habitual behaviors

FightWrite: Your Killers Need to Kill

Killers need to kill. It’s surprising how many writers ignore this very specific and important piece of the ones they claim are killers, heartless or not. Sometimes, there’s a difference between the character we describe in the text and the actions the character takes. An author can tell me over and over that a character is a deadly and dangerous person who strikes ruthlessly without mercy, but if they don’t behave that way in the actual story then I’m not going to buy it.

Show versus tell: the difference between who the author says the character is and the actions the character takes in the story. Especially if the actions counteract the description. Now, you do have characters who lie, characters who misrepresent themselves, characters who say one thing and do another, but these are not the characters we’re talking about. This is about ensuring that you, the author, know the character you are writing. Unless you’re hiding their habits, let us glimpse the worst they’re capable of.

Monster. I could tell Jackson I was a monster, but he wouldn’t believe me. He saw a strawberry blonde, five feet eleven inches. A waitress, a Pilates nut, not a murderer. The nasty scar across my slim waist that I’d earned when I was ten? He thought I’d gotten it from a mugging at twenty one. Just as a natural layer of womanly fat hid away years of physical conditioning, I hid myself behind long hair, perky makeup, and a closet full of costumes bought from Macy’s and Forever 21. To him, I was Grace Johnson. The woman who cuddled beside him in bed, the woman who hogged the sheets, who screamed during horror movie jump scares, the woman who forgot to change the toilet paper, who baked cookies every Saturday morning, the woman who sometimes wore the same underwear three days in a row. The woman he loved.

No, I thought as I studied his eyes. Even with a useless arm hanging at my side, elbow crushed; my nose smashed, blood coursing down from the open gash in my forehead, a bullet wound in my shoulder, Sixteen’s gun in my hand, the dining room table shattered, and his grandmother’s China scattered across the floor. He’d never believe Grace Johnson was a lie. Not until I showed him, possibly not even then. Not for many more years to come. Probably, I caught my mental shrug, if he lives.

“Grace,” Jackson said. “Please…” The phone clattered the floor, his blue eyes wide, color draining from his lips. “This isn’t you.”

Gaze locking his, I levered Sixteen’s pistol at her knee.

“Don’t,” she whispered. “Morrison will take you in, he’ll fix this.” Her voice cracked, almost a sob. For us, a destroyed limb was a death sentence. Once, we swore we’d die together. Now, she can mean it. “Thirteen, if you run then there’s no going back.”

My upper lip curled. “You don’t know me.” I had no idea which one I was talking to. “You never did.”

My finger squeezed the trigger.

Sixteen grunted, blood slipping down her lip. In the doorway, Jackson screamed.

Do it and mean it. Let it be part of their character development, regardless of if which way you intend to go. In the above example, there’s a dichotomy present between the character of Thirteen and her cover Grace Johnson. There’s some question, even for the character, about which of them they are. It sets up a beginning of growth for the character as she runs, but it also fails to answer what will be the central question in the story: who am I? Which way will I jump?

If Thirteen doesn’t kill Sixteen, if the scene answers the question at the beginning then why would you need to read the story?

Below the cut, we’ll talk about some ways to show their struggles.


Keep reading

  • When we are born we come in under the influence of one of the Moon's phases.
  • NEW MOON: 1st lunar stage:
  • - When a person is born under the influence of the New Moon it is thought that in terms of reincarnation, this person has been born into the first incarnation of an eight fold sequence. This person possesses a quality of spontaneity, thus, planning ahead is not always met with success. They view life as a grand adventure with unlimited possibilities. Living in the moment, the past is not important to them. Being born when the Moon sheds no light, they have come to learn to respond instinctually and to act on intuition. They are able to navigate without maps and arrive at their destination with time to spare. They are often criticized for being overly self involved, but there is a need for them to learn about who they are and to project it into the world.
  • Keywords: Initial urge; Instinct; Projection
  • CRESCENT: 2nd lunar stage:
  • - A key word for the Crescent Phase is breakthrough. It is a time when what was begun during the New Moon is carried forward. It is a time of struggle because it often has to wrestle with the ghosts of the past which were in effect before the new cycle began. This new identity needs to overcome old standards, attitudes and structures in order to become fully functional as a whole and free individual. People born during a Crescent Moon often find themselves emotionally tied to the past. They may be drawn to habitual behaviors, wanting to stay within their comfort zones, feeling the need for security. They can be vulnerable to emotional blackmail, falling victim to those who want to "keep them the way they are", not supportive of their growth. Crescent Moon types may find it difficult to leave home until well into adulthood. It is imperative that they establish their life force in independence. It is important for them to understand that the first step is the hardest, but that once it is taken new opportunities will open up. Their final challenge is to take those opportunities and act on them.
  • Keywords: Activation; Striving; Future
  • FIRST QUARTER: 3rd lunar stage:
  • - The First Quarter Moon can be referred to as "crisis in action". It is a time in which the challenge is to manage the energy which is released by crisis and then to restructure it into its new form. People born during this phase are able to rise to the occasion of any emergency. They are able to make split second decisions and act on them. They have the ability to tear down old structures and to recreate new ones. They are the pioneers, the trail blazers, the hero and the heroine. It is important not to unconsciously create havoc in their lives just for the sake of excitement even though the crazier it gets, the better they get. It is likely they will create conflict in the lives of those entrenched in the status quo. You may find them working in emergency rooms and driving ambulances.
  • Keywords: Clearing; Action; Building
  • GIBBOUS: 4th lunar stage:
  • - Those born during the Gibbous Phase have an innate desire for perfection. Having sharp, analytical minds, they have a need to understand. Looking at a subject from all angles, they experience sheer joy when delving into the core of the matter. Bringing things to the essence of their being, the truth will be revealed. They live their lives in anxious expectation augmented by the breath of the coming revelation. Children born at this time will not be happy with the answers, they will want to know why and how the answer came about. Gibbous Moon people make good apprentices as their goal is to learn all they can and become as good as they can get.
  • Keywords: Perfecting; Analysis; Interpret
  • FULL MOON: 5th lunar stage:
  • - The Full Moon brings about the completion of all the hard work that came before it. It is the time in which the structure having attained perfection experiences the urge to become infused with meaning and purpose, the breath of life. It is time when all that was instinctual becomes deliberate action, all that was felt before will now be made visible. The ideals are to be realized, brought forth into the world for all to have. It is the debut. People born under the Full Moon are idealists. They may spend a lot of time searching for belief systems that they can relate to. Relationships are important to them and they need to be fully conscious of the effects their words and actions have on others. It is hard for them to find the ideal relationship in this material world and they will often turn to religion or an ideal cause. In looking for the right relationship, one needs to proceed through the clarity of the light of consciousness and not get caught up in the emotional bog of sheer desire.
  • Keywords: Perfection; Completion Conscious; Illumination
  • DISSEMINATING: 6th lunar stage:
  • - The Disseminating Phase of the Moon is the second phase of conscious operation. That which came into completion at the Full Moon is ready to be distributed now. People born during this phase are natural communicators. They are what they believe and their purpose is to spread it to the world. They share and communicate information acquired from their own experience. They are the teachers and philosophers. If they have no message to share they can become despondent. It is their lesson to realize that they are not responsible as to whether the message is received or not. It is not the role of everyone else to act on what they say, but it is the role of the person born in the Disseminating Phase to say it. They make good publicists and reporters as long as they believe in what they are saying.
  • Keywords: Imparting; Convey Awareness
  • LAST QUARTER: 7th lunar stage:
  • - The key word for the Last Quarter is readjustment. It is the hardest to identify as many of its characteristics are hidden. As the First Quarter experiences "crisis in action", the Third Quarter experiences "crisis in consciousness". Old systems and values are becoming useless. It is hard for people born at this time to relate to life in the here and now. They often appear to be living in a world of their own, when in actuality they are going through an internal process of reorientation. They will present to the world an acceptable face as they are quietly developing on the inside. At the point when their own internal self has been completed, a brand new, fully developed person emerges. This butterfly is quite different from the caterpillar it had been, and is quite the surprise to those who thought they "knew" them. These people need the time and space to find themselves. If pressured to conform, they may revolt causing others to regard them as uncooperative and rebellious. As children, they require a lot of "alone" time and may need more rest than others as they process much in their sleep and in meditative states.
  • Keywords: Readjustment; Correcting; Disillusionment; Elimination
  • BALSAMIC: 8th lunar stage:
  • - The Balsamic Phase is the last phase of the Moon's cycle. This is the time of adjustment from one cycle to another. It is the bridge between the past and the future. People born at this time are finishing an eight phase cycle of lifetimes. Therefore, this lifetime is a very karmic one. There is a pattern of very intense, all-consuming although short term relationships with people from the past including other lifetimes. These karmic ties are in need of resolution before continuing on into the next new cycle. These people often have pronounced psychic abilities. They are the visionaries seeing years ahead of their times. As children they often feel apart from their peers; they are loners. Balsamic Moon people are able to take the true meaning of a situation, distill it into its wisdom essence and plant it into the awareness of others. They are the gurus. Their job is the transmission of essential knowledge which will germinate at the next level during the next Lunation Cycle.
  • Keywords: Incubation; Preparation; Closure; Surrender

