#which is the explanation for that behavior to oversimplify it

[gayofthefae]

Oh yeah remember when Finn said Mike was trying to be normal.

What the fuck was that. Because he spent all his time in Hawkins with Eddie freakin “the freak” Munson emphasizing to Lucas how he did not care about being cool.

The only other thing he did all season was try to tell El he....oh

#the only even stretch of an argument would be that him trying to be normal was preventing him from telling her #but his emotional repression was not rooted in social pressure #(at least not any focused on in the show) #which is the explanation for that behavior to oversimplify it #so this comment was to say that not only is SOMETHING *preventing* or working against him internally but that that thing is socially frowned #upon and therefore cannot be admitted #likely why he didn't talk much in detail about it with will #the only thing he did that wasn't be proudly abnormal was attempt to and tell el he loved her #the only other thing he did was get closer to will tbh and that was NOT him taking the 'peer pressured socially acceptable' path #mike wheeler #byler proof #! #periodically i just remember this and go crazt #*crazy #the fun part about him being sidelined (for buildup but the truth stands about his role in this season from plots to screentime) is that #there are only so many options for what something like that could be describing #2. there are 2. absolute max if you're including episode 1 #stranger things #byler #st cast

[aplpaca]

I just think everyone should be aware that the definition of Species as being "group of organisms that can interbreed and produce fertile offspring" as is often given in biology classes is super oversimplified and also kinda hand-wavy.

Like the example given a lot of times is the fact that horses and donkeys can make mules, but mules are infertile, therefore horses and donkeys are different species. But like one), this entirely ignores the fuckery plants can do while still being considered different species scientifically, and 2) this also ignored that a lot of animals considered to be different species can and do produce fertile offspring. In fact, it may be *more* common for hybrids to be fertile than not.

It's hard to concretely and succinctly Define what gets considered to be separate species, because while genetic compatibility obv plays an important role (for example, lions and house cats are def separate) other things are also considered such as habitat, behavior, appearance, and frequency of hybrids in the wild if present (even if said hybrids are fertile).

For example: wolves, coyotes, and domestic dogs can all interbreed and create fertile offspring. But the three groups *in general* have different habitats, behaviors, and appearances, occupy different ecological niches, and non-manmade hybrids are far less frequent than offspring with both parents being from a single group. So while the edges can and do bleed together (esp historically for coyotes in the eastern US), it's more accurate and convenient to treat them as different groups that gave overlap than as a single overaching group with very different subsets.

Anyway this started as an intro for me to give an example of a cool hybrid and kinda turned into its own mini essay explanation but anyway there's a recorded instance of a female Common Black Hawk and a male Red-shouldered Hawk successfully mating and raising young in California in 2014 and the baby looked like a cool little goth guy

Common Black Hawk vs Red-Shouldered Hawk:

The pair doing courtship flights and hanging out at their nest:

(huge goth girlfriend + smaller orange guy)

Their offspring:

Also there's been sightings of other birds thought to be Common Black Hawk/Red-shouldered Hawk hybrids (at least 400 cedible sightings on ebird, though its unclear how many are the same individual(s) seen by different people), though it hasn't been 100% confirmed due to not having genetic samples and only seeing the adult birds and not its parents. The ones in these pics are adults, while the offspring in the above pic is a juvenile, which is why they look so different

Also here's a potential hybrid at its nest with its partner, a non-hybrid Red-shouldered Hawk

Ebird link

#birds #ecology #animals #lookit these guys #i love them

[azora-mounir]

The Law of Attraction is a concept that suggests that positive or negative thoughts bring positive or negative experiences into a person's life. It is often associated with the idea that if you focus your thoughts and intentions on what you want, the universe will respond by delivering it to you. However, there is no scientific evidence to support the Law of Attraction, and it is considered a pseudoscience by the scientific community for several reasons:

Lack of Empirical Evidence: Despite its popularity and widespread belief, there is no empirical scientific evidence that demonstrates the existence of the Law of Attraction. Claims about its effectiveness are largely anecdotal.

Misinterpretation of Coincidence: Many of the reported successes attributed to the Law of Attraction can often be explained as coincidences or the result of natural events. People tend to focus on instances when their desires appear to manifest while ignoring countless instances when they do not.

Cognitive Biases: Human cognition is subject to various biases, such as confirmation bias and hindsight bias. These biases can lead individuals to interpret events as evidence of the Law of Attraction when they may have other explanations.

Attribution Errors: People tend to attribute positive outcomes to their own thoughts and intentions while attributing negative outcomes to external factors. This selective attribution can create the illusion that the Law of Attraction is at work.

Simplistic Understanding of Psychology: The Law of Attraction oversimplifies complex psychological processes. It ignores the influence of unconscious thoughts, emotions, and behaviors that play a significant role in shaping our lives.

Ignoring External Factors: The Law of Attraction often neglects external factors and circumstances that can influence outcomes. It assumes that thoughts alone can override external realities, which is not supported by scientific understanding.

Failure to Account for Randomness: The world is inherently unpredictable, and random events can significantly impact outcomes. The Law of Attraction does not account for the role of randomness in life events.

No Mechanism of Action: There is no clear mechanism through which the Law of Attraction is supposed to operate. It lacks a scientific explanation for how thoughts can influence external events.

In summary, the Law of Attraction is not supported by empirical evidence, and its claims are often based on anecdotal experiences and misinterpretations of events. While positive thinking and goal-setting can have a psychological impact on an individual's motivation and behavior, they do not have the mystical or magical properties attributed to them by the Law of Attraction. It is essential to approach such concepts with critical thinking and skepticism and rely on evidence-based approaches to achieve personal goals and well-being. A similar explanation can be applied to spells and other forms of magical or supernatural practices when assessing their effectiveness. Just as with the Law of Attraction, it's essential to consider the following factors:

Coincidence: Many perceived successes of spells or magical practices can be coincidental. People may attribute a positive outcome to a spell when, in reality, it may have been due to natural events or random chance.

Selective Attention: People tend to focus on and remember instances when their spells seem to work while overlooking those times when they do not. This selective attention can create a biased perception of effectiveness.

Placebo Effect: The placebo effect occurs when a person experiences a perceived benefit from a treatment or intervention because they believe it will work. In magical practices, belief and expectation can play a significant role in the reported outcomes.

Confirmation Bias: People tend to seek out and interpret information that confirms their existing beliefs while ignoring or discounting information that contradicts them. This bias can reinforce the belief in the effectiveness of spells.

Attribution Errors: Individuals may attribute positive outcomes to their spells while attributing negative outcomes to external factors or other explanations. This attribution bias can lead to a skewed perception of spell effectiveness.

Random Events: Randomness is an inherent part of life, and unpredictable events can impact outcomes. Spells may not have a causal relationship with the events that occur, but people may believe they do.

Psychological Factors: Belief in the effectiveness of a spell can influence behavior and decision-making, potentially leading to actions that increase the likelihood of a desired outcome.

It's important to approach claims of spell effectiveness with a critical and skeptical mindset, just as with any other supernatural or pseudoscientific practice. While spells and magical rituals may have personal or psychological significance for individuals and can serve as tools for focusing intentions and goals, their efficacy in causing external events to change is not supported by scientific evidence.

Individuals who practice spells and magic should consider the role of belief, psychology, and cognitive biases in their experiences and interpretations of outcomes. It's also crucial to maintain a balanced perspective and be open to alternative explanations for events in one's life.

#law of attraction #skeptic studies #spirituality #self awareness #psychology #witchcraft #spellwork #human behavior #behavioral science

[thepaperqueendom]

A few thoughts on Wednesday Addams.

A lot of people rn are discussing if the character is autistic - and maybe she is. It's a nice thought.

As someone who's probably on the spectrum herself (not officially diagnosed yet), I relate to her for a different reason though, and I think there might be another explanation for her behavior.

I believe old Tim just wanted to make a goth character who's a bit of an asshole for once*.

[* I know I'm oversimplifying this, as he didn't create the character and didn't even produce all episodes, but bear with me.]

He's worked on anchoring the macabre in the mainstream for decades, coming up with quirky but very loveable characters that are definitely goth. For me, as a kid, as for many other goths I know, his movies were a huge gateway to the aesthetic, I just didn't know back then that it would lead to me identifying wholeheartedly with the Dark Scene (to use the umbrella term common in German, "Schwarze Szene") as an adult.

If you're part of the scene, at least in my circles, you always try to stay approachable. Show society that you're not a menace, you just like what you like. You go out of your way to be extra polite and poised to make a good impression and elevate the reputation of "those terrible goths". See also: Gothic Charm School and, in general, the work of Jillian Venters aka The Lady of the Manners.

And sometimes, you just get fed up. You find yourself wanting to be elitist and shitty and deliberately creepy or off-putting to the "normies". You want to go back to gatekeeping the scene because it's yours, your own, your precious... not some fad for those who used to hate you for it. If you're a goth reading this, don't deny it!

Nevermore Academy is - in quite a bubblegummy and cute way that instantly reminded me of Monster High and other mainstream-y spooky infiltrations of recent years - every alt kid's dream already.

Wednesday should thrive there and feel right at home from the first minute, which is also what her parents expect, but instead, her first reaction is to sneer at everyone and everything, to try and keep her hard-earned status of weirdness and outcast-ness even among werewolf and vampire peers.

Because if you've been rejected by society long enough, your loner status becomes your own after a while, your sanctuary, your pride.

TL;DR: Wednesday is blunt and abrasive and antisocial not (just) because she's autistic, but because she's _proud_ of it, and because it's _fun_ sometimes, and because, after making goth a family-friendly household brand for so many years, Tim Burton just wanted to enjoy being a rude elitist deadpan goth for a bit. Also: the famous dance?! That's not Wednesday being weird or stimming, that's literally every goth club on earth, always!

#wednesday #netflix wednesday #tim burton #gothgoth #gothic musings #wednesday addams

[a-god-in-ruins-rises]

I'm asking this in good faith because it's something I've always struggled with as a new follower of Hellenism but how do you interpret all the myths where the gods do immoral things?

yeah. this is obviously a complex issue. and christians who oversimplify it are as bad faith and cringe as atheists who oversimplify christianity. i could easily point to questionable shit in the bible and be like "kinda fucked up bro". but obviously that would miss all kinds of complex rationalizations (justified or not). it's a shallow interpretation of things and says a lot more about the accuser than the accused. but as was pointed out, i was foolish to expect any genuine engagement on this side of tumblr.

with that out of the way, let's get to your question. so the first and most obvious way to approach this question (and imo the least interesting) is that the originators of these myths simply lived in a different culture where rape was okay. i don't think this is very compelling though, because they definitely understood rape to be wrong. at least rape of women within their in-group. rape of the out-group is another thing, but that's normal for pretty much every society at the time. even ancient israelites, god's "chosen" people. the bible has passages outlining how the israelites are to take women of conquered people. point is, they didn't see rape in all instances as morally wrong. there is no "thou shall not rape" commandment. in any case, i generally find moralizing about history very boring so i don't want to focus on this too much.

another major issue here i think is that most people are coming into paganism from a christian background and so their default assumption is that your beliefs require literalism if they're genuine. this has always seemed a bit silly to me. as if christians are somehow more enlightened because they literally believe in talking snakes and the world being created in literally 6 days and literally believe a man built a boat that could fit every animal and that men used to live centuries and so on. but the primitive pagans?? ha! they didn't even literally believe their myths. they thought of them as allegories hiding deeper, symbolic meaning! what a bunch of fools!

so the idea is that the ancients didn't believe the god's literally came down and took physical form and literally raped women. these were myths to explain the origins of heroic bloodlines or a cosmological explanation for other gods/principles or perhaps simply narrative devices to instigate some drama. because it's important to remember a lot of myths as we know them are explicitly inventions of poets created for the sake of entertainment. or sometimes they explain some aspect of life or the world around them.

hesiod's theogony even opens with the muses saying "we know how to tell many believable lies, but also, when we want to, how to speak the plain truth.” so were the muses telling the truth? or were they lying? a mix of both? there's no way to know! we just take what we can get and make the most of it. the ancient greeks were comfortable with not knowing everything.

again, too many people come at this from a christian perspective. they are expecting the gods in myths to be moral role-models and for them to lay out commandments about acceptable codes of behavior but that's not how ancient morality worked. ancient morality was more philosophical than religious (this is actually kind of a false dichotomy because the ancients saw religion and philosophy as entwined) and there were a great many different schools of thought about it. there were actually some greeks who did believe the gods were purely good and that they were models of moral righteousness and the myths were wicked lies. which is another point: the ancients weren't a monolith. there were all kinds of different perspectives.

and here's another point that i've seen a lot of christians utilize for their own god; who are we to criticize the gods anyway? who are we to question their actions? do we know better than them? the god of the bible sometimes comes off as cruel and capricious, but christians are eager to handwave it as all a part of god's plan or how he's the font of morality so anything he does is good and just by definition. who are we to judge the judge? is this not the highest form of hubris?

i'm not saying i find this point convincing, but it's an argument. so far i haven't really given my own personal views on the matter (i will in a moment). i'm just pointing out the issue is complex and there are many different ways of approaching it. the points made above aren't even all the possible points. the ancient greeks debated these matters extensively. and many christians adopted these debates and applied them to their own god and are still debating them today (like the euthyphro dilemma, for example). and they've had two thousand years to work out all the kinks in their theology and apologetics, and again even to this day there is much disagreement. so i think you can hardly fault the greeks for not having some definitive answer to these very complex questions. we can definitely get into the weeds of it and examine these questions (which we will on my discord server someday) but that's outside the scope of this ask right now.

personally, i understand myths allegorically. true, but not literally so. i don't believe gods became physical beings and physically raped people. i think these are just allegories for divine inspiration, the imbuing of divine blood within heroes, or as cosmological explanations for aspects of the world. also sometimes myths are just good, complex stories with the possibility of all kinds of interpretations.

