truth?

nah. rip the band-aid off. end the suffering quick. besides, it’s not like he’s had the privilege of knowing a lot of sweet lies over the course of his life.

Do they usually live up to their own ideals?

every now and then he gets something done that he’s really proud of, and that’s when he considers himself to have ‘lived up to his ideals’, but it’s usually only for the short term, and the gratification is there and gone in an instant. 

Who do they most regret meeting?

all his friends at uni. 

Who are they the gladdest to have met?

all his friends at uni. now figure that one out. 

Do they have a go-to story in conversation? Or a joke?

most of his stories are kind of posh experiences like country clubs and stuff, but he’s seen a lot of businessmen’s embarassing moments. he’s really good at anecdotal humour. 

Could they be considered lazy?

nah, def not. if he needs to get something done, he’ll get it done, with the maximum delay of a day or so. of course, that’s only when he’s feeling healthy and normal. if he’s reached a threshold of despair or whatever, then he’s way less productive. 

How hard is it for them to shake a sense of guilt?

easy tbh? if something was his fault then he makes sure to try and make up for it before the guilt starts weighing in on him. of course, if these matters are emotional then he takes a longer while to make up for it, so he starts Perishing sooner. 

How do they treat the things their friends come to them excited about? Are they supportive?

he … tries to be. it’s fine when someone comes up to him to chatter about their new favourite video game, but not when someone shows up excited about their new boyfriend or girlfriend or significant other. he’ll listen, sure — but he won’t really listen, y’know. 

Do they actively seek romance, or do they wait for it to fall into their lap?

he was highkey hoping that college would be the time when he finally experiences the mystery of love. but it’s not really looking that way — he has way too much coursework. 

Do they have a system for remembering names, long lists of numbers, things that need to go in a certain order (like anagrams, putting things to melodies, etc)?

fred’s memory is impeccable. he laughs in the face of your puny lists and phone notes. names and numbers are doable, but if things need to go a particular order, usually he can just brute force the memory in. just parrot it. 

What memory do they revisit the most often?

times with his first stepmom. she was the only one that actually tried to be more than just a wife to his dad, tried to be a mom. took him places he wanted to go, bought him stuff, baked cookies for his bake sales and accompanied him on school trips as a chaperone. she was the closest to a mom that fred will ever get.

How easy is it for them to ignore flaws in other people?

he can’t ignore them, really. it’ll always be there at the back of his mind that you’re loud or you’re irresponsible or that you’re arrogant. but that’s not all there is to you. so he’s pretty level headed in that respect. 

How sensitive are they to their own flaws?

not.. at all. he says he accepts constructive criticism but he doesn’t consider a lot of criticism constructive. he’s surprisingly bad at handling criticism. he just thinks he knows better than most people. 

How do they feel about children?

they’re okay. not great. he could do without them. 

How badly do they want to reach their end goal?

so. so. SO. badly. his end goal is to eventually surpass his elder brother in terms of material success without resorting to foul means. and by GOD he will do it. 

If someone asked them to explain their sexuality, how would they do so?

[ bo burnham voice ] straight…. white…. man

QUESTIONS FOR CREATORS

A) Why are you excited about this character?

he’s a fool. but he’s my fool. also he’s like…. a really old oc lmao i made him in like … 2014? and he was in middle school back then so it really feels like he’s grown with me as i shifted him to a college story. 

B) What inspired you to create them?

i wanted to make a vaguely contradictory kinda character where he’s a total mess and extremely capable at the same time. so he’s very productive, smart, efficient, but also has a short temper, panics in every situation that he’s not ready for, and so forth. 

C) Did you have trouble figuring out where they fit in their own story?

he was the sidekick to kazu, my mc. but by now each one of them stand on their own. 

D) Have they always had the same physical appearance, or have you had to edit how they look?

i think he was a ginger in the first draft. he’s got dirty blonde hair now. he’s also a bit more… muscular, shall we say. 

E) Are they someone you would get along with? Would they get along with you?

maybe? i’d think he was a prick to be honest. i feel like we’d get along only if we were forced to get to know each other. but otherwise we wouldn’t even want to meet. 

F) What do you feel when you think of your OC (pride, excitement, frustration, etc)?

he’s my idiot son. a combination of pride and frustration and amusement. 

G) What trait of theirs bothers you the most?

he truly needs to fucking RELAX like fred please not everything is a matter of personal pride and performance. 