solarpolarmolar  asked:

Hello you recently did an article on the judging functions serving the dominant functions in perceiving types. I was wondering if you could do one on the perceiving functions serving the dominant functions in the judging types? Please and thank you :)

Fe is a social function, oriented toward inclusion and group dynamics, with the desire to maintain relationships through honoring interpersonal responsibilities and duties.

Fe/Ni: Ni helps turn Fe’ toward understanding the deeper implications of situations before forming rapid moral judgments or decisions, and enables the Fe to find more insightful ways to achieve social harmony. Ni can help the Fe realize the importance of individuality / differing opinions (due to one’s own subjective impressions). Ni can also help Fe decide between impulsive emotions-based decisions and those that will lead them nearer to their broader futuristic goals. It should help Fe consider the personal meaning of their actions and decisions and the future implications of them. Ni can help Fe act with the intention of maximizing their foresight to exclusivity toward everyone’s needs.

Unhealthy Fe/Ni: dismisses the need to search for deeper meaning, because it can conflict with social integration; continually makes decisions based on Fe-based people-pleasing, rather than that take them toward their subjective goal. Can become excessively focused on pursuing an unrealistic ideal of perfection in their personal vision, which erodes their relationships.

Fe/Si: Si helps Fe’s focus shift toward subjective or inner experiences (how has this worked in the past? does it align with my goals, priorities, and intentions?) and slows Fe down from making rapid judgments on others’ behaviors, beliefs, and individuality (as being “separate or hostile toward the group”). Fe working properly with Si allows the ESFJ to realize their own individual priorities should be an important factor in their decisions; and to respect other’s individuality as an asset rather than a threat to social harmony. Si should help Fe slow down and consider how their judgments or actions will impact everyone involved.

Unhealthy Fe/Si: tends to serve everyone else / have no sense of individual focus or experience which enables them to be independent and focused on their own priorities; often people-pleases and/or becomes excessively judgmental or rigid in insisting everyone conform to the same beliefs, behaviors, and ideals. May become obsessively detail-oriented (fixated on “the right way to do” something) and fail to see how this judgmental, serious, rigid attitude threatens their relationships.

Te is an organizational function, oriented toward effective action to maintain order and stability to achieve objective, measurable results.

Te/Ni: Ni helps Te to understand the deeper implications of situations before making rapid decisions or judgments, and enables the Te to find deeper individual meaning for their priorities and goals. It should slow Te down from impulsive actions that are ultimately meaningless but still accomplish a task. Ni should place a sense of depth, futuristic impact, and personal meaning into Te’s decision making; using its foresight to structure outcomes that benefits everyone involved.

Unhealthy Te/Ni: dismisses personal meaning and depth to accomplish goals. Can become fixated on pursuing a personal vision and caught up in the pursuit of unattainable perfection. Since Ni is focused in self, the ENTJ can become singular to the point of doing damage to their relationships / anyone outside their ‘idealistic’ goal.

Te/Si: Si helps Te’s focus shift toward subjective or inner experiences (how has this worked in the past? does it align with my goals, priorities, and intentions?) and slows Te down from making rapid, facts-only based decisions (that often exclude others) through patient detailed information gathering. Te working properly with Si brings a balance of logic-based, results-oriented objectivity coupled with a deep understanding of what the ESTJ ‘values’ and the ability to make decisions based on long-standing personal priorities.

Unhealthy Te/Si: brings an imbalance of foreful decision making, which dismisses anyone or anything perceived to be a hindrance to efficient action. Poor Si / Ne development means the ESTJ is habitual and conforming, not inclined to develop their understanding of how reality works, and stuck on the details (often falling into habitual perfectionist behaviors; they believe everything has a right way to do it).

Fi wants the freedom to live by its own values to promote inner harmony and reduce inner turmoil, with a prioritization on individual experience.

Fi/Ne: Ne should introduce Fi to interesting new possibilities and insights, and enable the Fi to build a sense of individuality through exploration of ideas. Ne channels and finds unique and creative ways to express personal values. Ne should also help Fi find values shared among others and help make Fi less judgmental or rigid in its conclusions (shifting Fi away from a black and white view of ethics, by considering others’ experiences and ideas as equal to their own). Ne can help Fi realize that impersonal standards, behaviors, and rules are necessary to help others work together effectively. Ne can help Fi see each individual’s potential.

Unhealthy Fi/Ne: may become closed off to new possibilities, ideas, or knowledge that make Fi uncomfortable or violates a narrow set of beliefs. Can make the INFP pessimistic, indecisive, or not inclined to pursue self-betterment or correction of one’s flaws. Hyper-active Ne can make the Fi excessive in pursuing new ideas, possibilities, relationships, and projects without checking in with Fi to determine if they fit Fi’s values or beliefs, which makes their time-use ineffective, scattered, and meaningless in self-expression. Prone to immature bouts of individuality / a failure to understand the necessity of social bonds.