[voxxyboxxy]

Demonosophy: Deeper Explanation, How to Incorporate, and Common Misconceptions

Table of Contents

I.Deeper Explanation

II.How To Incorporate

III.Common Misconceptions

Deeper Explanation

Hello! If you remember, not to long ago I made a post that had a very general breakdown of the differences in the three main terms used to describe different types of Demon work. You can find that post HERE. I do suggest reading it if you haven’t already for this post, because here I’m diving deeper into Demonosophy, but since I have already laid the foundation in that post, we’ll be building off of it! So, for a deeper explanation of Demonosophy, let’s start with the word.

Demon-osophy. Demon Philosophy. What’s philosophy? By actual definition- it is the study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence, especially when considered as an academic discipline.

Okay what are you saying? A lot of people relate philosophy to ideas on how the world works. Which isn’t wrong but it’s grossly oversimplified. It’s not just an idea oof how the world or people work-it is usually the theoretical basis of a particular branch of knowledge or experience. Which means philosophy doesn’t stop at “I believe a lying dog with continue to lie” it actually doesn’t stop until we get to the actual root cause of the behavior.

For example, philosophers we know commonly from Ancient Greece and Rome. We hear the name and go “oh wow super old but super smart!” But it was more than just “knowing” how the world functioned at the time. There were criteria and a lot of public backlash if you were just wrong. One philosopher faced such when he stated man is but a featherless bipedal animal. Some took the feathers off a chicken and brought it to him: “Behold-a man.”

Because… that’s apparently all it took to be a man. You had two legs, no feathers. Well a defeathered chicken also fits that and *drum roll* he was laughed at for it because it’s not philosophical-it’s an observation that could be made by anyone. That’s where philosophy is different that just observations there’s actual study behind it. It is very common vernacular to say “my philosophy is _!” And it just be a general observation, but we use a lot of words in ways they weren’t originally intended or their actual definition becomes lost to us in years changing in how we speak. That’s why we’ll see some words with an archaic definition with one now that is completely different.

But the only reason I bring this definition up is that’s where we get the actual meaning behind Demonosophy. It’s not just observations on life based on the demonic presence. It is the actual teachings and indoctrination (archaic definition) of demons, not just “I’m a demonolater and I see life this way”

So breaking this down further just ever so slightly; we’re looking at the actual teachings of demons. Which we all know Asmodeus wasn’t in front of a classroom chalkboard explaining math formulae-but many demons are attributed with a form of math, science, reading or so and this is why. That is typically their philosophical standings. Beelzebub for example is heavily connected to science, on top of that not just science but where science and magic met. Think of alchemy, where they couldn’t actually rationalize why this was happening so it was labeled magic, that’s another history lesson in its own, but this is something Beelzebub would have philosophy on. Science and magic are meeting. These ideas typically have names that you’ve probably even heard regularly but had no idea was linked to philosophy! Think of things like Nihilism, Stoicism, Rationalism and so on. These are all the names of philosophies. Many people don’t even realize that it’s that simple.

And Demonosophy is just that. It really is that simple, but it requires archaic definitions to break down, as well as accepting something like the way we use a word isn’t the only right way. This is usually paired with adjusting our thoughts regarding the word because we’re making space for it in a different sense as well. (Which, congratulations this is considered an archaic form of philosophy! You’re breaking down your own thought process regarding it and digging deeper to find the basis!)

How To Incorporate

I can’t answer this for you directly but I can explain some different ways to to hopefully help you there on your own! So first off, you don’t have to use it in large crazy ways. It can literally just be studying philosophies regarding demons.*1

If you want to incorporate it for different reasons, it’ll look different based off the reason. If you wanted to worship Lucifer by learning more philosophy you’re not going to learn philosophies held by Mammon, or taught by Mammon. And you don’t have to make an altar to Mammon to learn more about his philosophy.

All you need to do is build a love for philosophies, and a demon that would interest you to see their philosophy.

Other than that I don’t have anything real or solid on incorporation because it depends fully on why you want to. It ranges from literally just reading about it to adopting it to your lifestyle or thought processes.

Common Misconceptions

So as we get into misconceptions I have footnoted one topic that really circles me into the biggest misconception I see for all Demon based work which is essentially that Demonolatry is not only the umbrella for them all, but also the only end goal. Not all demonic work ends in demonolatry, nor is it the explanation of all demon work.

This isn’t to say demonolatry is bad, but it is to say that people don’t do these things with only the intent to worship. I’ve explained before I have varying beliefs regarding demons, some I worship, some I don’t. Some, I ONLY study. Others I only learn their philosophies. While they do have some overlap because clearly you’re gonna study a demon you worship, and if you worship them you more than likely agree with their teachings. But worship isn’t the only motivator to do these things. Which brings us to our first footnote, where I explain this in more certain terms.

*1

Now some people use it as a form of worship, for me I see that falling under demonolatry because it’s with the intent to worship, so it’s apart of worship.

To explain it in a more clear terms if I go to the store, buy an item, wrap the item and deliver the item to its recipient-the context changes on who the recipient is. If I give it to a friend I simply got them a gift. If I put it on an altar that was an offering and is worship. The steps do not change, the intention is all that did. If I do something as a way to worship a demon it’s demonolatry, the worship of demons. If I don’t it’s just not even if other people do it. I don’t worship baphomet but if I felt a statue of them was cool and put it in my house as decor it’s just that. Decor. But if I did it with the intent of having a figure of religious standpoint then it is. Obviously this is just my view and I know some people see it differently.

Other than that there’s just the misconception that philosophy as it’s typically referred to today is what we’re looking at. Once more, definitions change over time, and this is okay! But we do have to sit back and realize that while some definitions changed with time not all of them did, and words established before hand may not be affected. And sometimes the simplification of words can skew our ideas of long standing ideas, and while some words are very similar across the now and the then, we really do have to take care to remember the time period that things come from. We need to separate ourselves from our view point of “okay but THIS is the right way” and rephrase this as “It’s what is comfortable and familiar to me” because that’s all it boils down to. And a big part of philosophy in its roots is dismantling what we think we know to be fact and finding the actual facts with it!

A core part of philosophy is being willing to look deeper than the surface for an answer. There’s a joke,

“What’s a philosopher's favorite question? Why!”

#witch #witches of tumblr #witch community #witchcraft #witchblr

[adobe-outdesign]

Some Way Too In-depth Headcanons About How Pokeballs Work

Legends Arceus has a line about how Pokeballs function that makes no sense, so I might as well offer my headcanons as a supplementary explanation.

So basically, the game says [paraphrasing] that Pokemon “shrink themselves down” to go into Pokeballs. That’s inherently contradictory with the gameplay; not only should every Pokemon know minimize if this were the case, but it doesn’t explain why a Pokemon goes into a Pokeball only to break out of it, or how they go into a Pokeball after they’re already fainted.

So my take on it is to go at the same idea in a different way. When a Pokemon evolves, it completely changes size and shape, and this is often accompanied by some form of light.

Basically, all Pokemon have the ability to convert themselves into energy/light like this. This is how they evolve, as well as reproduce. It’s not something they can do on command, however; it’s more of a reflex that triggers under specific circumstances. While in the form of energy like this, the amount of space the energy takes up can be condensed or expanded, which is how they change size upon evolving. 

All a Pokeball does is provide an artificial trigger for this to occur. A cut and polished tumblestone’s (one of the items needed for crafting Pokeballs) presence automatically causes a Pokemon to revert to this energy form due to a chemical reaction. When the Pokemon comes into contact with a Pokeball, it transforms into energy due to the tumblestone; said energy is pulled towards the stone and condenses down to fit inside the apricorn. Once the Pokemon is in its energy form, it remains in that form in the Pokeball due to the tumblestone’s presence until it’s sent out. Older Pokeballs spit out excess energy from the catch in the form of “fireworks”; newer Pokeballs are more efficient and don’t need to do this.

All Pokemon can reduce their energy forms down to the same size, regardless of how big they are; however, the bigger the ‘mon, the more powerful the energy is when condensed, which makes it easier for them to break out during a catch. Likewise, the more powerful the Pokemon, the more energy needs to be contained. This is why different types of tumblestones are used for different types of Pokeballs, as the variations of the stone have varying degrees of strength.

Because this energy conversion normally happens during key moments in a Pokemon’s life, it gives them a rush of endorphins. This means that a Pokemon instinctively wants to go inside of a Pokeball and curl up there; they find the experience to be cozy. This behavior also helps them conserve energy and heal after a long battle (they don’t feel pain from injuries while in the ball, but they can still become weak and faint).

Modern day Pokeballs are capable of producing simulations for the Pokemon inside, giving them the illusion of being bigger on the inside. The environments vary based on the type of Pokeball used, and different types of environments can increase catch rates; for example, while regular Pokeballs use an open field, lure balls create an underwater environment that’s more appealing to aquatic species.

So Pokemon do possess the ability to shrink themselves down... after converting into energy. And Pokemon do shrink themselves down to go inside of Pokeballs...  as an automatic reflex in response to the tumblestone. So nothing the professor says is actually wrong; it’s just oversimplified, probably intentionally to make it easier for the protag to understand.

This is also why humans can’t go into Pokeballs; while descended from Pokemon, human beings lost the ability to evolve and convert into energy years ago. Because the Pokeball requires the subject to be able to do this in order to function, they have no effect on people.

#pokemon #pkmn #pokemon headcanons #pokeballs #pokemon legends arceus #pokemon spoilers #outdesign posts things #before anyway points out that something in canon contradicts this: the lore around pokeballs is full of retcons and contradictions #I've incorporated as much of it here as I can but I literally can't use all of it and have things still make sense #at least I hope this ramble makes sense. it at least makes more sense than taking the PLA explanation at face value if nothing else #greatest hits

[el-im]

as a mixed person... I have always been repulsed by narratives about spock/analyses of his behavior which paint him as someone ceaselessly divided between two cultures instead of a whole individual being pulled in different directions by the influences he’s been exposed to. framing his mindset as one with two separate and distinct halves oversimplifies his conflicts over how he should conduct himself (see: preparing himself for the kolinahr ritual for years (the original translation provided for the speech of the kolinahr master refers to ‘many seasons’) but neglecting to complete the final ritual at the last moment) and his conflict about expression regarding his interpretation of himself (which often involves an appraisal of himself as being overly revealing--for a vulcan--but through subtleties that only close friends (in this case bones) would notice--which is to say, behaving less overtly than a human). all is to say that spock, as we see him, is hardly the model of a vulcan. and while i maintain that he owes this distinction more to culture, the expectations within his personal relationships, and his contemplations of his place in society as a mixed person than to biological factors, there is something to be said about how individuals that are fully vulcan are raised, and what implications their instructions about composure, dedication to logic, and rejection of emotion have on their relationships with their spouses, children, and other loved ones...

which is why i am positively enamoured with tuvok. 

tuvok and spock are not comparable, nor do i think there is much to be gained by drawing up similarities/dissimilarities between them and haphazardly chalking up their differences to distinguishments of humans/vulcans, with traits spock has alone being seen as implicitly and necessarily human and traits tuvok possesses that spock lacks demonstrating his being fully vulcan. (in fact, tuvok himself may not be considered by many vulcans to be an impeccable representation of their beliefs about personal behavior anyhow, and as a child even questioned the vulcan elevation of logic as the guiding force of life, saying in “Gravity” (5x03) “I refused to deny myself passion, the way you and men like my father do... If I was meant to deny feelings, why was I born with them? Where's the logic in that?”) but i digress... the benefit in having such wonderfully rich, well developed characters such as them is in being able to analyze the tenets of vulcan philosophies and teachings that they provide us with, not to determine to what extent they themselves consistently followed them. that said, tuvok being fully vulcan changes his reception in vulcan society. he did not experience the same pressure spock did to ‘prove himself’ as a vulcan to both his family as well as others who were hesitant to accept a half-vulcan child, and this allows tuvok to serve as one illustration of a full vulcan child whose abilities to control his emotions and act logically are never doubted (though his behavior is occasionally called in to question)

but as you contemplate the nature of vulcan behavior, their methods of understanding the world, and how they educate their children, one particularly interesting aspect of their culture which arises is the consistent demonstration of long term committed relationships (in this context--specifically familial or spousal/sexual) which are unemotional. 

in tuvok, these unemotional relationships which demonstrate his vulcan upbringing most clearly are between himself and his children. based off of his interactions with the crew of voyager and the individuals they meet on their journey home, we learn about how vulcan relationships function, what vital elements take the place of love, and what the definition of love is by reduction rather than explanation: with the dedication, longing, and attachment to his family that tuvok speaks of and demonstrates not being considered aspects of an emotional love

excerpts from Star Trek: Voyager, “Elogium” (2x04)

TUVOK: ... I must point out that, as illogical as it seems, being a father can have infinite rewards. Far more than would seem possible. My children occupy a significant portion of my thoughts. Now more than ever. NEELIX: I-I-I've heard it said that children can bring a lot of joy into one's life. TUVOK: I experienced neither joy nor sorrow, but I do believe it is possible. ... TUVOK: I have three sons and one daughter. I can assure you she benefits as much from my presence and guidance as my sons do. It is unfortunate that I must be so far removed from all of them now.