H) What trait do you admire most?

he’s very sincere. surprisingly moral, wants to do things honestly and with integrity. the way he takes everything so seriously is honestly kind of cute sometimes. 

I) Do you prefer to keep them in their canon universe?

three cheers for unoriginality!

J) Did you have to manipulate or exclude canon factors to allow them to create their character?

ok i still don’t know what this question means but to be safe i’m gonna say no. 

[msramsey4-blog]

9/28/2018: Literacy & Play in Early Childhood, Moriah Ramsey

“Enriching and Assessing Young Children’s Multimodal Storytelling” By: Christy Wessel-Powell, Tolga Kargin, Karen E. Wohlwend, “Why Children Need Play” By: Deborah J. Leong & Elena Bodrova, “Building Language and Literacy Through Play” By: Scholastic

   All of the articles emphasized that play, structured and unstructured, is key to literacy and childhood development. In Leong & Bodrova’s article, they made the point to express the importance of “productive” play; because play enhances cognitive and social development skills, early childhood teachers must foster an environment that allows play in all content areas (2018). The Scholastic article, focuses on the benefits of play concerning language and literacy development as well. The Scholastic article guides teachers on how to enhance literacy development through a variety of props, themes and roles in student play, allowing students to negotiate about the play occurring (2018). Both of these articles lay foundational information on how play can develop social, emotional, and cognitive skills needed to enhance literacy. Lastly, the research done by Wessel-Powell, Kargin, and Wohlwend explored the advantages of “literacy playshops”, finding that multimodal uses of storytelling and assessments enabled students who were still struggling in literacy, to effectively write a play and perform it.

   A nugget of knowledge I gained from Leong & Bodrova’s article was about the developmental skills learned from early play environments. Leong & Bodrova stated that kids who have lots of play experience in their early years learn to “delay gratification and prioritize their goals and actions” (2018). I have never thought play to do that, but it seems looking back on my own experiences and observations, it could be true. The Scholastic interview made it clear that teacher involvement in student play, can transform students experiences, especially if too intrusive. The Scholastic article gave tips like, helping students expand play themes by introducing new experiences or assisting students to use props or objects in new innovative ways (2018). Its important to enable the students to play, without telling them how to play. The final nugget I found was discovered in Wessel-Powell, Kargin, & Wohlwends research. They shared that using multimodal forms of assessment empowered students that were struggling in literacy, to be “identified as successful literacy users” because their strategies aligned with play-based literacy (Wessel-Powell et. al., 2016). This nugget got my heart racing because the research results made it so clear how engaged and excited these students were with creating and sharing their story. It seemed they forgot that they even struggled with writing. All of these articles give me hope that their may be more play-based instruction implemented into literacy and really all subjects in early childhood education.

     After reading these articles, concepts from my Childhood Development and Infants Toddlers classes came rushing back. My professors were so passionate about encouraging play in every environment of childhood, even schools.  In the process of reflecting, I thought about how play is not only limited in schools but in the homes as well these days. This thought brought me to frustration, as I recalled the controversial “helicopter parenting” style. A term for controlling and overprotective parents, I found an article that explained that overprotective and intrusive parenting delays emotional development. These helicopter parents often do not allow neighborhood or outdoor free play out of fear of abduction, they push their children to be involved in sports and reach high academic standards, allowing no unstructured free time to play. There are constant parameters to a child’s ability to freely play without some sort of structure or supervision. Gone are the days it seems, where young children can play soccer in the streets and run barefoot through the woods. Looking at this current issue of helicopter parenting attached to developmental delays, I saw a parallel of teachers inhibiting imaginative free play in the classroom in fear of falling behind academically. I can see now that these articles must be created to show teachers, as well as parents how important play is for normal development. Teachers and parents have formed the idea that play is not beneficial to children, but that is certainly false. These articles dispel theories arguing against play. Our society must see the benefits of play to transform early childhood classrooms, as well as current trends in the home.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/how-helicopter-parenting-can-impede-childrens-development/   – Linked here is the article. If children are not able to play at school and unable to play at home delay in development will occur. Play does encourage literacy and personal development, so why should teachers and parents discourage it? I see from this exploration, that our society is so performance-driven that we have robbed children of their childhood by being so caught up in raising a productive, “successful” child. I hope more research is released to incorporate more play-based literacy in schools.