Fi/Se: Se should gather external data and expand the sense of self of the Fi, by exploring new experiences and finding adventurous ways of self-expression. Se can turn toward individual experiences / observation of values shared among individuals and communities or cultures, in order to counter-act Fi’s strong ethical judgments (Se can enable Fi to objectivity in assessing others). Se balances out Fi’s sense of ethical rigidity by expanding their experiences, and allowing Fi to find confidence in pursuing their goals. Se information-gathering can observe others’ success and enable Fi to feel more confident in their ability to succeed in the external world.

Unhealthy Fi/Se: closes itself off to new knowledge or experience that conflicts with its narrow beliefs or values or makes Fi uncomfortable. ISFPs like this can be impulsive, indecisive, or fail to take measurable action to bring their values into the world in healthy ways. Hyper-active Se pursues new experiences to excess to avoid personal boredom, often believing it needs no restrictions (thus ruining relationships / making impulsive decisions with unforeseen consequences, and neglecting their own emotional welfare). Prone to immature bouts of individuality / a failure to understand the necessity of social bonds.

Ti wants the freedom to figure out and develop internal logical systems with an emphasis on learning what most engages its interest.

Ti/Ne: Ne should introduce Ti to interesting possibilities, ideas, and concepts in the outer world to expand the knowledge of Ti into new areas. Ne can help Ti visualize and explore the possibilities of their engagement with others; how their decisions, beliefs, actions, and advice can impact others in the immediate future. Ne expands Ti’s narrow principles of logical precision by bringing balance and a constant source of ideas from the external world (thus helping Ti avoid getting stuck in a rut and superficial understanding). Ne should help Ti’s understand others’ perspectives, ideas, and beliefs have value / are equal to their own, as helping Ti form a greater concept of reality rather than treating others’ beliefs / systems / arguments as insensible or irrelevant.

Unhealthy Ti/Ne: can close Ti off to new knowledge or possibilities that threatens Ti’s formula of reality or judgments. This leads to pessimism, narrow or focused thoughts, and an inability to foster and expand knowledge bases or analyze and correct one’s mistakes and shortcomings. Hyper-active Ne can pursue new ideas, concepts, and principles that are irrational or do not help Ti structure its knowledge base, out of a lust for knowledge without restriction. These INTPs fail to prioritize and fall into meaningless behaviors. Prone to immature, superficial defiance of the external world.

Ti/Se: Se should turn Ti’s focus to the external world and in gathering external information, knowledge, and data to expand its personal knowledge banks and adapt to individual situations. Se objective observation can help Ti focus on, notice, and discern how their decisions, actions, and advice can impact other people in the shorter term. Se teaches Ti to adapt to the external world, and expand their personal knowledge through observation and new experiences. Se helps Ti form a more cohesive, broad understanding of how external systems and individuals work; through this, Ti can consider others’ opinions and beliefs as valuable, rather than dismissing them as irrational. Se helps Ti master physical skills and systems, and makes it more easily adjustable.

Unhealthy Ti/Se: Ti overrides Se and excludes any information, experience, or knowledge that contradicts its rigid logical principles, making the ISTP a narrow-minded individualist prone to detachment from the external world / other people. This ISTP does not focus on observation in order to find, analyze, and adjust one’s flaws toward a greater holistic self. Over-active Se pursues new experiences and knowledge to excess, without establishing personal boundaries or restrictions, leading to careless, reactive, over-indulgent sensory behaviors that undermine the ISTP’s job security and relationships. These ISTPs are prone to not foreseeing the negative consequences of their behavior. Prone to immature, superficial defiance of the external world.

Adapted from mbti-notes. Longer / more detailed explanations here.

- ENFP Mod

The first house is often called the “House of the Personality”. What’s actually at stake here can be expressed more precisely: the first house represents that part of the Self which we make obvious to the world through our habitual styles of action, behavior, and self presentation.

Someone offends you, inwardly, you experience dozens of emotions and reactions. Anger. Hurt. Understanding. Contempt. Shame. Transcendent Indifference. Fear. They’re all real. Which do you express FIRST as a reflex? The answer is reflected in the natures of any planets in your first house or ascendant
—  Steven Forrest

anonymous asked:

i'm not sure if this would be considered as covert schizoid, but! do any schizoid fakes emotions in public without really thinking about it? like, smile when says hello? fake laugh at joke even though you wouldn't laugh normally at that? bc you were taught to do this your whole life?

i definitely also do this. i feel like covert holds a deliberate connotation, while this is more of an ingrained/habitual behavior, so its interesting that you brought that up. i would presume that both are pretty common in schizoids

Mabel is ESFJ?


There’s been a lot of resistance to my typing of Mabel Pines from Gravity Falls as an ESFJ. Most arguments center around her as an ENFP, an Ne-dom, or simply that she’s not ‘serious’ enough to be an SJ. Let me lay out my arguments for ESFJ once and for all, just for clarity’s sake.

1. Mabel is not an Fi user.

Mabel’s feelings are focused outwards. When does she keep her feelings bottled on the inside, like Stan? When does she ignore what other people think of or say about her because of her own inner security? When does she adopt a ‘live and let live’ attitude to other peoples’ problems? Mabel is an Fe-user. She wears her heart on her sleeve. She interferes with other peoples’ problems on a daily basis. Fi users do not do this. They believe people are free to deal with their own issues. Mabel butts in. She takes it upon herself to fix the emotions of others, whether they ask for it or not. Her morality does not come from within - she’s convinced she can only be a good person in The Last Mabelcorn if she’s a good person in the eyes of the unicorn. She seeks validation from outside, not from within. She goes out of her way to change things about herself to impress the boys she likes, sacrificing her sense of identity to impress them. She tries to impose her own morals onto others, like in Boss Mabel when she’s convinced her ideas of how to run a business are right for Stan. In that same episode, she lets everyone take advantage of her because she’s afraid they’ll think badly of her. Mabel defies every important aspect of Fi: Inner emotion. Inner morality. Internal validation. She doesn’t use any of those. She communicates her feelings to everyone she comes across, whether a complete stranger or her brother. She gets her ideas of right and wrong from the outside, from others’ opinions, not from within. She seeks validation from other people and cares about how she’s perceived by them over how she perceives herself. She is not Fi.

2. Her Ti isn’t developed enough to be Auxiliary.

Let’s take the common argument that Mabel must be Ne-dominant, but also accept that she’s an Fe user. They would make ENTP the obvious type. But Mabel is not a Ti-auxiliary. She’s certainly capable of being logical, but it doesn’t come easily. Detaching from other people is hard for her. She doesn’t follow rational clues, like Dipper. She doesn’t listen to her head, she listens to her heart. Look at Not What He Seems. All the evidence, all the tangible evidence, is pointing to the conclusion that Stan is up to no good. The machine he’s created will end the world - confirmed by the government and the author. Rational facts. Stan’s been lying about stealing toxic waste - confirmed by the security tapes. Stan’s been lying about his identity - confirmed by the newspaper article and the fake IDs. Every piece of logical evidence supports the conclusion that Stan is up to no good. On the other side she has only her emotional attachment to Stan and trust in him. I’m a Ti dominant, and I wouldn’t have held up my hands like Mabel does. Mabel makes a choice based on emotion, past experience, and some indecision (Fe-Si-Ne), but not on logic. The logical choice here, and in many other places involving Mabel, is not the one she can make. An ENTP would at least be more conflicted between the two. Mabel doesn’t work like that. She doesn’t ask for logical proof from Stan in that climactic scene. She asks for emotional proof. “I wanna believe you”. Stan doesn’t give her any logical persuasion to do what she does. He appeals to her emotions. And that’s the way to win her over. Because although Mabel can be analytical at times, like any Ti inferior, she ultimately follows her heart and not her head.