from this, it can be determined that: 1. tuvok thinks about his children. (this may seem obvious, but in actuality, it’s quite an... unproductive pursuit. stranded in the delta quadrant, years away from them, there is nothing to be gained from tuvok spending his time contemplating his children, and how they are faring so far away. if it is as he says to samantha wildman in “Once Upon a Time” (5x05), and he is confident in the wellness of his children given the company they are alongside, tuvok should be satisfied with his knowledge of their safety and accepting of his inability to change his position to be with them.

one of my personal favorite vulcan words is “kaiidth”, which translates approximately to ‘what is, is’ in federation standard. ("when one accepts what cannot be changed, one begins to think like a vulcan." - TOS novel: Dwellers in the Crucible). though i occasionally think this saying imparts too great a notion of passivity as a function of logic onto vulcans, i interpret this statement generally to be one which permits movement forward, but which does not erase wandering. in my mind, tuvok can both worry for his children (though such worry is illogical because he could not intervene in their lives to protect them if there were cause to worry) and he can resolutely and determinately perform his duties on voyager. perhaps isolating love and affection for his children (which he does feel, but does not experience regularly due to his repression of emotions and of their influence over him) from his worries about them allows for him to function adequately: grants him the ability to work as voyager’s security officer without encumberment from heartache and longing that the human members of the crew experience for the lives and people left behind in the alpha quadrant.

nonetheless, I persist in imagining thoughts of his children pervading tuvok’s mind even as he meditates. i imagine he wonders idly what they are doing at particular moments in time, what reflections asil has on the reading she’s been assigned at school, if sek searches through his memories of him as he navigates his own path as a father for the first time..)

this quote also demonstrates the position tuvok takes relative to his children, object 2 taken from this interaction being that some of the core values of vulcan parenting are presence, by tuvok explaining his regret that he cannot be with his family now and *guidance, by expressing his belief that his daughter would benefit from the wisdom and insight he could offer her were he present in her life (these two components existing in place of “mere” affectionate love). 

*another note on guidance, an excerpt from a verse in “Falor’s Journey”, an epic story about a Vulcan merchant which tuvok’s youngest son would ask him to play for him on his lute, from Star Trek: Voyager, “Innocence” (2x22)

“He traveled through the windswept hills And crossed the barren Fire Plains To find the silent monks of Kir. Still unfulfilled, he journeyed home Told stories of the lessons learned And gained true wisdom by the giving.”

it becomes clear in the lyrics of this verse that wisdom is prized on vulcan, and though information (such as that which was communicated to Falor in Kir) can be relayed, processed, and internalized, the richness of experience and interaction with others is what contributes to enlightenment. this forms the basis of tuvok’s relationship with his children, and as a father he is characterized by his wish to provide counsel and direction to his children. guidance, thus, can be seen as one of the hallmarks of vulcan relationships as a principle which takes the place of what humans might see as constituting love (things such as affection or fondness)

an excerpt from Star Trek: Voyager, “Innocence” (2x22)

“ELANI:  If Vulcans don't feel anything, does that mean you don't love them? TUVOK: My attachment to my children cannot be described as an emotion. They are part of my identity, and I am incomplete without them. ELANI: I bet they miss you too.”

these lines constitute some of my absolute favorite bit of communication delivered in all of star trek. this single statement raises countless questions about the nature of vulcan relatedness and connection (some literature suggests that vulcans feel significantly deeper than humans do, with this increased intensity being the reason for the vulcan reformation and movement toward logic as the dictating factor for behavior in place of emotion. tuvok saying that his attachment to his children cannot be described as an emotion suggests that a labeled emotion is too simple a term for his relationship with them, yes, but does it also imply that there is a greater emotional bond that binds them so closely together and so fervently that it surpasses what can be considered an emotion? what could something like this be described as? how could it be represented?) this statement brings in a discussion about familial bondings, with tuvok possibly feeling incomplete without his children because of their telepathic link to one another: the constant feeling of their presence in his own mind forming a feeling of familiarity and self. finally, and most pressingly, this statement indicates tuvok’s self identification through another, his identity as a guardian, parent, and caretaker to his children contributing to his own notion of self

excerpt from Star Trek: Voyager, “Caretaker” (1x01)

JANEWAY: I spoke to your family before I left. TUVOK: Are they well? JANEWAY: Well, but worried about you. TUVOK: That would not be an accurate perception, Captain. Vulcans do not worry. JANEWAY: They miss you. TUVOK: As I do them.

finally, tuvok identifies yearning as an integral component of vulcan relationships (though in my mind, I imagine this longing to be with his family as a less emotional appraisal of the term than may be expected... data’s explanation of friendship from Star Trek: The Next Generation, “Legacy” (4x06) “as I experience certain sensory input patterns, my mental pathways become accustomed to them. The inputs eventually are anticipated, and even missed when absent.” comes to mind...)

as I was talking about this with joe tonight, and wondering what possible motivation tuvok (and all other vulcans with similar familial connections like his) has to miss his family, to see himself as incomplete without them, and to worry about them if not for love, he said: “I read somewhere that when you mourn someone, you are actually mourning what they were to you: a source of comfort, an occasional friend, a companion in difficult situations, etc. ... if relationships are actually vaguely transactional like that, maybe that’s what love is, a type of relationship where you’re willing to give someone more and more just to continue to be around”, which was excellent and not something that i’d considered

are enduring vulcan relationships (like marriages/bondings) transactional? is a spouse another source of income, a companion with which to speak about the events of a day (another voice of reason to temper confusion with/someone to provide more context/another perspective on personal matters of choice to guide their partner to the most logical conclusion)? is it possible that their absence is felt only as the absence of an intellectual equal? the absence of someone raised with a similar background who possesses the experiences necessary to understand their spouse’s guiding principles, or someone of a different background capable of adding nuance and other points of consideration into ethical/moral/behavioral debates?

certainly transactional relationships could account for the statements made by tuvok in these examples. it is possible that he thinks of his children and that he considers himself incomplete without them because they are a part of his identity: it is possible that because their existence put him in the position of a teacher and a caregiver (providing for their educational, dietary, social needs), their absence deprives him of exercising a portion of himself reserved for their exclusive use, and that because he is a father to them, he is not one without them. but then... how can he worry for them if not by love? and if he does not worry for them by reason of love, what drives him to worry for them? that concern he speaks about, i think, cannot be transactional. he gains nothing by worrying for them, nor do they gain anything by worrying for him, and yet they persist in worrying. 

despite all the intricacies shown and questions raised by tuvok’s relationship with his children, i think perhaps that the most complete and thorough illustration of the effect of vulcan cultural upbringing on formed relationships comes not from tuvok (whose discussions of connectedness in this context are limited to other vulcans who have been raised in the same disciplines that he himself grew up in) but from t’pol, in how she presents layers of reserve, objectivity, emotionalism, and subjectivity in relation to commander tucker. 

despite both being full vulcans who have had all the privileges that label entails (being free from persecution/rejection from peers based on their heritage, unlike spock) the separation between tuvok and t’pol is immense, and lies (to me, most importantly,) in the relationships they form with their bondmate. tuvok’s relationship with t’pel is characterized by their mutual evenness, regard for each other, and complement. they have been married for 67 years by the events in “Caretaker” (1x01), and have raised four children together in that time. they are familiar with each other, well established presences in the lives of the other, and have at this time been exposed to, processed, and settled into their spaces in each other’s lives, understanding well how they work together to create a harmonious shared life. trip and t’pol... are a young, dumb mess. 

trip and t’pol’s relationship owes about half of its instability to forces beyond their control (the inherent complications of establishing a relationship “in the workplace” and struggling to determine what types of behavior is appropriate between them, hostile alien species attacking their ship, having their genetic material stolen from them in a plot to bring prejudice and fear mongering to earth... just for starters) and the other half of its instability to their own internal conflicts (encompassing death of a family member, spiritual conflict, and the navigation of a cross-cultural, cross-species relationship). and yet despite the challenges they face, the dangers they’re put in, and their own missteps, they gravitate toward each other consistently, inconveniently, always. 

but my favorite interaction of thiers, and the one which persists in my memory as one of the most characteristic (and most frustrating) illustration of their relationship is their shared scene at the conclusion of Star Trek: Enterprise, “Bound” (4x17). 

because the pretense--all their numerous and pressing difficulties--splinter--in an instant--and fall away. it is the first time t’pol makes herself vulnerable, admits that she believes trip’s guidance is imperative to the success of their mission. it is the first time she swallows her pride and her feigned objectivity (concern for the good of the entire crew) and allows herself not to make a personal request--but to tell trip explicitly, and without reserve, that she would have him stay, if he would. that his presence is what she wants for herself (not his expertise on behalf of the crew). t’pol is speaking to trip for herself for the first time, their newly formed telepathic bond serving as an impetus for her expression: the feeling and image of trip in her own mind (and vice versa) contributing to an irrefutable knowledge both of their compatibility and of their perceptions of each other (through each other). 

the previously identified components which contribute to vulcan relationships (as taken from tuvok) are presence, guidance, self identification through the other, and yearning, the most logical and explicable of these is guidance, a means of which to steer another toward logical behavior. presence, self identification through the other, and yearning, are, however, more inexplicable with tuvok having difficulty admitting in one instance that he does, in fact, miss his family, and in another finding it difficult to express in what manner/how he is “incomplete” without them: these being things which to him are so natural and forthcoming that they defy explanation, and are “beyond” emotional language. 

t’pol, in bound, asks not for the more logical pillar of dedication. she does not ask trip to say because she feels she is in need of his guidance, but asks him to be present with her, because they are bound together, and because she has missed him. 

this all culminates in an appraisal of love. if vulcans feel love, but choose not to experience it by repressing their emotions, i needed to understand how their relationships could function and persist in the absence of what i believed was such an integral component of relationships (though as I wrote this post, it occured to me that the definition of love i was working under became more nebulous, and increasingly difficult for me to define). i could not fathom, as i thought of all the vulcans i’d watched and read about, what bound them so indelibly to others. all of the logical forces i could think of--politics, financials, diplomacy, reproduction, and other mutual benefits--fell short, and there persisted something in the thrum of them--the vibration of that string that binds t’hyla together. after all, i began this investigation wondering “what is love if not attachment? longing? attention? and if these things are aspects of love that vulcans can exhibit, what is left that they object to?” what i found was a definition of love for vulcans which was not primarily characterized by affection, and which did not begin at that point, but which was founded upon recognition, acknowledgement, and behavior that seeks to maintain wellness, promote wisdom, and encourage reflection in another. 

#trek #me: sets out to make a t'pol post #me: gets fucking lost in the sauce #i was listening to 'to the end' and 'tender' by blur in the shower and those are songs i so associate with trip/t'pol #and im trying to develop a 'framework' (i hate that word) to understanding the navigation of relationships like that without love at the #heart of it -- forgive the pun #captain's log #i remembered vulcan bonds at one point when i was first thinking abt this but im not even going to talk about them because that is a whole #other can of worms. do vulcan bonds exist to link two people and make them closer because they might not otherwise feel compelled to engage #with each other? is it something that was derived solely as an impetus for mating--to drive them together like pheromones/bird calls/other #biological phenomenon that contribute to increased diversity in a gene pool and which drive couples together? #or is it a manifestation of love (in the case of trip/t'pol)? the indication of a possible love developing eventually as determined by the #compatibility of their psionic wavelengths? #am i getting a little too entrenched in the technicalities of this concept here and dousing it a little heavily in 'bio major'? maybe! #anyway i am screaming and crying and i got super derailed talking abt tuvok i should have made that its own post cause then suddenly this #takes a left turn into enterprise ville where no one lives but ME #holy shit everyone this took me hours to write and its now 5 in the morning which is when i normally wake up to go bike riding #anyway im putting this in my tags for them bc i am fucking annoying rip #t'pol #trip tucker

[linkspooky]

Dabi’s Self Suicide

I don’t know if you’ve noticed this, but Dabi is someone who has a tendency to make things about himself. In the League of Villains which is identifiably a group dynamic, Dabi takes every available opportunity to insist that he is alone, he is just along for the ride. A single man, with a single conviction, should be enough to change the world. He has a tendency to act like he’s the most important one here, he’s the one whose going to bring an end to hero society all on his own and yet at the same time he has no sense of identity. He has no self. He doens’t even have a name. Hawks asks him his name and he literally responds with [redacted]. I think this paradox of Dabi’s is at the core of figuring out who he is, and who he is not. 

1. Father Feelings

There’s something important to understand about Dabi, and just like always it starts with the family. I don’t think a lot of people realize how truly unfeeling, callous, cold towards Dabi Endeavor really was. I know we all, even I have used the golden child / scapegoat dynamic to describe Dabi and Shoto, but one important detail is that Dabi wasn’t always the scapegoat, he was the golden child at first. 

More important than Endeavor’s own feelings, is Dabi’s in this flash back. From the start, Dabi thought he was a normal kid in a normal family. He thought he had a normal dad. He even liked his super cool hero dad. Dabi wanted to train with him, wanted his attention and time, but these are just things a normal kid wants. 

However, Dabi was conceived of for very abnormal reasons. From the start, going into the whole affair, Endeavor’s intentions were wrong. Dabi was expected to carry on Endeavor’s legacy for him, he was the center of his attention, the center of his world. Dabi tried his best to carry all of those expectations as much as he reasonably could. 