[thetldrplace]

Becoming Adults

I'm reading A Hunter Gatherer's Guide to the 21st century, by Bret Weinstein and Heather Heying. I regularly listen to their podcasts and always appreciate their views, so I bought the book. Perhaps the central theme for them, as evolutionary biologists, is that the rate of change- which they have termed hyper-novelty, is coming at us so fast right now, that we don't have time to adapt evolutionarily. That means that things have arisen in our culture that aren't productive adaptations to our environment.

Chapter 11, on Becoming Adults, had some really interesting observations.

"Rites of passage are useful as markers of transition- now you are a man, or today you become a woman."  

Adults should know how to feed and shelter themselves, be constructive and productive members of a group, and think critically. This knowledge doesn't magically accrue with age, it must be earned.  

"Rites of passage coordinate society with respect to what is expected of individuals at various stages of development, and they exist in two forms: temporal (age) and, loosely, merit (earned). Age is a rough guide to what a person should be able to do, and merit is a specific guide for what an individual is capable of."

Unfortunately, across the WEIRD (an acronym for Western Educated Industrialized Rich Democratic) cultures, many of these rites have been corrupted- loosely or inconsistently applied in the case of temporal rites, and largely gameable in the merit rites.

People who would call themselves adults can observe themselves critically and ask themselves: am I are taking responsibility for my own actions, am I outsourcing my thinking about my worldview? Am I ceding my responsibilities and making excuses when I do?

Merit rites teach us to think for ourselves, and convey that to society so that it knows what to expect of us.

(these inset sections contain both quotes and paraphrases)

For more reasons than I can possibly go into right now, these highlights speak to me in a bunch of ways that I have thought over the years. I love the formulation of rites being divided into two forms, temporal and merit. We have time markers- at 18 you become an adult. It's about where physical growth stops, so it's a decent temporal marker.  

But then we hear so many complaints about people learning how to "adult" even into their 30's. This is a merit marker that seems to be telling us many of those well into legal adulthood are NOT particularly prepared or adept at it, and have not legitimately earned the right to be considered "adults". Their bodies have reached maturity, but their emotional preparedness is retarded. At the same time, we’ve decided 8 year old's should be able to make life altering decisions about their bodies and their sexual identity..... unless it comes to consenting to sex, where they are still considered completely unable to understand the dynamics and therefore still 'children'.  

These are the corrupted rites spoken of: loosely and inconsistently applied.

The Market and Advice

The hyper-novelty, particularly the reach of economic markets, is making it more difficult to be an adult. The market is full of con-artists, who want you to ignore your responsibilities and instead spend money on their products. Delayed gratification isn't rewarded in the market, so junk everything shows up. "The aggregate of the market is therefore selling infantile values, which make you a desirable consumer but a poor adult."

The primary way marketers do this is to create dissatisfaction, and at the same time create the impression that others are more satisfied. This is facilitated by our natural obsession with narratives being addressed by a narrative-generating mechanism that is tailored to sell product- towards what advertisers want us to believe rather than what we need to know.

This ultimately means our children are growing up in a world designed to hurt them.  

There is a lot of advice, and a lot of voices telling us they know the way. People selling advice typically fall into four categories: Con artists, the confused, those that are correct but of finite applicability, and the universally useful.

Con artists and the confused appear to have dispensed with core beliefs altogether, preferring to navigate in an entirely social mode without reference to external reality. They have generated their ideas based on how they are received by their audience, not with how those ideas fit with reality.  

Those that are correct in their claims, but with limited applicability, you'll need to distinguish between what works for you and what doesn't.

Adopt the advice of those that are giving you universally applicable wisdom.  

While I have typically considered myself a pro-markets guy, I have to admit that there is much truth to this. Sometimes I wonder how much influence advertisers really have- because it seems to me that people adjust and adapt to them too- learning to ignore and tune them out. I think most of have learned to ignore advertising when we're online.

Some of it just comes down to common sense too.

I remember looking at buying a house back in the early 2000's as the market was starting to really take off. Banks were telling us we were qualified for 3 times the amount we were paying monthly for rent at the time. I had friends of mine that bought, rationalizing that 'things would work out'.  

I knew that we occasionally struggled to make the rent as it was, and it would be foolish to sign up for payments 2 or 3 times that amount just because a bank qualified us. So I used my brain and didn't sign on. Some of those friends lost their homes when the bubble crashed, and we came in and bought a home that was literally half the price it had been a year earlier.