3. She’s a sensor, not an intuitive

Mabel bases many decisions on how things have been in the past. She’s a doer, not a contemplator. Compare her to Dipper, who’s intuitive dominant. Dipper contemplates things. He sits back and analyzes stuff from every possible angle until he comes up with a conclusion. He can’t just go up and talk to Wendy. He has to think up a plan! Mabel doesn’t do this. Mabel just acts. She jumps in, face first. She’s so obviously a sensor. Her life is about doing things, getting involved, taking action. Mabel rarely sits around contemplating possibilities. Let me tell you, Ne aux-doms? We take a while to act. We think things out. We can spend a long time contemplating the various potential consequences of a situation before we actually do something about it. SJs don’t jump in as quickly as Ses, but they’re still sensors. They still need experiences. They prefer doing to contemplating. Also note Mabel’s habitual behavior. She’s always had Dipper around, she can’t possibly do without him! She and Dipper have always done Halloween together, they can’t break that tradition! Yes, she varies up her sweaters all the time, but she still wears cozy sweaters of the same variety every day. She compares things to what has come before. “Dipper and dancing? Did you know he used to dance around in a lamb costume?” She catalogues her memories in scrapbook form and brings them out to illustrate the things she talks about. Her memories of past events become so powerful that she even tries to erase them in Society of the Blind Eye, because for Si aux-doms, their memories are constantly pervading their current experience. Mabel’s Si is just too well-developed to be her inferior function, and she’s too much about action and sensation to be an intuitive.

4. She’s an Fe-dominant.

What is Mabel’s first reaction to things? An emotional one. She processes her environment through feelings, both her feelings and those of others. How can I have a great summer romance? I’m so determined to be liked by this guy (who I don’t know) that my test says ‘Do you like me? Yes, definitely, absolutely’. No possibility of rejection. She uses feelings as her main weapon: Play on the gnomes feelings, then use my past weapon (leaf blower) to defeat them. Can’t break up with Gideon, that’ll hurt his feelings! And other peoples’ feelings, all around me! Need advice from someone else, with experience in these matters (aka Wendy) to reach a conclusion. Stan’s feeling insecure? I’ll change everything about him, bolster him up until he can date Lazy Susan. Susan likes fixing things? Perfect, she can fix Stan! My friends feel like outcasts? I’ll win everyone’s approval in this big contest, then they’ll feel good. Oh no, I lost it for them, they must not want anything to do with me because the general approval went to someone else. Pacifica and the crowd disapproved of me! I thought I was being charming, but everyone sees me as a joke! Stan, lying is always wrong! No matter what the circumstance or individual need! I’ve lost my pig, my emotions take over me completely and I go insane, banging my head against a post for a month. Stan’s scared of heights, I must help him overcome his fear. Dipper’s always beating me at things, my feelings are hurt, ooh now I’m winning at being taller, yay! I can’t let Sev’ral times leave me, my feelings were hurt by the boys who left me! Stan, you put Waddles outside and lied to me? I’m never talking to you again. Dipper wants to tell Wendy he likes her, but he’s too scared. I’ll push him into a closet and not let him out until he does, he has to sort out his feelings! I want to get this boy’s attention, that’s more important than solving the mystery of the laptop. My feelings were hurt by these tragic summer romances, I’ll erase my mind to deal with that. Soos is feeling bad about losing his father? I’ll battle through untold horrors to help him through that. Robbie, a guy I can’t stand, is feeling bad? I can’t be satisfied until everyone is happy, so I’ll help him fall in love again. I must change myself and do good deeds so the unicorn will tell me I’m good. Dipper’s abandoning me forever? I must trap everyone in an endless summer, so we can be happy and not sad. Also, look at Mabel-land. A world that gives everyone everything they want the most. A world all about being happy, cooperating, and living in harmony. An Fe-dom’s dream. In short, Mabel demonstrates Fe first in everything she does.

Disagreement is part of what makes discussing MBTI typing online so important, in order to come to a better understanding. If you still disagree with this typing, that’s okay. Let me know why. Let others know why. It’s part of the puzzle. But I thought it best to get all my arguments out there, outside of the typing, for you to read. 

- mysterylover123

amorlinguarum  asked:

Why do you think Catelyn would have been the best match for Jaime?

Because Jaime is shaped around Cersei. Even in the hypothetical where there’s enough space between them that they can’t continue that unhealthy relationship, their personal development was complimentary in irreversible ways. Catelyn, while relatively well-adjusted overall and with some specific differences due to their respective environments, is a lot like Cersei, enough that he would feel compatible with her. Even in formative family dynamics, right - they’re the oldest of three and lost their mothers at young ages. Catelyn is more adaptable where Cersei is aggressive, still waters running deep rather than “all wildfire,” but it comes from a similarly strong will.

Likewise, I think Catelyn would be quite happy with him, which is of course just as important. She’d have started out on the right foot with him, and Jaime would respond to that. Jaime has the outward qualities that attracted a teenage Catelyn to Brandon Stark. Cat’s affection for Brandon was in part because they were engaged and she was optimistic about their life together, but he was also physically skilled, handsome, hot-headed, and charming. Jaime is totally that type. But, unbeknownst to everyone but eagle-eyed Aunt Genna, Jaime also has some of the inner personality traits that allowed her to build that really solid bond with Ned. (So much great mirroring in that generation of characters, even if it doesn’t come out while they’re all alive at the same time.)

And as much as I wouldn’t want to inflict the Lannisters as in-laws on anyone, let alone a character I like, I think Catelyn is the kind of person who would be most equipped to handle life at Casterly Rock. She is impeccably trained at her social duties, and has that touch for reading power dynamics and knowing how to handle people, when to charm them and when to duck and cover. Unfortunately, she’d probably fall in line with the Tyrion scapegoating - I mean, she got in on the Tyrion scapegoating when it wasn’t a way to stay off of Tywin’s bad worse side, and her habitual behavior toward Jon didn’t do her any favors with anyone - but Jaime at least can afford to be straight with her if he tells her to knock it off, so it’d at least be possible to address.

Also Jaime tends not to throw his own kids out of windows! So that’s just better for everyone.

anonymous asked:

LOL that's called my team said I fucked up and need your money so here's a backpedal. #nothanks

i personally, don’t wanna crucify someone over one statement in a print interview. i’m gonna wait and see if this was a mistake or a habitual behavior

anonymous asked:

Hi! Could i get your opinion/experience on feather plucking in pet parrots and cockatoos? We see a fair few of them at my practice and I fear there's a lot of misinformation floating around. I understand that it's thought to be due to stress and discomfort, what would you recommend owners do to minimise the likelihood of feather plucking and self harm developing, and once it does would you say it can be 'cured'?