However, there is literally nothing Dabi could have done in that situation to satisfy Endeavor. It’s not even about being born with the wrong quirk. It’s Endeavor who was wrong. From the start, Endeavor wasn’t interested in having a child or loving a child, but rather having a miniature Endeavor, Touya was just a vessel, to carry all of Endeavor’s hopes and dreams and live vicariously through him. However, that’s impossible.E ven if Touya had been born with the right quirk, that was impossible. You can’t live through another person. Touya’s success never would have been Endeavor’s. Endeavor would hae resorted to the exact same abuse, manipulation, control. Touya was never meant to be his own person, and that’s why even now, even becoming Dabi who is the rejection of everything Endeavor is, he still forms his entire personhood around Endeavor. It’s not that kids choose to form their personhood around their parents, they have to form themselves around their parents, we literally learn how to be people by interacting with other people especially during the developmental years. The same ones that Touya died during. 

Endeavor’s actions towards Touya is that he not only made Touya carry all of his emotions for him, he made Touya bear the brunt of his hurt feelings, all of his expectations, but then when Touya couldn’t carry them He blamed Touya. He tossed him aside. He made Touya feel, that something was wrong with Touya, and that was why he was no longer getting his father’s attention. It’s not anything Touya did, or anything Touya could do about, Touya was literally born wrong. 

It’s literally what he crawled to Natsuo asking. Yet, still Touya tried to fix himself. He was the golden child, now he’s the scapegoat, and Touya feels he did something wrong, so he keeps trying to fix himself, keeps trying to train on his own, and it doesn’t work because it could never work until it results in his eventual suicide and then how does Endeavor refer to it. 

Touya was just another tragic accident. Just a little mistake, along the road to creating Shoto. I’m not trying to explain away any of Dabi’s actions, just explain the way that Dabi regards himself, rather, Dabi literally has no sense of self at all. It’s been completely smashed to pieces. It’s ash. it’s dust. It’s just gone. Dabi’s name may as well just be [redacted]. There was also once a time that Shoto worried that he was more like his father within himself, but he got help from the people around him to realize he’s his own person, help that Dabi never got. 

2. Sins of the Father

So it’s like a genetic trait in the Todoroki family to be completely self absorbed, and dense to the emotions of other people, to the point where you don’t really see other people’s feelings. Like father, like son, like other son. However, Endeavor’s just like that, whereas Dabi and Shoto were made that way. Imagine what it was like to be Shoto, to be constantly told, you’re different from them, you’re the special one, you’re the chosen one. To the point where you couldn’t even play with your siblings, or be a part of everyone’s normal lives, no you were forced to be special. Shoto is oblivious to other people’s emotions because he was literally forcibly separate from other people, and even his mother who was his strongest emotional tie during literally most of his developmental years. 

Empathy is literally formed by interacting with people. You can’t form it or even have it, if your interactions with people are cut off and severely limited. You learn about how other people feel by normal social interaction, something that both Touya and Shoto were eventually cut off from. Touya from dying, Shoto from his mother being hospitalized. After that their ability to form connections with others was severely hampered. 

One funny thing about Shoto is he kind of acts like he’s the protagonist of his own narrative. So does Bakugo. That’s why he goes “Get out of the way all you extras.” Shoto’s the one with the tragic backstory. Shoto’s the one with this motivation to defy his father’s wishes. However, Shoto’s not the main character, he’s not the hero of the story, and it’s actually important that he’s not because the literal setting of the story is a society where everyone has the potential to be a hero. Kind of like how the point of Miles Morales story is that everyone can be spiderman. Shoto, also doesn’t really want to be a main character, or special boy, all Shoto has ever wanted was to connect with his siblings, to have the normalcy that everyone else has. In a society where everyone, even his own father is so desperately trying to stand out, Shoto wants the safety and security of normalcy. 

So you kind of have this paradox in Shoto’s head. Shoto kind of thinks of himself as a main character, even though that’s not really what he wants to be, just because that’s what’s been forced into his head the entire life. The emotional isolation of an abusive parent still ahs an effect on you, even when you’re aware, like Shoto was, that what Endeavor was saying was wrong. No one can grow up properly in isolation, that’s why kids need to interact with other kids and grow up together. 

So, I think the utlimate explanation for Dabi’s attitude towards the rest of the league is this. I’m the main villain. I’m the biggest threat. I’m the one who is going to bring an end to hero society all on my own. 

Once again this ties back to Shoto’s trauma, and Dabi’s. Touya didn’t want to be the special one, he was forced to be. Touya thought he was a normal kid, with a normal dad until he suddenly wasn’t. Then, Touya tried his hardest to be the special one until he literally broke his body, and his dad went no nevermind, turns out you were an extra. 

Saying Dabi is just doing this for Endeavor’s attention is oversimplifying. There’s a need to give a narrative to pain. Shoto even does it. Shoto literally narrates his life, he dumps his life story on everyone who will listen. People who are traumatized, want to give some sort of special meaning to their trauma, they want to feel important, because that in some way might justify what happened to them. If they can’t feel loved, they can try feeling important, like someone who mattered. Otherwise, Dabi is literally just someone who died and got forgotten. Otherwise, he’s just a sad little mistake, the same way his father regards him. Dabi can’t let the league in, because he has to do this on his own to prove he’s special. 

Dabi has this very individualistic and self centered approach to changing the world. He has to do it all on his own. He has to play mastermind. He was to orchestrate Endeavor’s rise and fall, and once again these are coping behaviors. Touya couldn’t control his abandonment, he had no agency in that, so he tries to pretend he’s in control of everything now. Even Dabi burning himself, his self-harming,it’s pain he’s in control of because he’s doing it to himself, father isn’t forcing him to train until he breaks anymore. 

Shoto sees himself as a main character. Dabi sees himself as the main villain. 

However, at the same time. Dabi hates himself. He loathes himself. It comes out in his self loathing behaviors, but more than that every thing Dabi does is an act of self destruction. Dabi has no feelings, no friends, no family, because he’s trying to destroy all those things. 

Dabi has no sense of self, because Endeavor has ruined him to the point where he’s still Endeavor’s empty vessel after all these years of separation from him. Dabi has no self, and also he doesn’t want one. He doesn’t want to grow past this point. 

Dabi has entirely fictionalized his life. That’s why he makes a dramatic reveal. Hee wants to turn his life into a tragedy, where he is the main character, where he is the one that Shoto and Endeavor cannot save. Because at least this way, he will not be forgotten. Unable to grasp for love, he tries to grasp for some kind of improtance, to change the world instead. In that scenario, it makes sense Dabi would distance himself from the league. I don’t think Dabi knows what his true feelings towards theleague are. In fact, I don’t even think he thinks about them. Who cares about what his feelings are? They are entirely separate from what he must do. Any feelings he has, any regrets, are going to burn away when he explodes like a bomb to ruin his father’s life. 

Dabi’s wavering motivations, his constant flipping between different emotions, like he’s channel surfing, I dont’ believe we’re supposed to read into every single thing he says, but rather notice how constantly he’s changing what he’s saying, because Dabi has no stable sense of self. We’re also supposed to see why he has no stable sense of self, because he’s all alone. 

This is the climax of Dabi’s big revenge play, it was supposed to end here, with the tragic protagonist dying. However, I think it’s actually really important in this arc that Dabi gets upstaged. Dabi is not the main character, Dabi’s not even the main villain. He’s not even the only character whose the descendant of a hero. It’s also, really important that Compress is the one who upstages his reveal.

What’s that? You thought I was a background character! It turns out I had this important motivation all along. The pacing is weird but it does achieve the intended effect. Dabi thought this was his moment, but that was actually bad for him. Dabi’s main flaw is that he tries to do all of these things along, but he’s not the only one who dreams of a better world. Dabi, Toga, Shigaraki, Mr. Compress says that all of their dreams are important at the same time. They are all simultaneously main characters. 

Dabi doesn’t get to have his moment, but I think it’s narratively important that he didn’t get to have it, because Dabi does no favors for himself by cutting himself off from the league. It’s meant to be a character flaw, Dabi shouldn’t get his revenge play, because his revenge play ends up with him dying at the end to spite Endeavor one fainly time. Dabi can’t achieve his dreams, because he hasn’t figured out who he is, or even who he wants to be yet. He just knwos what he doesn’t want to be. He just knows what he’s not. He’s not Endeavor. However I don’t think there’s going to be some big twist reveal about his character where he’s like, I secretly cared about the league, or my family all along, I was secretly a soft guy at heart. Those feelings are there. It’s not a problem of being unfeeling with Dabi, rather that Dabi has no central sense of self to stabilize all those feelings around, thus we see him swinging wildly back and forth. I think while Dabi obviously has feelings towards both of those groups of people, a self is something he’ll have to develop over time when he finally introduces himself to the league. When he’s forced to live, past the tragic ending of his play. 

Who will Dabi be when he realizes he has to live past his imagined revenge, who can he become? I think his development from this point will be incredibly interesting to wait, watch and see. 

#touya todoroki #dabi #lov meta #mha meta #bnha meta #league of villains #league of villains meta #todoroki touya

[the-ghost-king]

Schizophrenic Nico, here's why I think it's possible:

I want to start off by saying these are just my thoughts, there is no one way to be schizophrenic or to have schizophrenia. It's also important to note that many of the schizophrenic symptoms overlap with other mental illnesses/nuerodivergences like ADHD, Autism, Depression, and OCD which I know many people who head canon Nico as having. I'm not arguing schizophrenic Nico is more correct, more canon, or more right, but to explain some thoughts on why I think it's possible/very likely he does so I can use this for future reference in various thing.

I am using the term schizophrenia as a catchall for all "types" of schizophrenia, but not for schizoaffective disorder which I would say Nico probably doesn't have.

Children born in the winter/those who were "sickly" as babies are more likely to develop schizophrenia. It may also be possible if your mother was sick while pregnant with you, or having a father who was significantly older when he had you.

A stressful life, especially trauma, are more likely to develop schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder. It likely has something to do with excessive dopamine production, but it may also have something to do with the same genes that control the sleep-wake cycle. Schizophrenia is more common with other mental illnesses or with other nuerodivergences or developmental delays.

Common symptoms include:

Hallucinations

Delusions

Disorganized thinking

lack of motivation

slow movement

change in sleep patterns

poor grooming or hygiene

changes in body language and emotions

less interest in social activities

Now what does this mean for Nico, and why do I think it's likely he has Schizophrenia?

Let's start with Nico's childhood, "children born in the winter/those who were "sickly" as babies are more likely to develop schizophrenia". Although Rick proposed two birthdays for Nico, the fandom generally accepted the January date more fully. We also know that Nico is described as small when he was younger, smallness is common in children who grow up sickly, but it is also common in children who's mother was ill while pregnant with them. We obviously don't know if Nico was sick as a kid, or if Maria was sick while pregnant with him, but again being born in the winter makes these things more likely, as well as consideration for the time period Nico grew up in and the larger variety of illnesses going around at the time. (He is vaccinated against some things though).

Trauma and Nico... do I really have to go into super detail on this one? He spent his childhood growing up in a fascist country that was extremely racist/anti-Semitic/homophobic/etc, his mom died when he was a child- in front of him, his father intentionally gave him amnesia, his sister died when he was a child, he then proceeded to become homeless living/spending lots of time with Minos who verbally (and possibly physically) abused him, becoming aware of his past memories, becoming aware of the fact that many people hated him because of his father and because they thought he was joining the other side (therefore, he was "bad"), he fought in many battles as a child, fought monsters alone, was often faced with life or death situations, went to Tartarus alone (where the goddess of misery told him he was "perfect"), was trapped in a hostage situation with little/no air for a long time while people debated whether or not to save him, was outed against his will, was freed only to travel again fighting monsters and then win a battle, was eventually made to quest with Apollo despite still having lots of healing to do in ToN. So stressful life? Fuck yeah, that doesn't being to cover it.

Genetic factors, obviously nothing here is confirmed so I'm speculating a little bit again, but the common idea in regards to Hades children through the series is that they are "bad". Mental illnesses have been stigmatized for hundreds, if not thousands of years, and often mentally ill people were made out to be weird/bad/etc. It's more than possible there is some sort of genetic factor taking place, also "having a father who was significantly older when he had you". Although I doubt godly genes work the same as mortal ones (trust me I have lots of thoughts on how god genetics/DNA work, but that's not the point right now), I think Hades being the oldest out of all his brothers and having a reputation for having "questionable" children says something... We have no information on Maria's family history at all.

As for schizophrenia often occurring with other mental illnesses and/or neurodivergences: Nico canonically is implied to have either ADHD and/or Autism, and is canonically stated to have PTSD. I think most people would agree that saying Nico has or has had depression isn't a stretch in the slightest.

So canonically we can all agree Nico has severe trauma and coinciding mental health issues/neurodivergences, so out of 4 possible issues I’ve first presented we guaranteeably have two. If I wanted to stretch this a little I would give myself a half point for him being born in the winter and a half point for the aspect of Hades genetics but I won’t do that.

On top of that schizophrenia usually appears during teenage and young adult years in people who receive diagnosis; most people live with mental illness for a few months or a few years in some cases before they're able to receive a diagnosis. Nico being 15 (16 by the end of ToN/shortly following the end of ToN) is about the age that schizophrenia would start to make an appearance. It's also more likely to be found in men, with men also noticing the appearance of schizophrenia appearing early in their lives, and experiencing more negative symptoms in comparison to the higher commonality of affective symptoms in women. That's a really complicated explanation to basically say there's 3 more things that would make Nico having schizophrenia make more sense.