The lesson here was that just because someone tried to sell me something, didn't mean I was at their mercy. I still had the ultimate say as to whether I would sign on or not. Yes, there are plenty of marketers selling all kinds of things, but that doesn't mean we are forced to buy any of it.  

Nor do I begrudge a company trying to sell their products.

That said, I also recognize that this IS having an impact on us as a society, and perhaps in a younger generation raised on these newer technologies, it's much harder to escape their grasp. I also recognize the difficulty in avoiding it.

I did really appreciate the articulation of the four types of sources for advice and how they operate. I have heard something like this from them during their podcasts, but seeing it written down makes it easier for me to retain. I like the exposure of people who are giving advice that only finds validation in the social sphere too. I wouldn't have thought of this on my own, but I have noticed a plethora of ideas that are only validated because a bunch of other people agree with them, even when they fly in the face of physical reality.  

Types of Reality

Many modern people seem to believe that changing people's opinions or perspectives is the same as changing reality. They see reality as a social construct. Con artists and the confused operate in this social plane, as opposed to an analytical one. How can you avoid becoming someone who assesses the world based on social responses rather than analysis? 1) Regularly engage the physical world, and 2) understand the value of close calls.

Engagement with the physical world

There is a merit to some postmodern approaches- understanding where our senses blind us and how we are mostly unaware of those biases. But how do you move from that to believing all reality is socially constructed? Have little experience in the world. Carpenters and electricians would never believe all reality is socially constructed. There are physical ramifications of physical actions.  "Every opinion is not equally valid, and some outcomes don't change just because you want them to. Social outcomes may change if you argue or throw a fit, but physical outcomes won't."

"Everyone, no matter how trapped they are in their body, with its particular flaws and strengths, has the opportunity to experience the world of actions and reactions in the physical world." "The more you move, therefore, within whatever your particular limits are, the more integrated, whole, and accurate your perception of the world is likely to be."

"You can fool a person, and they can fool you, but you can't fool a tree or a tractor, a circuit or a surfboard. So seek out physical reality, not just social experience." "The more time you spend pitting your intellect against realities that cannot be coerced with manipulation or sweet talk, the less likely you are to blame others for your own errors."

The benefits of close calls

If we look at the statement: My success is due to my hard work and intelligence; my failures are due to the system being rigged against me and bad luck.... we see the flaw. But most of us are motivated by some version of this in our lives. But believing in bad luck, and not good luck, makes it difficult to learn from our mistakes.

Take every close call- even the ones that went your way, and ask what you learned... what the lesson could teach you.

Most of the time, we are taken back if someone dares ask us this after something went wrong. It will usually be understood as accusatory, when what we want is sympathy. But it would be more productive to learn from what just happened in order to decrease the chances of it happening again.

"Having these close calls is part of the experience necessary to grow up. If your child is made totally safe, living a life with no risk, then you have done a terrible job of parenting. That child has no ability to extrapolate from the universe. If you, as an adult, are totally safe, you are probably not reaching your potential."

Since I'm an artist, I can probably accuse myself of operating in a realm dependent more on social acceptance than physical feedback. What really determines how much my art is worth? How much others like it.  

But I wasn't always an artist. I worked in construction before that as a mason- both concrete and brick, block and stone. In construction fields, you have to build stuff that works. A retaining wall can collapse if the work isn't done correctly. The validity of the construction isn't dependent on whether someone in front of a room thinks it works. The validity of the construction is dependent on physical rules, and these things aren't socially constructed. I wouldn't want my house built by someone who had "other ways of knowing" as their guide for construction, I want the house constructed according to the physical rules we know.

The benefits of close calls was actually a new thing for me, and I found myself having to ask IF I too have engaged in that type of thinking. I probably have, but I don't think it's been very much. Nonetheless, I like the idea of taking stock after a close call- even one where things worked out, to see how I got so close to the edge and how I can avoid having another close call as I go.  

[tombeane-blog]

Let's Just Admit It

No one you know needs anything for Christmas this year.

First, many, if not most Americans are way richer than they know or they will admit. Poor people have stuff that even the very wealthy could only dream of 30 years ago. (Check out how many homeless have smartphones; but I'll save that topic for another time.)

No Body needs No Thing.

They haven't really needed anything for Christmas for years now. That's one of the main reasons it is so stressful to Christmas shop anymore. If you are like me, you not only don't know what they need or want, you don't know what size they wear or even what their favorite color is.