Feather damaging behavior (FDB) is very common in captive pssitacines as well as some other species of birds. FDB is simply an umbrella term that encompasses dozens of diseases and problems, there is no single cause to FDB and individual birds will have different combinations of problems. FDB is highly complex and requires absolutely thorough and complete medical and behavioral work ups. This is not a problem that can be diagnosed or corrected with one or two tests and owners and veterinarians alike are often not up to the expense, challenge, and time commitment of a complete FDB work up. Here is a list of some of the possible causes of FDB to give an idea of just how complex and difficult it is to find the cause and treat:

Infectious Dermatitis
Viral Disease
Feather Dysplasia
Contact Dermatitis
Respiratory Disease
Cardiovascular Disease
Proventricular Dilatation Disease
GI Disorder
Liver, pancreas, renal disease
Endocrine Disease
Reproductive Disease
Heavy Metal Toxicosis
Orthopedic Disorder
Nutritional Deficiencies
Airborne Irritants
Low Humidity
Improper Wing Trim
Small Cage
Social Isolation
Lack of Opportunities to Perform Species Specific Behavior
Aversive Stimuli
Sudden Environmental Changes
Abnormal Photoperiod
Hand Rearing and Imprinting
Poor Socialization
Genetic Factors
Temperamental Traits
Hormonal Influences
Sexual Frustration
Sleep Deprivation
Attention Seeking Behavior
Habituated, Ritualized Behavior
Abnormal Repetitive Behavior Resulting from Neurotransmitter Abnormalities
FDB can be caused by any single of these or a combination of a few to many of them. I cannot stress enough how absolutely difficult it is to properly diagnose and treat. Less than 10% of owners (IME) are willing and able to go through a complete work up and the vast majority of these birds continue to suffer, are bounced from home to home, or are euthanized. If the cause of the behavior is found and treated, yes it can be cured.

Putting on e-collars, bandages, or immediately giving drugs are NOT proper treatments for FDB. Can you imagine having lice but getting put in a straight jacket instead of getting rid of the lice?

What can owners do to prevent this behavior? The first thing is stop owning larger parrot species. I know it is a very unpopular stance but I firmly believe that cockatoos, macaws, amazons, and several other species of parrot simply cannot be kept by the general public. As humans with our own lives we just cannot provide the HUGE amount of socialization and mental stimulation these birds need. This is highly unlikely to ever change though so, moving on to what else can be done.

Feed proper diets. Parrots cannot live on seeds, crackers, peanuts, cereal, millet sticks, and any of the other horrible foods we feed them. These diets are high in fat and sugar and very low in vitamins and other nutrients which can cause FDB as well as other health problems. Parrots need to be on pelleted diets that are supplemented with a large variety of veggies, Southern hemisphere fruits, and grains. This is probably the number one cause of health problems in birds and is one of the easier ones to fix but is the one most owners refuse to change.

Stop masturbating your bird. The constant petting, preening, kissing, hugging, and other contact owners have with their birds sexually stimulating them which causes problems. Parrots do these things when they want to mate. Having a human rub their rumps and armpits is telling the bird you are feeling sexy and this causes mixed signals and many behavioral problems. Birds should only be petted on the top of their heads.

Provide your bird with lots of toys and the ability to forage. Hiding food in paper wrappers boxes that have to be opened is mentally stimulating and keeps them busy. Simply reaching into a bowl to get seed is boring and leaves lots of time to do other things like pluck feathers.

Get regular vet care. Parrots and other birds need to be seen by the vet at least once a year for examinations and lab work. Often vets see them when a problem has been going on far too long and we cannot fix it. Blood work can be expensive but if we can find a problem while still early the odds are it can be fixed without permanent damage that will be even more expensive.

Proper care of parrots is something I am passionate about and I get LOTS of pushback from owners because the way they want to own birds is not the way birds should be owned. We want these cuddly friends that we can play with and snuggle and spoil with treats, just like dogs and cats. When someone finds out that actually all of those things are bad they dismiss it because it doesn’t fit with their world view. This post alone is going to likely cause some ruffled feathers (see what I did there?) because the facts presented aren’t popular. All we can continue to do is educate and advocate for the animals and hope that it makes a difference.

Your Body Is a Weapon, Chapter 39 | Archive of Our Own
Junkrat joins the 'Overwatch: Recall' team. Symmetra absolutely hates him. Post-Recall, Alive, OW trailer, and pre-Doomfist. Slow burn Junkrat/Symmetra with a struggle of chaos versus order. Series of connected vignettes and drabbles that will outline the gradual development of an odd relationship between two dissimilar individuals who happen to view the world's components through a similar lens. Alternatively, "In which Junkrat grows on Symmetra like an undesirable plant on the sidewalk and she copes with it in progressively worsening ways."
By Organization for Transformative Works

Ever since The Incident (and subsequently after she had managed to retrieve her blueprints), she had made a point to avoid Junkrat at all costs. It wasn’t difficult by any means, as she had already made note of his various habitual behaviors and routines, and she had used such observations to her advantage when planning time in the workshop or attending meals. There had been one instance in particular where she had grossly misjudged the timeframe that had been available for her use—and that had resulted in her entering the washroom while he was carefully whipping away a thin layer of sparse, pale blond scruff from his chin with an old razorblade. Satya had suffered a reluctant hello and three minutes of sullen silence as she brushed her teeth beside him, half distracted by his show of personal hygiene and the rest distracted by his apparent lack of trousers.

But it is for the best, she tells herself. It is. It has to be.

infjs  asked:

How do type 4 NTs differ from type 4 NFs? How do the differences manifest?

Being an NT 4 is like being a crocodile in the ocean. You like water, but aren’t comfortable in salt. You’re deadly, but in the wrong habitat. You can swim, but not survive.  

Being an NF 4 is like being a shark in the ocean… You were built to withstand the current. 

Many people who study MBTI in depth define types in terms of cognitive processes and these processes, at least for the thinking-feeling ones, are about logic vs value judgement. NTs, then, think a certain way, but that doesn’t necessarily mean they can’t be very into their emotions. Conversely, I have met and know of some very emotionally-controlled NFs. 

If Enneagram is the theme of your life, then MBTI as the way you express it. One’s underlying drives and motivations are filtered through your functions. 

The quest of self is what lies at each 4s core but it is the emotional, subjective quality that causes strife in the NT. Familiar to dissonance, they have quite strong sensitivity (that very few people know about) and strive to be people of logic. Many NT 4s spend their formative years figuring out how to pull the balancing act of being both a sensitive and a logical person. Most of the time, the magnetic pull towards emotional indulgence and romanticism engenders an NT towards self-criticism and doubt because the two are so counter intuitive. 

xNTP 4s

I can only speak for xNTPs since I have read/observed being an xNTJ 4 is completely different. At one point they have probably mistaken themselves for an Fi-user due to the awareness of a conflicting subjectivity which makes little sense to the objective nature of Ti. 

xNTPs prefer to keep their sensitivity filtered through Ti. Sure they have emotion, but they are going to filter it through logic, or at least try. Outside of relationships and art, (or whatever means used as a creative outlet) the 4 will be largely withdrawn. When romantic feelings occur, time is spent observing their feelings and then asking themselves why they have them, in what way, is it real, etc. 