Alright, let’s go back to the list of symptoms I provided:

Hallucinations

Delusions

Disorganized thinking

lack of motivation

slow movement

change in sleep patterns

poor grooming or hygiene

changes in body language and emotions/behavior

less interest in social activities

Once again, some of these are not solely related to schizophrenia and can be the result of other mental health issues, I’m just going to go down the list and add in some moments from the books in which Nico shows some of these traits/behaviors.

Delusions/Hallucinations (more later)

Our best chances for understanding Nico's thought process is in Blood of Olympus where he has a P.O.V... Sometimes Nico's thoughts do derail, or sometimes they get a little confusing, but not always, and when talking to others he is consistent and aware of what he's saying, as well as blunt. Anything "off" about his thought patterns to me just seems like ADHD..

Dietary changes (whether or not you think he has an eating disorder) are behavioral changes (I personally think Nico has AFRID)

Within House of Hades Nico's poor sleep patterns are constantly referenced, and I'll give him a pass on poor hygiene because he's in the middle of a quest but still..

I have extremely complicated feelings on what Will says here, it's possible Nico is an extremely unreliable narrator (unlikely, it seems many people are bothered by him and only maybe a handful aren't), I've also thought at many points this was Rick trying to backtrack some stuff with Nico because he realized he'd made his story a little too harsh for a kids book, it could also be Will's trauma kicking in and that happening... I'm not counting it as full proof about Nico disliking social interactions, but Nico does try to leave even after this conversation and isn't convinced to stay until the last chapter, so maybe there's something to be said about people's dislike of him for being a Hades kid- but I think it's fair to say Nico also dislikes people at least some because he doesn't have interest in trying to befriend anyone either, and is quick to assume all people dislike him (paranoia/low self esteem/and some other possible stuff). There's lots of discussions to be had about this quote and other similar ones, and I don't think a broad brush approach of "Nico good everyone else bad" is accurate it's more, "Nico is good but he fails to try and you have to work on your own mental health everyone won just go to you, and also people dislike Nico for silly reasons and need to get over themselves and make an effort too". (I'm extremely oversimplifying my thoughts and feelings to keep it brief.)

More on delusions and hallucinations:

Now I want to state that lots of schizophrenia symptoms share a lot of commonalities with ADHD and with depression, so although I might include some moments you think are just ADHD/depression I wouldn’t necessarily disagree with you but they could also be schizophrenia or coexisting mental health issues/divergences. I also went through the DSM-5 for schizophrenia (the DSM-5 is just this big book with lists and it’s how doctors diagnose any mental health issue/divergence), I also looked through the DSM-IV (an older book from before DSM-5 which is no longer really used) and the differences between the diagnosis was fairly minimal but they quit categorizing types of schizophrenia and instead rely more on a couple of word descriptions that seem more in line with a spectrum rather than a checkable box.

In order to receive a schizophrenia diagnosis, two (or more) of the following, each present for a significant portion of time during a 1-month period (or less if successfully treated), and at least one of these symptoms must be (1), (2), or (3):

Delusions

Hallucinations

Disorganized speech (frequent derailment or incoherence)

Grossly disorganized or catatonic behavior

Negative symptoms (i.e., diminished emotional expression or avolition).

It’s important to note that only one of these need to be checked off/true if the patient has voices which narrate their actions/behaviors/thoughts or if the person has more than one voice conversing with each other.

Nico deals with auditory hallucinations (2), he believes the voice belongs to Bob, his titan friend he left in Tartarus:

However this isn’t and immediate diagnosis because Bob’s voice doesn’t talk to another voice(s) in Nico’s head, and we don’t know if Nico has voices running commentary on his behaviors/thoughts.

The reason I state we are unaware if Nico has commentary isn’t because Nico hasn’t said anything, but because many people with schizophrenia before their diagnosis believe the narrative voices are just their thoughts and are a normal internal monologue- usually patients don’t realize anything is wrong until the voices start providing commentary on their actions so instead of “washing the dishes now” the voice(s) might say “wash the dishes now, you’re so lazy you can’t do anything, idiot” during a period of psychosis which may help them acknowledge that the voice(s) isn’t the way most people experience internal voice(s). It is very possible Nico is unaware he is experiencing narrative thoughts and simply assumes that his experience is something most people have, but I won’t use this to argue my point because it’s not confirmation of anything.

Returning now to Bob, Nico knows he is hearing Bob’s voice but he believes Bob is calling to him from Tartarus. Now, Nico says the voices are calling to him from Tartarus but there’s no confirmation of this anywhere… What I think is happening is Nico has a guilty conscience. He feels bad for “using” Bob to get out of Tartarus and various other things, so he feels bad that he is still down there. However, we don’t really know if Bob is calling to him or if Bob is able to do that- what I personally think is happening here is Nico’s brain is convincing Nico that Bob needs him because Nico is upset with himself for not helping Bob more, but also because Nico has never “sat still” before without a quest. Nico has also always felt the want to be needed/important...

It very well could be a delusion.

Schizophrenic patients often experience delusions which make them think they are destined for greatness, or that they have some divine/high force calling out to them for help that only they can provide. It’s an extremely common thing in individuals who experience delusions, and is in fact one of the most common delusions experienced. So although Bob could really be calling out to Nico, I don’t think he is, it doesn’t entirely make sense and there’s lots of little things which point to it being not entirely real- like the fact that nobody else knows about it? Or how absolutely sure Nico is that he need to return to Tartarus? It seems like a mixture of PTSD, delusions, and trauma response (returning to the trauma), working against him. I’ll say delusion is very likely (1).

Using these two factors alone there’s sufficient evidence for diagnosis, but let’s keep going just to see.

For disorganized speech (3) this isn’t something Nico seems to struggle with, and even if he did “derailing” could be ADHD or Autism, so I don’t think this symptom pertains to him.

Changes in behavior (4), seem to all be explainable via depression and/or PTSD- he has begun to express emotion again in Tower of Nero upon learning of Jason’s death he is said to be upset by Will and he walks off to be alone, seems like depression to me. Emotional/Behavior changes from schizophrenia tend to relate more to bipolar disorder rather than a depressive disorder, so I would say if Nico has schizophrenia he probably doesn’t have emotional or behavioral changes from it. If he did he might have some catatonic behavior, but this seems to be clearing up some in Tower of Nero so I’m not super sure on that, maybe during bad periods of psychosis behavioral changes occur, but I would lean more towards this isn’t a symptom Nico personally deals with. Negative symptoms (5) tie into this same idea, it’s possible it’s schizophrenia, but it’s more likely PTSD or depression at work.

So why do I care so much about the possibility of Nico being schizophrenic?

I feel like canonically/fanonically making Nico schizophrenic does a few things, firstly schizophrenic rep in media is extremely extremely awful- can you think off the top of your head of a schizophrenic character who isn't from a horror film/a murder/a villain in their own story? Maybe, but personally I can only think of one which is Charlie from Perks of Being a Wallflower- and even then? That's not canon, it's only implied- and it might not even be true

Schizophrenic media representation always paints schizophrenic people as bad, scary, and evil, and although the horror genre is extremely well known for being super ableist, transphobic, racist, homophobic, and misogynistic (just the final cherry on top) having one of the first- if not the first openly confirmed schizophrenic characters in children's media not only be someone who has lots of character development, and isn't a stereotype, but also be someone people have grown up with, cared for, and sympathized with- would be extremely monumental.

People with schizophrenia and other related disorders aren't something to be scared of or to think of as bad, and often times they're more bothered by whatever they're experiencing than you are.

I don't have schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder or anything like that, but I have various undiagnosed mental health issues which often lead to me questioning reality, or having to set aside time to convince myself that no there isn't a man living in my wall... Having a character have to question those things, work through those feelings, and learn to trust themselves and care for themselves even with those difficulties would be really great to see in media, not just for people with schizophrenia but also for people with similar/related disorders who might share symptoms see parts of their own struggles in a good, educative way.

I have to finish this in two parts because tumblr keeps breaking because there's too many words in my post lmao (2nd part here)

#nico di angelo #pjo #hoo #toa #percy jackson #will solace #solangelo

[dishwater-blondie]

Why do you suppose Gabriel is so cold to Adrien? It seems like he doesn't care much about Adrien outside of his relation to Emilie. Given how bad things are between them it's hard to imagine how their relationship can be healed in a satisfying way

I do have a lot of thoughts on this and they are grounded mostly in pure speculation. I admit the show itself seems to suggest that the majority of the affection Gabriel holds for Adrien is related through Emilie, or at least the majority of affection that isn’t implicit paternal fondness (if that even matters with someone as emotionally flaccid as Gabriel). And honestly, this kinda sucks. For people to do try to enjoy Gabriel’s character like myself, his relationship with Adrien as presented does serve as one especially shitty detail in what is already quite the shitshow. But what really bothers me is that there is immense potential for some compellingly intricate family dynamics in the Agreste household that is oversimplified by the idea that Adrien is a reminder of Emilie to his father and nothing more. Here’s an explanation of what I believe should be the situation:

I’ve already offered plenty of analysis on why I think Emilie should be a villain and the evidence we have suggesting this might be the case, so I’ll spare you all of that right now. What I’ve talked much less about is how Emilie herself could have thrown a wrench in the relationship between father and son. From what we’ve heard about her so far, we are to understand that Emilie was always the warm and affectionate parent, while Gabriel, given his rigidity and general coldness, was likely the disciplinarian. However, since it’s been theorized at length that Emilie must have been majorly responsible for Adrien’s isolation growing up (at least equally to her husband), one conclusion that I have drawn is that Emilie could have been the one making these rules, tasking Gabriel with enforcing them. That’s not to say Gabriel didn’t also believe in these rules. I’m sure he did. But it’s beyond obvious that Gabriel has an unhealthy devotion to his wife, so who is to say Emilie didn’t manage to convince Gabriel of a structured lifestyle he wouldn’t have otherwise favored? It’s possible (especially when you consider based on Audrey’s dialogue that Gabriel was probably the lower class of the two who had to work and marry his way into wealth).

But expanding on this, we also have ample evidence that Emilie liked being idolized in her own house. Why else would there be giant golden portraits, statues, and a beautiful multi-story repository/garden - at least two of which had to have been prepared before she had fallen asleep? Might we speculate, then, that Emilie liked to be the center of attention? That she reveled in this overzealous dedication Gabriel exhibits towards her? And if she likes it from Gabriel, why wouldn’t she like it from her son, who doesn’t seem to register that she had to have played a considerable role in keeping him sheltered from the world? Adrien’s isolation is blamed on Gabriel even though he has more friends and freedom now than he’s had throughout the rest of his life. Yet, Emilie is still thought of as the better parent.

To a great extent, of course, she was. At least in terms of giving her son the time of day and being emotionally available to him. But what if she closed Gabriel off from this role? What if she made him play bad cop, enforce the rules she liked while she got to swoop in with her love and comfort and ignore that she was just as responsible for the way things were? What if she facilitated these parenting roles, ensuring she was always painted in a good light and never blamed for her son’s hardship?

[I mean, look at Amelie, who blamed Felix’s bad behavior on the fact that his father was no longer around to keep him out of trouble. She’s not responsible. His dad was the disciplinarian. Not her. She can’t control her son (even though she very much is)].

Now Emilie is gone and Gabriel doesn’t know how to step into the role she’d played all their son’s life. He seems so uncomfortable with Adrien showing him any kind of affection. Like it’s new to him. Like he doesn’t know how to be what Emilie had once been. Like he even feels guilty for filling that space.

Remember when Gabriel expressed that all he has left of Emilie is the grimoire and Adrien? Well, he is obsessed with that grimoire (or what it represents, the miraculous endeavor as a whole). But he keeps Adrien at a distance. If memory is all Adrien provided for him, wouldn’t he taking advantage of that more? If he truly values Adrien only as something Emilie left behind, I feel like they’d have a different relationship. Still a very, very unhealthy one. But different. “Closer” feels like the wrong word even though I do mean “less distant”. 

But no. Adrien seems almost emotionally off limits to Gabriel. He’s not brushing Adrien off because he’s too painful of a reminder - Gabriel literally never stops reminding himself of Emilie. Gabriel brushes Adrien off because he doesn’t know how to be something other than what he’s always been - the iron fist. The bad cop. The disciplinarian. Being as loving and warm as Emilie used to be would not only force him to confront the fact that they don’t need Emilie anymore, but it would also betray the hard and fast structure of their family functions, the structure Emilie implemented to secure her place in the emotional center of her husband and son’s worlds. 

As for how to heal their relationship, I talked a little bit about this in my post about Gabriel’s redemption, but I want to add that I do think it’s imperative these dynamics are exposed and both Agrestes realize how their relationship has been manipulated and that they properly communicate about it. 

Thank you for this ask! This was some fun analysis. 

#gabriel agreste #adrien agreste #emilie agreste #fuck emilie juice #agreste family #ml analysis #miraculous ladybug

[frizzy-hoot]

Neuroessentialism and mental health

Hi!

Time for a little rant about neuroessentialism.

The aim of this post is to provide the opportunity to be conscious of the things that influence us when it comes the way we think about mental health and to challenge stigma around mental health.

First off, I’m not a doctor and the information here cannot serve as medical advice. Always consult your doctor before changing your medication or treatment approach.