In days of yore, if you knew someone pretty well, it was fairly easy to shop for their presents. Especially family members. Kids? Well you would just tell them to put the stuff they wanted on their Santa List. And adults would start saying to each other in early December, "If you are thinking of a Xmas present for me, you could get me a thingamajig or a nice designer whatnot."

Reasons for today's conundrum? - affluence, cowardice, delayed gratification, pandering, guilt, whatever.

Take the kids(please). Kids didn't used to get things bought for them every time a parent or grandparent left the house. Birthdays, Christmas or some other special event was pretty much it except for things they needed - like underwear or gummy bear vitamins. They had their toys. Boys would be out in the woods playing with sticks and rocks. Girls could play hop scotch year round.

Kids are spoiled by parents and grandparents and society (You are special! You deserve deserve deserve!) I'm as bad as anyone.

Whether we have a little too much money or are afraid to say no or are just pandering so the kids will think of us as cool - I don't know, maybe a little of all of it. Kids get stuff all the time. Things they think they need. Things they think they want. Things we think they need or think they should want. Sometimes they aren't even on the trip - we just bring them back stuff. "Hey, I was at the mall and I saw this and thought you would like it."

And no one, including me, exercises their delayed gratification muscles anymore.

It used to be that somewhere between Halloween and Thanksgiving everyone went into delayed gratification mode. Delaying purchases unless it was something that couldn't be put off. (Like, unless we had just discovered that we didn't have, and desperately needed, a toilet bowl plunger.) We would just let someone know so they could put it on their Christmas shopping list for us.

Not anymore. If there is something we need or want we just grab our mask and crank up the Toyota or slip on our mask and log onto Amazon. The middle of January, the end of June or two days before Christmas - "I want, I need, I'll go get."

By the time kids become teens or young adults, they want to pick out their own clothes and are gonna be disappointed by that "My Little Pony" scarf or those jeans that are two sizes too big. "Don't worry, you'll grow into them."

Less than twenty four hours after a new video game is released, your kids, my grandkids, your cousin's siblings and every gamer under the age of 50 has already bought it, installed it, and faced the final 'Boss Battle'.

Your grandson already has a baseball glove, a basketball, a skateboard, 300 video games and a smartphone. He really isn't interested in "'Rock 'Em, Sock 'Em Robots" no matter how much you tell them what great fun it was.

Trust me, unless you want to give your granddaughter a nose ring or pre-pay for an IPHONE XXIV - you will guess wrong.

Adults are no better. The ladies in your inner circle already have a full set of chafing dishes, butter warmers, toaster cozies and grinder thingies in the back of their kitchen cabinets. Your son-in-law has all the 'guy stuff' he needs unless you want to spring for a new Harley. And just so you know, he doesn't wear ties to work any more.

Nobody needs anything anymore, no-how no-now no-ever. If you look at the Pyramid Of Needs, All our levels are filled, stacked and stuffed and we just keep balancing more needless stuff on the tippy top.

But we don't give up when it comes to Christmas. We buy boxes containing expensive things, cheap things and joke things just to fill up space under the tree and make sure nobody has less than 26 presents to open. We might as well skip the tree and just put the presents directly into the closet. That's where many will end up anyway. Or exchanged. Or re-gifted.

But wait, there's hope. Here's how we can reclaim the true Christmas spirit and reduce the Holiday stress at the same time.

Get a few dozen empty boxes of different sizes. Wrap them with festive, holiday themed paper and attach fancy ribbons and bows.

Then treat them like Christmas Decorations. Yep, just like the wreath, the tree, the lights and the elf-on-the-shelf. Put these festive 'gifts' under the tree and enjoy the wonderful holiday look. Stack 'em high.

Christmas morning open up little envelopes from Mom, Dad, Sisters, Brothers, Aunt Em, Meema and Santa - all of which contain Amazon Gift Cards or good old American Greenbacks.

Then everyone sits around the tree and starts a new Christmas Tradition happily sharing stories about the wonderful things they are going to buy.

Prompting you to exclaim, "I had NO idea you were interested in Falconry! Where are you going to keep it?"

And then on January 1, take down the tree, the Christmas lights, all the decorations and the faux gifts. Put 'em all back in the garage for next year.

Everybody wins, especially us old Christmas Curmudgeons.