An NTP-4 will spend a huge amount of time and energy learning how to deal with subjectivity. They might modulate uncomfortable feelings by adjusting them according to their philosophical outlook on life at the moment but deal with them, feed them, and generally address “themes” that are typical of the 4 in an xNTP way. As a four, you learn the hard way, but when they do finally get it, you will notice a difference. 

Ti is heavily relied on for observing feelings objectively and Ne for coming up with solutions for my emotional problems. The Ti-filtered approach will vary from person to person but I suspect it keeps tabs on habitual patterns and behavioral inconsistencies over a large amount of time in hopes of reaching 4’s quest to understand itself. 

xNTJ 4s

Below is a piece from the Enneagram Institute. Swirlyends may be able to contribute as well

INTJ type 4’s are very rare. They are emotional, but the emotions run under the surface… it’s not obvious. You might notice that they wear a unique style of clothing that is them, but very functional. When it comes to their work, they will go out of their way to make sure it is original to their style, and keep themselves from being in a specific niche. They are very creative in solving problems, and want to make sure it is done their way, with their own flair. They will tend to romanticize intellectual pursuits and ideas, and if they have artistic abilities, will produce work that is reflective of romanticism, yearning, but the romanticism goes through a brain filter. You will notice that an INTJ 4 will have an air of refinement and elegance to them, very sophisticated, yet they are soft-spoken. While they are confident on what they know, don’t know, and their abilities, they might be hard on themselves,especially when they don’t achieve the desired outcome of their goals. INTJ 4’s will never, or rarely, compromise who they are and what they create just to make it more popular. They want to adhere to their inner values. INTJ 4’s are very unassuming and may have a difficult time promoting their vision. They feel much more comfortable being in the background. You might notice an INTJ 4 will have a wannabe rebellious streak, and their form of rebellion will be an intellectual/artistic adventure. They might read literature that contains individualistic themes, presents a cynical view of authority, and will tend to like art that varies from the traditional to things that have an almost dark quality to it. They might like listening to music that is a bit intense, but also like music that is slow and heavy, and the delicate and beautiful. They are difficult to please when it comes to artistic and musical tastes, and may not like what is trendy, they avoid trends at all costs. INTJ 4’s are also in their own worlds… they may find books, music, and art better than the chaotic/noisy world around them.


NT 4: Extremely emotional, decisions guided by logic 

NF 4: Extremely emotional, decisions guided by values

NT 4s may have some complexes, but who doesn’t? They are thinkers in touch with and influenced by their feelings. They make decisions like NTs but feel like NFs. But don’t mistake them for the former or they might surprise you with just how NT they are despite it

If any NFs want to elaborate on how their 4 manifests differently, I would like to see it as well

anonymous asked:

I don't know if you've been asked these before but: What do you think of Lxa as a leader? Bellamy handcuffing Clarke? And what do you think of Clarke becoming Ambassador for the Sky People

I’ve been asked so many times about what I think of Lxa as a leader but I’ve avoided the answers because I don’t think highly of her and, you know, not liking Lxa is apparently controversial. But, fuck it. 

I think Lxa is not a good leader. I think she might have been better before she met the sky people, but something about them threatened her, and she kind of went off the rails. Maybe it was her feelings for Clarke. Maybe they stopped her from accessing the wisdom of the commander chip. But maybe it was because the sky people in general and Clarke in specific really threw a wrench into her relatively stable power base. Yes, she had to deal with the Azgeda, but she had basically won when she united all the clans to fight the big enemy, Mount Weather. It made her the most powerful leader in the land.

That coalition really seemed to be working… at keeping the peace between tribes and keeping her on top of the power structure, anyway. It wasn’t working so well at conquering the enemies. Only the sky people were able to do that. They healed the reapers, they stopped the acid fog, they replicated the tone generators, they infiltrated the mountain, they freed the caged grounders, and they disabled the physical defenses of the mountain and opened the freaking door. And they did that ALL with almost no help from the grounders, who were basically just a distraction while Bellamy, Jasper, Maya, Raven, Wick, Abby and the rest of the delinquents managed all the tech and danger. With Lincoln shooting the door lock. And Echo kept Lovejoy from killing Bellamy. That’s the grounder help. 

All the grounders had to do was go in that front door and get rid of the guards, who really, couldn’t have been more than a few dozen men. What is that compared to the army of thousands?

I can’t help but think that the reason she betrayed her Allies at the mountain (and at TonDC) was so that her power would have no challengers. 

And what happened after Clarke and the sky people defeated the mountain? Her power was weakened anyway. She’d exposed her treachery and weakness. So she kidnapped Clarke so no one else could steal Wanheda’s power and she could keep it, possess it, for herself.

As a leader I say that makes her weak, power hungry, short sighted, and dishonorable. You cannot have allies if your allies do not trust you not to sell them to the enemy or blow them up. Lxa’s allies can not trust her. She has doomed her leadership because of this. She predicted her own death when she said whoever stopped their alliance would die. She stopped the alliance. And she died. 

I also believe that Lxa is a tyrant, and I’ve been attacked for saying so. But the truth is that Lxa follows the rules of her people only as long as they benefit her and give her more power. If the rules of her people are not what she wants, then she will discard them and do what she wants anyway. She sacrifices armies, friends, villages, leaders, ambassadors and allies if it will show her strength, if she doesn’t trust them, if it serves her larger needs, if she wants them to die for her, if they challenge her. She promised her army that they would have justice from the  mountain who had been killing them for fifty years… until she got a better deal, and then she ran away. No jus daun, jus drein for them. No glory on the battlefield, no getting rid of the people who had been raiding them. Cowardice is not valued among the grounders. She did it again when she willy nilly decided that the trikru village would get no vengeance for the unjust attacks by sky kru. Listen, I wanted my sky people to live, but she did the WRONG thing to her people, so she could get Clarke to love her. 

Maybe if I call her an autocrat, people won’t get angry, because if I call her a tyrant, she can’t be a cupcake, but they don’t understand the word autocrat, so they can still think of her as a cupcake, despite the fact that tyrant and autocrat are basically synonyms.

au·toc·ra·cy ôˈtäkrəsē/


  1. a system of government by one person with absolute power.synonyms:absolutism, totalitarianism, dictatorship, despotism, tyranny, monocracy, autarchy“the country is reeling from thirty years of autocracy”

  • a country, state, or society governed by one person with absolute power.
  • domineering rule or control.“a boss who shifts between autocracy, persuasion, and consultation”

Potato. Potahto.

As for Bellamy with the handcuffs, I think it was wrong and it was a betrayal of the relationship that Clarke and Bellamy had… but it was no more of a betrayal than it was when Clarke refused to come home from Polis when Bellamy needed her. It did not come from an imbalance of power. It was an arrest. It sucked. It was a little bit, just the first part, like the way Lxa had her kidnapped. Just when Roan grabbed her, although Roan used surprise and stealth and Bellamy used their relationship and surprise.