Secondly, a lot of the information I present here is elaborated on and further discussed in an episode of the Psychiatry and psychotherapy podcast called “Free will in psychotherapy and psychiatry Part 3” and while I will link to as many things as I can, you can also find a lot of the source material on the website for the podcast. https://www.psychiatrypodcast.com/psychiatry-psychotherapy-podcast/2020/7/22/free-will-in-psychiatry-amp-psychotherapy-part-3

So, I see a lot of people talking about mental health on here through a neuroessentialist perspective in memes or text format and I don’t think they’re aware of it so. I’d like to talk a bit about it.

First, I’ll offer a definition of neuroessentialism:

" Neuroessentialism is the view that the definitive way to explain human psychological experience is by reference to the brain and its activity from chemical, biological and neuroscientific perspectives. For instance, if someone is experiencing depression a neuroessentialistic perspective would claim that he or she is experiencing depression because his or her brain is functioning in a certain way.” - Schultz, W. (2018)

I see people talk about, for example, depression in this way often: in memes when people say "I have a literal neurotransmitter deficiency, Karen." or " God forgot to add serotonin when he made me".

Now, why can this be problematic?

Before I get into the issues with this perspective, I will first acknowledge that one of the reasons this view has become so prominent lately is because it aims to reduce stigma around mental health issues.

In the podcast episode mentioned above they point out that “Efforts to reduce stigma should be praised, but they should also be critically analyzed to determine if they meet their goal.”

And that’s the thing neuroessentialism, while aiming to reduce stigma and shame it only does so short term and ends up contributing to stigmatizing attitudes about mental health.

I want to say that it's great to see people fight back when it comes to stigma around mental health. That's what I see people do in these memes. But the effects of neuroessentialist perspectives end up othering people; making them inherently “bad”, “defect” or “helpless”.

Here the deterministic aspect of neuroessentialism comes up - it tells us that there’s something wrong with our brain that we can’t change. It alienates people because it chips away at their and our belief in their ability to change. If you believe that someone's mental issues are rooted exclusively in brain biology, you're less likely to believe that they can control their behavior and so it is less worth the effort of getting them better. This brings about more stigma.

Another thing that’s important to talk about is how neuroessentialism is an extremely simplistic perspective on mental health. And that’s also one of the reasons it has become so big- because it offers a simple explanation to very complicated illnesses.

Here, I want to add a quote by Psychiatrist and psychotherapist Dr. David Puder:

“There are prominent theories out there that we know just aren’t true anymore and that get propagated because they are simplistic ways of explaining things; for example, depression is because you have low serotonin in your brain. That’s just not true. It’s a whole lot more complicated than that.

You could probably show 20 or 30 things that are going on in the brain during depression. Inflammation. Like initially I thought ‘oh depression is inflammation!’

Well, it turns out not all depression has inflammation. Maybe, only one third [of patients with depression] have inflammation markers in the brain.”

We have been looking to neuroscience for an explanation when it comes to mental health and been satisfied with the idea of a simple "chemical imbalance" but truth is that there are many more neurotransmitters which significantly affect our brains when we talk about depression – it’s so far from just serotonin.

Another example of how neuroessentialim can oversimplify mental health is with brain scans. So, in the podcast episode mentioned above, Dr. Puder talks about how he was really interested in emotions and especially studying anger and he was looking at all this research on the different areas in the brain involved in anger. After a while, he says, he began to understand that it’s really complex and you can’t just point at one area and say that’s the area that’s involved in the emotion anger. There are several areas involved in just that one emotion and different studies show different things.

The truth is that the manifestation of mental illness in the body is a very new area of research and we haven’t found physical manifestations for most mental illnesses and the important thing to note here is that despite this we still do have ways of treating all of them.

Alright, all this can seem quite removed from us so how does neuroessentialsim affect us?

In the episode the guest star, Mathew Hagele, further discusses the article which provided the definition on neuroessentialism above: “Shultz looked at studies investigating how patients viewed their own prognosis and later the same with professionals.

The study found that biochemical or genetic attribution scores were a significant predictor of longer expected symptoms duration and lower perceived odds of recovery.” (Lebowitz et al., 2013, p. 523).

Now, this means that the more a patient attributes symptoms of their psychopathology to genetic (inherited disorderes) or biochemical (serotonin deficiency for example) factors, the longer they expected to struggle with their disorder and the smaller the belief that they can recover.

If a person doesn’t believe they can be helped or get better they’re a lot less likely to try and a lot more likely to feel scared and hopeless.

The other side of this coin is the effect the neuroessentialist narrative has on clinicians which Matthew Haegel dives into in the next part of the quote:

“Another study shows that clinicians believe psychotherapy to be less effective when shown biological descriptions of mental health pathologies...

They took a couple different disorders that these clinicians were looking at and one group had a biological explanation and the other did not- had a different type of explanation. And [in] the results that were across disorders, the biological explanation yielded significantly less empathy than the psychosocial explanation. They also did some additional analysis and they found that biological explanations yielded less empathy than the psychosocial explanations among both MD’s and non-MD’s…..”( Lebowitz, M. S., & Ahn, W. K. (2014). )

So, in these studies we see that a neuroessentialist perspective lowers empathy for the patient in medical health professionals and people who weren’t medical health professionals.

Okay, so how does this perception of the patient’s illness affect the patient’s treatment?

I’ll start with a quote where Hagele elaborates further:

“…and finally, that clinicians perceive psychotherapy to be significantly less effective when symptoms were explained biologically than psychologically…[ Lebowitz, M. S., & Ahn, W. K. (2014). ]

basically, linking the idea that the diminished importance of psychotherapy among mental health professionals ascribing to the concept of neuroessentialism is doubly harmful when considering the multiple contexts in which psychotherapy matches or outperforms pharmaceutical interventions.”

What Hagele points out here is the way neuroessentialism can lead to a less effective and ethical treatment of mental illness. It makes us approach an issue in one manner only- fix the brain, fix the behavior. But sometimes what can treat he issue in the brain is, working on the behavior. This can be talked about in terms of meds vs. psychotherapy.

So, seeing mental health from a neuroessentialist perspective, completely excludes the effects of psychotherapy. A classic example is CBT (cognitive behavioral therapy) in which we have “Cognitive restructuring”: a psychotherapeutic process in which a person learns to recognize maladaptive or distressing thoughts and teaches their brain to consider other perspectives or different thought pattern. This is an example of “work on behaviour to better brain” rather than “working on brain will fix behavior”. According to strict neuroessentialism therapy shouldn’t work as well as it does but there is a really big body of science backing psychotherapeutic intervention and its efficacy compared to psychopharmacological intervention.

I feel I should address the discussion of Meds vs. therapy before I continue, (it is a whole topic worthy of a post on its own) but to be brief, they work best together and if you’re weighing one against the other psychotherapy has more long-term effects and barely any side effects compared to medication. There are other factor affecting what would be the most effective treatment approach that further nuances this discussion.

Now this is all a pretty big picture but how is this seen every day?

Well, its seen in the downplaying of the importance of therapy. Often, I see this as people normalize behavior where they kind of devalue the importance therapy or put off working on their issues in therapy with the excuse that it’s only for “crazy” people or not something worth the effort.

Therapy then increasingly is seen as this unimportant, extra thing rather than, in most cases, the most effective and safe treatment. And the less crucial therapy is considered, the less accessible it’s going to be – in the U.S. it can often be easier to get your insurance company to cover for a doctors visits where the treatment would be for your GP to prescribe you an antidepressant than an inpatient or outpatient treatment with a mental health professional.

Another point I wanna put out there is that that neuroessentialist narrative is incentivized by pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Puder talks about his own experience in the podcast episode and makes sure to stress that practitioners are humans too and will of course be biased towards something if that something writes them a check or pays some of their expenses. In the episode they discuss a way in which we have seen the neuroessentialist narrative progress:

“Second, there is evidence that the significant increase in direct-to consumer (DTC) advertising for antidepressants is related to rising prescription rates (Park & Grow, 2008). Such advertisements portray depression as a biological medical condition that can successfully be treated with medicine (Lacasse & Leo, 2005; Leo & Lacasse, 2008)” (613).

Now, medicine is an important tool in psychiatry and there is a lot of unnecessary stigma around medication for mental health conditions. I am under no circumstances arguing that medication is bad and therapy is the only right way to treat mental illness. That would be an extreme simplification and invalidation of human experiences. I also wanna acknowledge that being able to go to therapy in many places in the world is a matter of privilege. Therapy simply isn’t accessible for everyone and people can choose an “only medication approach” for many valid reasons. And if that’s the only treatment that was accessible to you I’m really proud of you for taking care of yourself and doing what you can.

If your doctor has prescribed you a medication please take it and know that the purpose is to help you and that you are worthy of help and good health care. The situation where I would suggest to be a tad critical is when people come in with disorders and issues that they have dealt with for years and most of their life and they are just prescribed an antidepressant and sent home. That simply isn’t effective and ethical care. In that case it is worth investigating getting access to a mental health practitioner as well as continuing with medicinal treatment.

I could talk about this for hours but the last thing I wanna get across is that this is a societal problem. I don’t suggest we turn away from pharmaceutical intervention which saves thousands of lives and helps people get better, rather that we work to make psychotherapy (which can be and is crucial for long term remission and recovery) more accessible for when it’s appropriate.

When your doctor tells you that this invisible illness is because of your biology most people feel validated and experience less shame. The fact that people feel like they need to have a tracible biological “anomaly” in their brains to be worthy of treatment and care speaks to an invalidation that many feel. But the issue here is that we're taught to invalidate invisible illness in society which in the end makes people delay critical treatment or blocks access to ethical and effective care.

We also have to acknowledge that with the technology we have now we are not able to know whether all mental illness manifests in the brain in a way we can see so hinging our worthiness of help and care on the definition is in the end harmful.

TL;DR

" Neuroessentialism is the view that the definitive way to explain human psychological experience is by reference to the brain and its activity from chemical, biological and neuroscientific perspectives. For instance, if someone is experiencing depression a neuroessentialistic perspective would claim that he or she is experiencing depression because his or her brain is functioning in a certain way.” - Schultz, W. (2018)

Neuroessentilism can validate a patient and bring relief of shame short term but ends up contributing to stigmatizing attitudes and thus doesn’t help reduce stigma overall.

The neuroessentialist narrative can downplay the efficacy and criticalness of psychotherapeutic intervention

Neuroessentialist perspectives foster lower empathy levels for patients in medical providers and non-providers alike.

Neuroessentialist perspectives of a patient significantly increases levels of prognostic pessimism which leads to worse treatment outcomes

Neuroessentialism arose because of a real invalidation people feel around their mental health and it is a societal issue we need to work on

We can combat neuroessentialism and stigma by working to make psychotherapy more accessible and talking about our experiences openly as well as giving each other kindness and empathy.

#i tried to make this a readable as possible but shoot me a message if i missed soemthing #neuroessentialism #rant post #mental health struggles #recovery data #psychiatry #medication #psychotherapy #therapy #psychology

[musicprincess1990]

Sherlolly prompt please? “For science!” and Friends to lovers!

Taken from my Trope Duos prompt list (prompts are now closed).  #16: “For Science!” and, #17: Friends to Lovers.

Two of my absolute favorite tropes together, you’d think it’d be easy to write… but NO, I stared at this prompt for WEEKS before I finally managed this fluffy bit of Teen!lock.  Please forgive my tardiness, and happy reading! (I hope…)

*

For Science

Molly Hooper.

Yes, she would make the perfect test subject.

For some weeks now, Sherlock had been forming an idea in his mind, an idea regarding his future.  He had no desire for the staid and proper career paths to which so many of his peers, and his superiors, subjected themselves.  He much preferred the idea of working on a freelance basis, particularly in regard to his field of choice: criminal justice.  Scotland Yard was out of the question, the “detectives” there were lazy at best, incurably stupid at worst.  No, he would be their consultant, offering a second (superior) pair of eyes whenever they were out of their depth.  It was quite genius, really.

Using the new memory technique he’d learned, Sherlock had begun constructing a palace within his mind, storing any and all information that might be relevant to his career.  Most of it could be found in books, on the internet, or buried within his subconscious, but there was one area in which these methods fell short.  Social and emotional context was best studied on another person, and also in person, with the subject providing both something to observe, and their own descriptions.

Which brought him back to Molly Hooper.  As a young woman who typically wore her heart on her sleeve, the observation aspect would be fairly easy, and despite her being a year behind him, she was in his chemistry class.  Therefore, she would provide much better insight than the other dullards in the school.

Also, there was the matter of her being his only friend.

Not that Sherlock minded, he couldn’t care less what the rest of the idiots in the school thought of him.  They were, as previously stated, idiots, and he aimed to keep such people at as far a distance as possible.  That said, it would be difficult to convince anyone with whom he was not on good terms to assist him in any experiments, much less this particular one.  Fortunately, he did have Molly, and her innate kindness and similar interest in the sciences substantially increased the chances of her accepting.

His decision made, Sherlock waited until lunch and sought her out in the dining hall.  As usual, he found her seated in a corner table, isolated from the rest of their classmates.  Unlike him, Molly actually liked people, but her shy disposition kept her from reaching out to them.  The two of them would never have been friends, had they not been assigned to one another as lab partners.  The year had set off to a rocky start (Molly timid and stammering and occasionally clumsy, Sherlock aloof and insistent that he preferred to work alone), but over time, he had grown to respect her intellect, so obviously above the cattle surrounding them.  In turn, she had found her strength, no longer stammered, and was unafraid of standing up to him.  Granted, some things had been easier before she’d grown a spine, but he found her much more interesting now, and, most surprising of all, she never bored him.

