#the spreadsheet is so hard to read though so I thought I'd post this here

[jaybug-jabbers]

Ubausagi, the foster bunny

More information about my favorite gen 3 beta pokemon revealed in the past few days!

Name: ウバウサギ（Ubausagi)

Other name canidates: チルニー (Tilnny), オウサギ (Ousagi)

Category Name: こづれ (Foster Pokemon)

Pokedex Entries:

First version:

If it has no offspring, it will seek out a small living thing and place it onto its back. It brushes its teeth by gnawing on hard objects.

Second version:

It wraps its tail around itself to make a cradle and raises its baby. Sometimes other creatures are mixed in.

Third version:

It can run 50 meters in 7 seconds flat. Sometimes, it may accidentally drop its child. It brushes its teeth by gnawing on hard objects.

Height (Meter/Ft) & Weight (kg/lbs): .8 (2'7")/12.5 (27.6)

Type: Normal

My own notes/rambling: So I'm thrilled we have the backsprite now since it really clarifies what's going on here; the green tail is being tilted forwards over the pokemon's back and holds its babies inside like a little clamshell cup. The tail is green and looks like it has the spiky lobes of a leaf to me, which makes me wonder if this pokemon would make more sense as a Normal/Grass instead of pure Normal type? The animal is modeled after a rabbit (ウサギ or 'usagi' means 'rabbit' and two of the proposed names place pre-fixes of some kind in front of the word rabbit). So it seems to be a rabbit with an especially large, green, leaflike scooping tail it can use to carry its young.

By far the cutest aspect of this beta pokemon is that it's the "foster pokemon" and its dex entry says if it doesn't have young of its own, it will take care of whatever little critter it finds. Even if it does have its own babies to tend to, it may end up looking after others as well. CUTE. And some wild animals do end up doing this in real life, believe it or not.

The dex entries about its speed and its constantly growing teeth that must be kept clean and short by frequent gnawing makes sense, as that matches up with rabbits.

I love the zippy stripes on this bunny, and I find its colors very pretty. Perhaps not very flashy in the world of pokemon, but a nice simple black with white stripes look can be really appealing. Kind of reminds me of tapirs.

Anyway!! I love them with all my heart.

[fuckthisshitimin]

@edenfrompluto, you asked my thoughts on "Connor Dyer", aka "CD09663", aka "Blorbo From Our Spreadsheet"...

Thank you so much for asking. Took me a few days to answer because 1) I don't have any info to add to the discussion, only speculations and not new ones 2) This made me want to re-listen to everything. Instead I re-read all the transcripts in a haste.

The "Alice's deadname" theory is cool alright but the "Alice's secret 2nd brother" theory? It is a punch in the gut and I love it.

Unfortunately, my ears don't catch the glitches in the audio that may-or-may-not indicate lying (unless I try very very hard) and I didn't find transcripts that included all of those (if there are, please send a link!!!! someone making the lord's work out there?) so I can't use that to speculate.

What we know about Alice:

she's been working here the longest, almost a decade.

she went to Nottingham with Sam (does this count as extrapolating?)

she is very insistent Sam does the job, nothing less (!!!), nothing more

both her parents died after college, and then they dropped out of touch with Sam

she hooked Sam up with the job

She's in the same age group as Sam so somewhere in her thirties, which means she got the job soon after uni - and she went to a good, hard-to-get-in university - a job Lena said "it would be difficult not to be [overqualified for]". If I was to make a timeline, I'd say she started here after her parents' death (and it wouldn't be weird if their death was weird), so, around the time they dropped out.

Now, when The Magnus Institute is first brought up, she doesn't act like she's familiar with the name, so Sam probably hadn't mentioned it to her before.

Alice very clearly signifies that she doesn't want Sam sniffing around. Though, if Celia's word is to be trusted, Alice described Sam as being "an overachiever, obsessive, a bit repressed, nosey, kind of a recluse, and very easy to wind up." This is not the profile of a friend I'd want to recommend to my "horror government file-first-ask-questions-never" job. The commands "just do the work, don't think about it, don't do research" are in direct contradiction with how she sees him. Now, he was being pathetic and not having a job, so desperate times... Though we have no idea what this "most pathetic vague post" was, and if it mentioned "the incident" at work enough to make her think he had an Encounter, it could have played into the decision.

I really don't have much to add to the theory except how compelling it is; if she is here to find out more about her brother (maybe after discovering things about him when her parents died?), why not let Sam in on things? If it's to protect him, why drag him here in the first place?

Also, Alice has some relationship with the computers here. She's the only one on good terms with Colin, got along with Teddy enough to still have a drink with him after he quit, named the voices - Gwen accuses her of finding "speakers" just to get on her nerves, so she thinks that's something Alice can somewhat control.

So, yeah. Thank you for asking my thoughts, though it's more about Alice than this mysterious "Connor".

Also, I don't know how hard it is to get a name change in the UK, or how hard it was in the 2000s/2010s, but being currently in my 20s, I know the deadname of most trans people I've had long-term intimate relationship with, either needed them to send packages, saw them accidentally on official stuff, heard them being deadnamed by family, some of my friends also heard and saw my deadname when my school made a mistake... So if the document Sam recieved is the one we have and "Connor Dyer" is Alice's deadname, there might have been a chance he'd recognized it? I don't know. Thinking about this has been fun while waiting for the new episode.