I think it’s ridiculous that the moment Bellamy shows the SLIGHTEST inclination towards Lxa’s habitual behavior of taking away peoples’ free will, all of a sudden they call him abuser and monster, but then they ignore everything that Lxa has done that is a hundred times worse. This I just don’t understand. Can they possibly be this deluded and blind to the actual characters? Fine. I guess they can be. 

Clarke as ambassador? She never really was, was she? She was a figure head. She had no contact with her people, so how could she speak for them? The only thing she could do was use her influence with Lxa to keep them from killing her people. The only influence she had was how much Lxa wanted to sleep with her. 

I’m sorry. I don’t think I can go on with this. I’m rolling my eyes at how bad a leader Lxa was.

She literally was the leader of the known world, and she tossed it away out of insecurity, desire for power and heart eyes. The last decent decision she made was to allow the sacrifice of just Finn, instead of all the people, not punish Clarke for her mercy killing, and ally with the sky people. But she couldn’t handle their inherent strength and had to take it for herself, culminating in kidnap and possession of Clarke, and it all lead to her own, DESERVED death.

Look what you did. You made me rant. This is why I haven’t answered this question the last few times it was asked of me.  

anonymous asked:

hey. so every year there;s this even that the high school seniors organise and usually after that in the evening they have a party, or go to a bar and drink to celebrate. I'm not a party person and I have, I just didn't feel like going, I rather stay in home, but I'm just worried, that my classmates will be like mad at me for not coming just because I didn't want to, I feel a lil bit guilty, but I really don't like doin anything outside my comort zone.I rarely go out, but been there done that.

Hey dear,

No one should ever make you feel bad for not wanting to step out of your comfort zone. We’ve all got our boundaries and sometimes we want to test the water and step out of our fortress but sometimes we want the safety that it offers. If you don’t want to go to the party, then don’t. However, I do encourage that you give it a thought or two and think about what could happen if you do go. Just because you don’t wanna do something doesn’t mean you shouldn’t think about it and challenge yourself. So try these

  • Define your comfort zone. What do you usually avoid? Is it parties? Crowds? Spiders (just kidding). Maybe restaurants? Figure out where you are with these things where your comfort zone ends.
  • Why. Why do you avoid them? It could be a personal preference. I don’t like crowds because I think half of them are obnoxious and I would really become a homicidal maniac if I stay at a party for too long. I don’t like going shopping on Black Friday because I have acute claustrophobia when I do and have a panic attack. Whatever the reason is, identify it.
  • Pros and cons. We can’t live in our shell forever. Sometimes we have to challenge ourselves and do something wild and expand our bubble or fortress. Challenge yourself to do something new every day. Do something you’re afraid of doing. Make a list of pros and cons for it. What would happen if you go to that party? What would happen if you don’t?
  • Push. Nothing is ever easy. You gotta push yourself really hard to get the things you want and go the places you want to go. When I went to therapy for the first time, I was so freaked that I made myself go to the office two hours early. I live rather far away and I had classes after that so I couldn’t leave. I made myself sit there so I wouldn’t run away. So push yourself a little.
  • Compromise. I know that not everything will work out how you want it to, but you tried. Pat yourself on the back. Some people don’t even make it that far. If you failed, don’t be so hard on yourself. There’s always next time. This is not the be all end all. You didn’t go to this party? Big deal. Try a different party next time and maybe you’ll have more courage.

Here are some more tips on how to break out of your comfort zone

  1. Understand the truth about your habits. They always represent past successes. You have formed habitual, automatic behaviors because you once dealt with something successfully, tried the same response next time, and found it worked again. That’s how habits grow and why they feel so useful. To get away from what’s causing your unhappiness and workplace blues, you must give up on many of your most fondly held (and formerly successful) habits. and try new ways of thinking and acting. There truly isn’t any alternative. Those habits are going to block you from finding new and creative ideas. No new ideas, no learning. No learning, no access to successful change.

  2. Do something—almost anything—differently and see what happens. Even the most successful habits eventually lose their usefulness as events change the world and fresh responses are called for. Yet we cling on to them long after their benefit has gone. Past strategies are bound to fail sometime. Letting them become automatic habits that take the controls is a sure road to self-inflicted harm.

  3. Take some time out and have a detailed look at yourself—with no holds barred. Discovering your unconscious habits can be tough. For a start, they’re unconscious, right? Then they fight back. Ask anyone who has ever given up smoking if habits are tough to break. You’ve got used to them—and they’re at least as addictive as nicotine or crack cocaine.

  4. Be who you are. It’s easy to assume that you always have to fit in to get on in the world; that you must conform to be liked and respected by others or face exclusion. Because most people want to please, they try to become what they believe others expect, even if it means forcing themselves to be the kind of person they aren’t, deep down.

    You need to start by putting yourself first. You’re unique. We’re all unique, so saying this doesn’t suggest that you’re better than others or deserve more than they do. You need to put yourself first because no one else has as much interest in your life as you do; and because if you don’t, no one else will. Putting others second means giving them their due respect, not ignoring them totally. Keeping up a self-image can be a burden. Hanging on to an inflated, unrealistic one is a curse. Give yourself a break.

  5. Slow down and let go. Most of us want to think of ourselves as good, kind, intelligent and caring people. Sometimes that’s true. Sometimes it isn’t. Reality is complex. We can’t function at all without constant input and support from other people. Everything we have, everything we’ve learned, came to us through someone else’s hands. At our best, we pass on this borrowed existence to others, enhanced by our contribution. At our worst, we waste and squander it. So recognize that you’re a rich mixture of thoughts and feelings that come and go, some useful, some not. There’s no need to keep up a façade; no need to pretend; no need to fear of what you know to be true.


If you don’t want to go to the party, then it is your choice. No one has the right to guilt you for putting your own desires to be comfortable and relaxed first. If they’re not mathematician and you force them to go to a Math tournament, how would they feel? You know? It’s like you can’t force yourself to do the things you don’t want no matter how many people are doing it or how much they want me to do it. That’s their problem not mine. I’m my own boss and I listen to myself as should you.

Lots of love,


When you refrain from habitual thoughts and behavior, the uncomfortable feelings will still be there. They don’t magically disappear. Over the years, I’ve come to call resting with the discomfort “the detox period,” because when you don’t act on your habitual patterns, it’s like giving up an addiction. You’re left with the feelings you were trying to escape. The practice is to make a wholehearted relationship with that.
—  Pema Chödron

‘Drabble request to ease the SasuSaku pain lol! Could you possibly write Sasuke and Sakura arguing only to end with Sasuke unintentionally saying something hurtful to Sakura. And Sakura just leaves saying 'don’t forget I’ve stood by your side always’ or something like this. And Sasuke does something shocking to show Sakura he is sorry and loves her. This could be Pre-Sarada where we are assuming he was still around!!’

Requested by: anon

Keep reading

five years time

Pairing: Eren/Levi

Summary: Eren hadn’t realized how touchy he was with Levi until he couldn’t touch him anymore.