The focus of his thoughts lifted her head as he approached the table, her usual grin curling her lips.  “Hello, Sherlock!” she greeted cheerfully.

He offered a nod of his head, taking the seat opposite her.  “Molly.  Enjoying the roast pork?”

Molly glanced down at the barely-touched meat and gravy on her tray, wrinkling her nose.  “Not particularly, no.  The potatoes are rubbish as well.  Still,” she added, “it’s better than nothing, I suppose.”

“Mm, debatable,” he countered, and she rolled her eyes with a fond smile.

“Well, most of us need to eat regular meals, Sherlock.”

He groaned dramatically.  “How unbearably dull.”

Molly sniggered, then took a purposeful bite of the roast pork, holding his gaze the entire time.  She grimaced, but did not look away, even after she had swallowed the disgusting food.  “There, see?  I’m not afraid of doing unpleasant things.”

Sherlock raised an eyebrow at her in response, then used her bold statement as his means of changing the subject.  “Speaking of which,” he began, “I have rather an unusual experiment I’m hoping to undertake, and I’ll need assistance.  After some consideration, I’ve decided you would be best suited to help me.”

It was Molly’s turn to lift an eyebrow.  “Had to sit and think about that one, did you?”

“Yes, well, I never said it was a lengthy period of consideration, did I?”

Molly speared another bite of pork.  “Right, come on then.  What’s this experiment?”

“Kissing.”

The fork clattered onto the tray, sending several drops of watery gravy splattering in all directions.  Sherlock frowned and scooted backwards to avoid the spray.  “What the hell was that about?”

Molly’s eyes, already bordering on too big for her face, nearly doubled in size.  “Y-you… you want to… that is…”

“Really, Molly, I thought we’d gotten past the stammering by now.”

“Don’t be a git, Sherlock,” she snapped, and he noted with satisfaction that her voice was much steadier.  “Explain yourself.”

Sherlock sighed and leaned forward, resting his elbows on the table (thankfully, the gravy eruption had not reached his side of the table).  “You already know my career plans, of course.”  She nodded in confirmation.  “It has recently come to my attention that certain behaviors, certain… reactions… would be most helpful to understand.  Particularly the reactions following specific forms of sexual stimuli.”

Molly blinked a few times.  “So… you want to know what it looks and feels like to be kissed?”

“That’s rather oversimplifying the matter, but… essentially, yes.”

She fixed her eyes on a spot of stray gravy, gnawing thoughtfully on her lower lip.  Sherlock waited, mustering no small amount of patience to do so, knowing if he pressed the matter, she would be far less agreeable.  Finally, she lifted her eyes to meet his.  “This is all just… an experiment?  Strictly for science?”

“Of course,” he nodded.

Molly inhaled slowly, deeply through her nose, and Sherlock saw the decision in her eyes before she vocalized it.  “Okay.  I’ll do it.”

*

Two days later, on an unusually sunny Saturday, Sherlock and Molly took the weekly bus into the nearby town, and made for the most secluded spot available: a little cluster of trees within the town’s small park.  The boughs of four fir trees, standing close together, created a nearly fully enclosed space, the gaps just wide enough to slip through sideways.  Molly grinned to herself at the smell of pine and earth, grateful for the memories and the brief distraction it brought.  Too brief, she mused, as Sherlock sidled in behind her, reminding her of the reason for this unorthodox destination.

Her nerves were sky-high as he invaded her space, his fingers gently closing around her upper arm to turn her around.  Molly didn’t meet his eyes immediately, opting to focus on his shirt buttons (bad idea, they were straining to keep their place against his surprisingly toned torso), counting to three in her mind before finally lifting her head.

…And finding the same nervousness in his face..

“Right,” he murmured, his voice breaking so slightly, she thought she must have imagined it.  “So… shall we?”

Molly swallowed thickly.  “Well, ah…  first let’s… let’s talk about some of the… chemical reactions.  You’ve done, erm, some research on that?”

“Yes,” he said a bit too loudly, clearly grateful for the delay.  He cleared his throat.  “Preliminary research indicates that the act of kissing another human being produces a flood of dopamine, serotonin, and, in cases of great affection in one or both parties, oxytocin.”

“Mmhmm,” she nodded.  “What else?”

“Physiological signs of this release of chemicals include flushed cheeks, dilated pupils, elevated pulse, and labored, erratic breathing.  And, in the male’s case, there may even be an erection.”

Molly fought the embarrassed blush that bloomed beneath her cheeks at his use of… that word.  “Right, well… I think that, erm… just about covers it.”

Sherlock, whose expression had become passive as he recited the science behind kissing, snapped his gaze in her direction.  He looked… well, he looked properly terrified, to be honest, like she’d just told him his mother was coming for an impromptu visit (which had happened once, though the headmaster had been the one to inform him, rather than Molly).  Certainly not for the first time, Molly wondered if this really was such a good idea.  Yes, she’d secretly fancied Sherlock since she clapped eyes on him.  Yes, she’d fantasized about snogging him on numerous occasions, though usually in a more romantic setting.  And yes, she was also aware that this was as close to that fantasy as she would ever get.  But if he was going to be miserable the whole time… she couldn’t do it.

“Look, Sherlock, we don’t have to do this.  I know you want to gain as much knowledge as you can, anything that might help your career, but if you don’t want to kiss me—”

“It’s not that,” he interrupted her, his eyes downcast.

“Oh… then… you do want to?”

“No.”

“No?” she parroted back, just a little bit hurt.

He hesitated, a familiar little crinkle forming between his brows as he pondered this.  Molly had a feeling that crinkle would become much more prominent in a few years, as often as she saw it.  Finally, he looked at her, his crystalline eyes wide and worried.  “I’ve never kissed anyone.”

Molly paused, waiting for the rest of his explanation… but after a few moments of silence, it became clear that that was the whole explanation.  “Well, I sort of knew that… I mean, if you had, you wouldn’t be carrying out a snogging experiment, would you?”

Sherlock was perfectly still for fully ten seconds, before finally asking, “So… you don’t mind?”

“Of course not!” she laughed, taking care that she didn’t come off as mocking him.  “It’s not like I’ve been snogging boys left and right myself.  I’ve only had one real boyfriend, and... well... you know how that turned out.”

“Hm, yes I remember,” he mused.  "How is dear Jim faring in prison, I wonder?"

"Who cares?" she muttered.  "My point is, you don't need to be self-conscious."

"I'm not…" he began, but cut himself off when he saw the look of annoyance Molly gave him.  "Okay, fine.  I may be the slightest bit out of my depth here "

Molly smiled.  "I should be recording this."

"Don't make jokes, Molly."

"Don't be a prat, Sherlock."

"I'm not—" he was cut off again, this time by Molly, who had abruptly grabbed his face and crushed her lips against his.  Sherlock instinctively closed his eyes as his mind raced to process all the new data and stimuli presented to him.

Warm… soft… smells like cinnamon… wonder if she tastes like it too?  As if reading his thoughts, Molly's lips parted on a breathy sigh, and Sherlock slid his tongue out to taste her.  Mmm, yes, tastes like cinnam—oh, God…  Her hands had drifted upward, fingers carding through his hair, and he simultaneously shivered and flushed, heat spreading all the way down to his toes.

In the back of his mind, a voice whispered that he was supposed to be doing something… but for the life of him, he couldn't remember what it was.  All he could think was, not enough.  She wasn't close enough, he wasn't touching her enough.  Well, he soon remedied that, firmly locking his arms around her and lifting her off the ground.  Molly gasped against his lips, and the sound sent another flash of heat through him.  A quiet groan met his ears, and as her wide, startled eyes met his, he realized it had come from him.

They remained still, eyes locked and panting for breath, before Sherlock slowly lowered Molly back to the ground.  His arms dropped limply by his sides, and she took a step backward, avoiding his gaze.  At one point, her eyes did stray in his direction, and the pink blush on her cheeks darkened.  Sherlock followed the trajectory id that embarrassed glance, and found—oh.  Well, he had been enjoying himself, hadn't he?

"I-I’m sorry," she stammered.

He frowned.  "Why on earth are you sorry?"

Molly shrugged one shoulder, still not looking at him.  "I dunno… I just… it's fine," she mumbled quietly as her arms wrapped around her middle.

Sherlock watched her begin to shrink into herself, and felt a painful tug against his navel.  In his current, befuddled state, he did not pause to think about what he was doing, he simply acted.  His hands found her shoulders, gently pulling her back toward him. She stiffened, and he held his breath, as if the slightest puff of air would send her running.  Her dark eyes lifted, and finally, the scientific portion of his brain kicked in, noting the physiological signs in her.  Eyes dilated… face flushed… breathing irregular… his left hand shifted slowly up along her neck… elevated pulse.

He couldn't help the gratified smirk he felt stretching across his face.  Molly's eyebrowed pulled together in confusion.  "I'm afraid the results of this experiment were rather… inconclusive."  Cradling her face in both hands, he bent his head, his intent obvious.  "Further study is required."

Molly grinned, all shyness cast aside, and her fingers toyed with the collar of his coat.  "Well… I suppose I can manage that.  In the name of science," she added with mock seriousness.

Sherlock dove in and captured her lips again, hoisting her up off her feet as he had before.  This time, Molly's legs wrapped around his waist, and she eagerly kissed him back.  And as the endorphins and hormones flooded his brain once more, Sherlock decided this was easily the best idea he'd ever had.

#sherlolly #my writing #sherlolly trope duos #hehehe #for science #friends to lovers #this was fun #thanks MJ!

[mbti-notes]

Anon wrote: How can I tell apart a Si loop vs inferior Ne in myself? I struggle to figure out if me at my worst with my worst anxiety is described better by “Si dom falling into inferior Ne” or “Si tert ignoring healthy Ne functioning.” It’s especially hard when I have such intense anxiety problems. I relate both to inferior Ne imagining all the worst possible scenarios and being unable to control a wild imagination or anticipation of a negative outcome and mentally preparing myself by trying to figure out how to potentially deal with everything (even the wildest scenarios my mind conjures up), and tert Si using past experiences to justify those imaginings and my own self loathing issues and being unable to pursue positive possibilities out of fear and a personal rut of negativity and exaggerating threats to my comfort. Like, I’ve identified that my use of Ne and Si causes me the most issues, but I relate to both descriptions of Si loop and inferior Ne. Arguably I’d say I more specifically relate to all the bullets under Si loop, but then I wonder if I’m just an unhealthy Si user with underdeveloped Ne instead. It’s so hard figuring it out when they all seem so similar.

And then sorta different but related question..I get confused by “out of character” when figuring out which function is your grip. because like for example, my mom has all the telltale signs of inferior Te, but I wouldn’t call her Te outbursts “out of character,” in fact I find them very in character. Because it’s part of her personality, even if it’s a flaw/weakness. And i get that confusion because when I ask myself “when am I out of character? Well Id say whenever I’m mean and cold and judgmental and looking for things to be mad at which is something rare and strange for me and i do not feel like myself vs when I’m at my worst in every day life as part of my general flaws where I get anxious and pessimistic and self loathing.” If that makes any sense. If I asked people around me when I’m out of character they’d say the same thing—being mean and cold and demanding is out if character for me. They wouldnt expect it of me and on the rare occasions i AM cold or demanding or critical its a shock to everyone including myself. but me at my worst is when im overly anxious and struggling to control my thoughts of not being able to handle life around me and both imagining possibilities that could happen and using past experience to affirm/validate my anxieties. And my closest family recognize this not as out of character, but just me on bad days. so whats the difference between “out of character” as in you’d never expect this person to be this way and “out of character” as in its just this person at their worst/most unhealthy. Hopefully that makes sense.

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

1) These kinds of assessment problems are covered in the study guides. You describe your behavior, but it seems that you don't have enough insight into the reason behind WHY you manifest it. In other words, you've failed to properly distinguish cognition from behavior. You're too focused on particular functions and specific behavioral traits without understanding how the functional stack works, as a whole, to create the cognitive patterns behind those traits. Knowledge of type dynamics is necessary for determining correct function order. You have to map out how all four cognitive processes interact and work together. Si loop? You can't claim Si loop without also providing compelling evidence of: unhealthy dominant Fi + chronic resistance against auxiliary Ne development + a logical explanation of how it contributes to inferior Te grip.

2) You haven't properly distinguished between subjective and objective evaluations. It is often the case that how we see ourselves doesn't match up with how others see us. For example, while you may consider your mom's negative behavior "in character", in that she displays it often from your perspective, she might not agree or see herself in the same way as you do. Are you talking about your perspective on yourself, others' perspective of you, or your perspective of others? Who is able to access the truth of you? So far, the answer seems to be nobody.

3) As far as I can tell, you are confused because you take the phrase "out of character" too literally, due to not understanding the theory behind the meaning of the word "character". Type theory outlines the strengths and weaknesses of each personality type. Yes, both the strengths and weaknesses are part of you. To oversimplify: if your personality development has gone well, you should manifest more strengths than weaknesses of your type; but if your development hasn't gone well, you will likely manifest more weaknesses than strengths. Suffering many personality development problems often means that one's self-image does not reflect the reality of who one is, especially for people at lower levels of ego development.

While in everyday language, the word "character" refers to a person's literal behavior over time, it's not so simple in type theory. In type theory, with respect to the inferior function, "character" also includes the concept of potential, i.e., your true character or your true self. It is what someone should look like when their development process has been optimal and they are gradually fulfilling their type potential throughout life. You're getting hung up on the word "character" and overlooking the most crucial fact of your case, which is that you haven't done enough to fulfill your type potential up until now. Why is that? Examining type potential is usually necessary in cases where a person exhibits more of the weaknesses than the strengths of their type, but newbies don't usually have this level of expertise.