THAT DAMNED SPREADSHEET

DOES ANYONE TO HEAR ABOUT MY ADVENTURE IN THE SPREADSHEET?

Cause I'm pretty damned sure I know what getting "High" on Milgram means.

Talking about his being rejected by the Magnus Institute, Samama said:

[That definitely feels like when it all started. […] Well, after that it all just went downhill. Didn’t get into Oxford, so I went to Nottingham.]

And that does not sound like what one would say about something that happened when they were, like, eight. So I went to take another look at the spreadsheet. Of course I was wrong, because The Magnus Institute burned in 1999, so he couldn’t have been more than nine, but I found out other stuff.

A thing that bugs me in how I’ve read some discussing the spreadsheet is that Sam has the highest empathy score, and that it made him “too nice/good” for the Institute’s purposes (not necessarily this directly but it has been implied, including in the “recruiting future avatar theories, and… well, implying that low empathy makes you more likely to become a literal monster is quite disgusting, actually).

First, I think we got one thing wrong on the Kohlberg column. Since they are kids, it doesn’t seem shocking that they’d be around stages 1 to 3 of his “Six stages of moral development”; but it doesn’t say Stage 1, 2 or 3 it says Level 1, 2 or 3, and I don’t think it’s a mistake.

His six stages are divided into three levels: Pre-Conventional (1,2), Conventional (3,4) and Post-Conventional (5,6).

People in stages 1 and 2 (Level 1) have a sense of morality that is linked to the direct consequences of their actions on themself — stage 1 is “don’t hit the dog because you’ll be punished” and stage 2 “give her half your banana and you’ll get half her chocolate bar” (very simplified).

People on stages 3 and 4 (Level 2) have internalized their surrounding’s sense of morality and act accordingly — stage 3 being “I’ll get a good grade in being a person by following the rules” and stage 4 “the rules I learnt are true and real, failing to follow them is Wrong and upholding them is Right” (idem).

People on stages 5 and 6 (Level 3) have a personal sense of morality that is critical of societal norms — stage 5 being “there are rules, and those rules can and should be changed through compromise to be fair to the greatest number”, and stage 6 “unfair rules should not be followed, direct consequences like punishment are irrelevant when it comes to deciding to do what it right” (very, very, very simplified).

If I’m right, the spreadsheet is so much more understandable.

First thing I wanted to do was put numbers on how singular Sam’s results are:

He gets “High” on both Milgram and Asch when the overwhelming tendency is that the higher your other scores are, the more likely you are to get “Low”, and the numbers were, indeed, that among the 49 children who scored “High” on both, 33 were in Piaget’s stage 1, 15 were in stage 2 and only Sam was in stage 3.

The 33 kids who were in stage 1 are the opposite of Sam:

(Abbreviating so it’s easier to compare values but P=Piaget, K=Kohlberg, Ps=Prosocial, S-A=Sally-Anne, U=Ultimatum, EI=Empathy Index)

33K: (P) Stage 1 :: (K) Level 1 :: (Ps) Low :: (S-A) Fail :: (U) Unfair :: (EI) ≥62%

Sam: (P) Stage 3 :: (K) Level 3 :: (Ps) High :: (S-A) Pass :: (U) Fair :: (EI) 98%

So that’s weird. And when I went to filter by Kohlberg levels… absolutely no kid that was on “Level 2” scored High on Milgram and Asche.

In fact, among the 99 kids on Kohlberg Level 2, none got “Low” for prosocial, none got “High” on Milgram, only 2 got “High” on Asch.

And when we read “Level 2 (Conventional Morality) instead of “Stage 2 (Pre-Conventional Morality, what benefits me directly)” we can make sense of this: 

“To reason in a conventional way is to judge the morality of actions by comparing them to society's views and expectations. […] Conventional morality is characterized by an acceptance of society's conventions concerning right and wrong. At this level an individual obeys rules and follows society's norms even when there are no consequences for obedience or disobedience. Adherence to rules and conventions is somewhat rigid, however, and a rule's appropriateness or fairness is seldom questioned.” (by Kohlberg himself, from Wikipedia)

Adults can be Level 2, by the way. Adults can even be Level 1. Subjects of the Milgram experiment are displaying peak Level 2 behavior.

“High” on Milgram is “Did not electrocute/Disobeyed”

“High” on Asch is “Did not conform”

GOSH THAT IS SATISFYING

Bonus: the average empathy index is 79,1%, the median is 82% with 116 kids below 82%, 13 kids at 82% and 120 kids above. Of the 116 kids below the median, 11 got “Low” on Milgram. Of the 13 median kids, 3 got “Low” on Milgram. Of the 120 kids above, 91 got “Low”.

If we take the average instead, of the 163 kids more empathetic than the average, 100 got “Low” on Milgram, and 2 got “High”, of the 86 less empathetic than the average, 5 got “Low” and 59 for “High” on Milgram.

So actually here, low empathy is inversely correlated to willingness to hurt if ordered to.

And it makes sense. Low empathy is often associated with anti-social personality disorder, autism, depression — and you know what’s very associated with anti-social personality disorder? Disobedience.

Now I have to make another post about the weird kids in red's names.