If you're struggling to learn the theory, that's fine, but then it's best to proceed with the guidance of an expert, so that you don't confuse yourself further, especially if you also have complicating factors to consider. It's possible that what you describe may not be Ne or Si at all but simply the anxiety disorder. I don't like to bandy around possibilities or entertain piecemeal questions that neglect the bigger picture. Regardless of what type you believe you might be, until you submit a full type assessment with concrete examples that allow me to see how your entire functional stack actually operates, I won't have the data that is necessary to analyze and clarify your case.

#typing #character #out of character #potential #grip #ask

[argentdandelion]

Should Simon Have Friend-Dumped Grace?

Note: this article does not sufficiently weigh Simon’s bad behaviors in Episode 11, “The New Apex”. This article has been kept unmodified for posterity.

Part 1 of 2: Series Abstract and “Strikes”

(Caveat: there’s a convincing case to be made they’re in a codependent abusive relationship, so treating this as a friendship gone bad may be the incorrect protocol or oversimplified. Still, for the sake of not re-writing the whole thing, it will be presented with the thesis they were originally close friends. Due to the difficulty of researching causes to friend-dump someone who isn’t toxic, some references come from toxic-friend protocol, so there would be some overlap.)

Abstract

The protagonists of Infinity Train’s third season, Grace Monroe and Simon Laurent, start off very close. However, as the season progresses, their friendship deteriorates, as clear through dialogue, but also facial expressions, body language, and vocal details. And yet, Simon chose to stay with her and obey her, if with increasing reluctance, and cared deeply about her (to him) inexplicable behavior changes. And it’s because he cared so much about Grace that he had to find out what was causing everything, leading to that shocking moment: “We….just won't tell Simon, okay?” Later on, he shoves her off a train bridge to certain death, and briefly looks shocked and sad before he descends into maniacal laughter, and is then killed by a Ghom.

2. Four “Strikes”

Their relationship became massively damaged due to Grace’s four “strikes”: her distressing behavior about her number, her inexplicable (to Simon) anger at killing Tuba, never telling Simon Hazel was a denizen, and many minor forms of mistreatment, considered collectively, that only count at all due to happening so frequently and in conjunction with major “strikes”.

Strike 1

Firstly, Grace hid her number, a mark of pride and authority in the Apex, for no clear reason. In Le Chat Chalet, they had a good interpersonal-relations moment on the stairs in which Grace disclosed “what she’s been dealing with”: her number going down. She was hiding it because she didn’t want Simon or anyone else to think less of her because of her lower number, and it’s presented as a nigh-medical problem. However, when Simon checks his number out later and tries to take off Grace’s gloves to see hers, Grace refuses, to the point of acting aggressively. Despite it being something Simon and Grace herself worried about, she didn’t seem to care about evaluating her number changes, which baffled and worried Simon to the point he went to The Cat for help. Clearly, he doesn’t believe numbers should go down, based on how he reacts to The Cat devaluing numbers and stating they should go down.

Strike 2

Secondly, Grace became very angry at him for killing Tuba, which was rather sudden and didn’t make sense based on their opinions and tactics on Tuba from before. Indeed, he thought killing Tuba would make Grace happy.

When they first encountered Tuba in Episode 2, Grace the would “ditch” Tuba later. When in Episode 3, Simon asked Grace when they would “take out” Tuba, and Grace suggested postponing it further because Tuba would “put up a serious fight”. Grace wasn’t clear that Tuba absolutely should not be killed, and seemed to forbid attacking Tuba only because Tuba was too strong to be taken down by only one or two people.* One could argue Simon could have guessed killing Tuba would distress Hazel, but not Grace: it wouldn’t match what he knew about her beliefs and stated opinions. At first, in Episode 5, Grace is exasperated and briefly glares at him, but after realizing how badly it affected Hazel, she’s outright angry at Simon. Simon knew Hazel was crying, but beyond that, didn’t know how badly it affected Hazel.

Strike 3

Thirdly, Grace didn’t tell Simon about being a Denizen, apparently never intended to so, and outright lied to Simon about knowing about it. Memory-Hazel even points this out, by saying: “and when you had the chance to make things right...you protected yourself! You tried to control me and Simon instead of being honest!”

This may be the strongest strike. Simon tends to react to severe stress with exasperation, aggression, or even violence (e.g., kicking a door when snowed in), but when he saw the “We...just won’t tell Simon, okay?” moment, he looks shocked and outright cries. From the way it’s on loop in Grace’s memory tape, it’s clear it was “on loop” in his own mind, too. Although Simon doesn’t immediately bring it up when he finds out, and seems to look forward to ruling the Apex with Grace without Hazel “holding them back”, when Grace says “Hazel was our friend, and you wrote her off like she was nothing!”, Simon is hurt, saying: “I was your friend first!”. Although friends do not have to disclose all their secrets to each other, and Grace had a good motive in keeping the secret, the nature and severity of this secret broke them apart.

Strike 4

Then there’s the “fourth strike”. Disappointments and conflict are inevitable in a friendship that’s lasted eight years. Their relationship is clearly strong enough to withstand a little negativity: Simon is okay with the occasional joke at his expense (e.g., criticism of his fashion tastes and body odor) or things which make him mildly uncomfortable. (e.g., shaking him by the shoulders while telling him to “loosen up”) Some of the conflicts, disappointments, aggression or distressing behaviors would probably have been minor, quickly-healed injuries to their friendship under normal circumstances. They collectively count as one “strike” of sorts, only because they occur one after the other, in conjunction with major friendship injuries.

The weakest strikes are ones that distress Simon but fit within the context of their modus operandi, and are approached with satisfactory explanations and care for Simon. Grace decides to go by the Debutante Ball Car’s rules, instead of their typical strategy; Simon is initially uncomfortable with this, but Grace provides an explanation and splits strategies. Grace says they should stay in Le Chat Chalet for the night even though Simon is very distressed to be there, but the two explain their distressing and uncharacteristic behaviors to each other in a heartfelt conversation on the house’s stairs, which resolves things.

The stronger ones have explanations, but not convincing ones, and aren’t made with any compassion or care for Simon. In episode 6, Grace angrily tells Simon: “Don’t you ever take action like that again if I haven’t given you explicit orders!”, and Simon sounds upset when he asks if she’s pulling rank. She says yes, and Simon obeys with a drained, shocked-sounding “yes ma’am.” Grace insists on giving Hazel a funeral; Grace provides reasoning but Simon clearly finds it impractical and meaningless. (“there wasn’t a body!”)

In the worst of the minor strikes, Grace acts as the opposite of the person Simon knew, and strikes at Simon’s psychological weak points when he’s already deeply distressed. While in Grace’s memories (which Simon would never have gotten into if he were a good friend, anyway), the idealized image of the Conductor suddenly changed into something less impressive, even dorky-looking. Simon himself was mistaken about The Conductor, true, and Grace realizing the Conductor wasn’t what “he” was cracked up to be was part of her character growth, but such sudden disillusionment in someone who’s already so distressed could only cause bad consequences for Simon. (Though it is possible to flickering to what really happened wasn’t something Grace consciously did, so she can’t be blamed for it.)

*To be fair, if Grace said, “absolutely don’t kill Tuba”, would Simon have obeyed? It would have been very unlike Grace.

#Infinity Train #Simon Laurent #Grace Monroe #Analysis #Meta #Character Analysis #Character Study #Grace (Infinity Train) #Simon (Infinity Train)

[metvmorqhoses]

Lis I adore your Sugar Baddie Type analysis! But TOM RIDDLE?!

ok two more anons asked this and you are all really right, this indeed needs some explanations.

to put tom among the “sugar baddies” trope is the consequence of my *more mature* personal opinion about his character, therefore it is for you to decide how right i might be in the end. i was also specifically referring to his dynamic with bellatrix, which never stops to fascinate me. but again, since none or very little of this is clearly mentioned in the books, which are sadly not specifically about him, all this will always be up to interpretations.

tom riddle (and then voldemort consequentially) is one of the most ruthless, fascinating villains ever created, pure in his evil as much as in his ideology, extremely selfish and wicked, so full of hatred, fear, ambition and, yes, desperation as well. so purely evil, in fact, that people too many times tend to oversimplify his character and more importantly his behaviors. to most, voldemort is too evil to do anything else but evil; too evil to be anything else but a full-time fairytale-like villain. we can hardly picture him enjoying a quidditch game, or a pie, or reading a book about anything else but horcruxes-making; we don’t even dare to try to picture him having sex, if not in a degrading way towards his victim, ehrm, partner. and this is all absolutely true, but i love to think there is also… more.

to really strike me, a villain must still possess the shreds, the deformities of what once their humanity was. it’s what i love about ancient mythologies - even gods have human-shaped hearts. but those hearts in their chests are redder, have twisted forms, pulse with more insistence - and they are so much heavier.

i like to think voldemort falls in this category, even if it’s not always easy to come to realize this when you first read the books. after all, as any real myth, and i say this with a bit of pride, there is little or nothing left of the real person behind it, not in the minds of those who come after them, at least.

growing up with the hp books, i had this same idea of tom riddle as well and i think the novels are to some extent to blame for this, after all they are told from harry’s point of view and we can’t really blame him for falling for the fairytale-like monster trick, it’s obvious that tom himself wanted everyone to perceive him like that, to fear him like that, that’s, after all, the very reason he became voldemort in the first place, to get rid of his humanity - and i can’t honestly think of anything more painfully human than that.

yet, when i say “human” i’m not trying to belittle his demi-god aura, or his exceptionality, quite the opposite: i’m endlessly fascinated by his being a finer, higher, more sophisticated kind of human - with the horrors that came with it as well. even when harry tries to consider him as person, even while he watches him as a boy in the orphanage, harry is presented with an inhuman psychopath, but i don’t think it is necessary always the case. i like to think one as intelligent and exceptional (and damaged) as tom could easily go from pure evil to (potentially) pure love in a split second. and that’s absolutely disturbing in a person, and twisted, and really interesting. after all, there are many ways one can be unable to love: being conceived under a love potion doesn’t necessarily make you alien to love, but maybe simply unable to understand or trust it. i think this interpretation fits more tom’s character: he had ALL the capabilities others had, he actually had more than, even the one to love, but his past and choices and consequential fears made him the monster he became.

recently analyzing his character, i found myself intrigued to go past his evil-entity facade, looking at him in a more real person kind of way, trying to understand him more as a real-life dictator with supernatural powers. a man behind the monster, behind the endless power. and i like to think in the end he did enjoy quidditch games, and pies, and music, and literature, and art, and did care, in his twisted and dangerous way of course, about some people - bellatrix, most of all.

he screamed when she died. he tried to avenge her. he had a daughter with her. and in all honesty i can’t really see him having an aseptic one-night-stand sex for some heir-conceiving frenzy, it’s terribly out of character for someone who’s been planning to live forever and being the world’s eternal dictator since he was six years old. i’m sure delphini was a mistake and this means he was actively having sex with bellatrix, the said most loyal lieutenant, whom he tried to avenge, whom he screamed for, to whom he literally entrusted a piece of his own torn soul (how awfully romantic). bellatrix who was basically almost seen as a queen by everyone, incredibly feared and respected. bellatrix who was always behind him, and yet ahead of everyone else in every single battle/meeting/situation - and he let her. do you think someone like voldemort would have allowed anyone to be that annoying if he had not enjoyed it? anyone else would have been killed for much less. bellatrix who had talent, and courage, and the strength to never give up for all those years in azkaban, just to one day see him again. i think him intelligent and deep enough to be fascinated by that, especially if that beautiful mind was as twisted as his own. also i think him intelligent enough to value beauty: the beauty of magic, of nature, of her body. all those sentiments are linked and they absolutely don’t diminish the horrors in my mind, they just magnify them.

but i also think their relationship, as twisted and complicated and unhealthy as it might have been, wasn’t a degraded slave and master one. leaving aside the fact i don’t think he would have enjoyed to fuck a worthless worm at all and that bellatrix can be literally perceived as anything but that, i think he viewed sex as something deeply human, and therefore far beneath him. extremely good-looking as he was, i think he considered women something he would have never lessened himself with.

then why having sex with bellatrix and favor her, even publicly, even if in a really subtle way? the only possible answer is there were sentiments involved, admiration for her, trust in her, desire for her beyond reason, even. i also think he would have only ever allowed himself to appear that human with someone he literally trusted more than his very self. i don’t want to explore here all the possible implications and internal crisis this might have caused them both, but this is why they probably are my favorite fictional couple and that’s why i’m so fascinated by them both. they do fall in the trope, but not as the normal “pure girl saves villain” kind of way, but in a much higher one: what’s really perfect about them is they found each other in darkness, they are kindred spirits in power and terror, and yet this doesn’t mean they can’t love or care, but just that it’s a black kind of love they share. a terrible one.

i think bellatrix was the great woman behind the great man, whom he rewarded publicly, and dashingly and twistingly loved privately. and if we can’t really see him doing any of those things, it’s because he succeeded in making us just see the terrible mask of voldemort, finally becoming the hideous myth that could so safely protect and immortalize the broken, desperate and exceptionally talented tom riddle.

#tom marvolo riddle #lord voldemort #bellamort #bellatrix black #bellatrix lestrange #hp #lit #books #sugar baddies #anon #asks/replies #one and one thousand stories lis told