Or the one where Eren is a touch starved soldier and his Captain accidentally fixes it.

On AO3


Eren had not realized he was actually an incredibly tactile person until he was given strict orders not to touch anyone. Many times, he had to remind himself that no, he couldn’t touch Mike as he sat next to him in the meeting. Or that he couldn’t touch Hanji’s hand as it swatted too close to his face from across the table, enthusiastically saving his life as they talked about his successful experiments over the years. 

But what killed him—absolutely K.O.’d him—was his Captain. 

Keep reading

What is a witch?

Complex definition: a person, now especially a woman, who professes or is supposed to practice magic or sorcery; a sorceress.

Examine definition: A person (a human being, whether an adult or child), now especially (but not necessarily) a woman, who professes (declares that) to or is supposed (others believe that) to practice (habitual (an acquired behavior pattern regularly followed until it has become almost involuntary:) or customary performance; operation:) magic (the art of producing a desired effect or result through incantation or various other techniques that presumably assure human control of supernatural (of, relating to, or being above or beyond what is natural; unexplainable by natural law or phenomena; abnormal. OR of, pertaining to, characteristic of, or attributed to God or a deity (divine (heavenly; celestial (pertaining to the sky or visible heaven, or to the universe beyond the earth’s atmosphere, as in celestial body.)character or nature, especially that of the Supreme Being; divinity.))agencies or the forces of nature(the material world, especially as surrounding humankind and existing independently of human activities.)Compare contagious magic, imitative magic, sympathetic magic.)(please do look at the different types of magic) or sorcery (the art, practices, or spells of a person who is supposed to exercise supernatural powers through the aid of evil spirits(conscious, incorporeal being, as opposed to matter:
) black magic; witchery.)

Refined definition: a human that claims to or is claimed by others to regularly perform the art or power of stellar control over the material world by chanting words, with the help of incorporeal consciousnesses, directing natural forces, and/or by manipulating objects connected by authority over, similarity to or derivation from the target they are meant to influence to achieve their desired result or affect.

A powerful (and potentially hazardous) communication formula.

And I’m sure I’m guilty of, at minimum, passing on things communicated in this formula.  Because one of its serious advantages, for those using it, is that it’s the sort of thing that sticks in people’s minds and that they want to pass on  But I’ve finally recognized that I see a pattern here, and that it’s not always a good pattern.  It can be used to manipulate other people’s awareness of a situation, or even your own awareness of a situation.

So if you think of communicating this way, use it with extreme caution because it’s quite potent and powerful.  If you see people communicating this way, take a step back and seriously evaluate the situation before passing on such communications to others.  Don’t let yourself simply be swept along by the power of this sort of language.

So let’s say I’m having a discussion with someone in realtime, and the person interrupts me repeatedly over the course of the conversation.  I don’t know why they’re doing it.  But it’s pissing me off, and I have a choice of how to respond.

Do I say, “You keep interrupting me and it’s really irritating.”

Or do I say, “You are repeatedly interrupting an autistic person with a significant communication disability.”

Do you see what I did there?

Do you see how that significantly alters how I perceive the situation, how anyone witnessing me saying this perceives the situation, and how everything will go from there on out?

“He’s talking over me.”

“He’s talking over a multiply disabled woman of color.”

“He’s not listening to me.”

“A rich cishet man is not listening to a working-class genderqueer person.”

“She’s harassing a friend of mine.”

“She’s harassing an elderly gay man.”

On the surface of it, both sets of sentences mean basically the same thing. The only difference is that the first sentence doesn’t describe the people in question.  The second sentence at minimum describes the person being (presumably) harmed in some way in terms of their oppressions, and may also (but often doesn’t) describe the person doing the (presumed) harm in terms of their privileges.

Sometimes this kind of thing is very important to point out.  So it’s not like the second way of doing things is always the wrong way of doing things.  But any time you do this, and any time you see it being done, you should think very carefully about what is happening and what the consequences of such descriptions are going to be.

Because the second kind of description is an extremely power-filled way to communicate.  It takes an everyday situation and makes sure that everyone listening sees the interaction as fraught with oppressive overtones.  In fact, it makes oppression the main aspect of the conversation that everyone is going to be looking at.  And it makes people do that whether or not they actually know anything about the situation, and whether or not the situation was actually oppressive in nature.

Like… people interrupt me all the time.  Sometimes they interrupt me because I am a developmentally disabled person with a nonstandard communication method.  Sometimes they interrupt me because they’re in a hurry.  Sometimes they interrupt me because they’re assholes who interrupt everyone.  Sometimes they interrupt me because they themselves have a communication disability (whether I can see it or not) and have a good deal of difficulty judging the timing of a conversation.  Sometimes they interrupt me because I myself am doing something oppressive to them and they’ve had enough.

But regardless of any of those things, if I frame the situation in terms of ableist oppressive dynamics, people who care about ableism are going to have a powerful response to the situation.  Other disabled people, especially other people with communication disabilities, will be more likely to be sympathetic to my side of the story.  Even if the situation was one in which, say, I was being racist to someone and they interrupted me because they were sick of my bullshit, nobody’s going to notice that if I frame it in terms of a nondisabled person interrupting someone with a severe communication impairment.

And I’ve noticed that in a lot of anti-oppression communities, this way of framing situations happens almost like a reflex.  Like, regardless of the realities of the situation, people’s first instinct when they’re pissed off at someone, is to instantly use the formula “You just did ________ to a ______ person” where the first ________ is something someone is doing wrong, and the second _______ is an oppressed identity.  People aren’t necessarily consciously intending to manipulate everyone’s view of the situation, although sometimes they are.  But it happens all the time.

I witnessed a fight once where I pretty much saw what had happened.  And what had happened was something where both parties had done a lot of crappy things to each other, there wasn’t really a right side and a wrong side, it was more like a wrong side and a wrong side.  And oppression was really not the issue on either side of the conflict, it was more of a personality conflict between two people with extremely strong-willed personalities who had happened to get into a knock-down drag-out Internet fight that got seriously ugly.

But later, I saw people who weren’t even there, and had no idea what had happened, beginning to talk about it in terms of “This guy hurt a disabled woman of color.”  And as soon as that happened, everyone suddenly “knew” that the guy in question was oppressive to women of color.  And to this day, I hear him described as “that guy who makes things unsafe for women of color” until that was permanently attached to his reputation.  

In fights like that, I often see a pattern of attack and counterattack that goes something like this:

Jack and Jill have a conflict of some kind.

People on Jill’s side instantly start saying, “Jack hurt a woman of color.”

People on Jack’s side immediately retaliate by saying “Jill hurt a disabled working-class trans man.”

Months later, people who have no idea what happened, when they hear about Jack, instantly describe him as “that white guy who oppresses women of color”, and people likewise talk about Jill as “that rich cishet woman who oppresses disabled working-class trans men” and nobody actually knows what happened.  So it sort of escalates in steps:  First it starts with a conflict where oppression may or may not have actually come into play.  Then oppression gets dragged into the matter on an individual level, whether oppression was seriously involved in the conflict or not.  Then one or both people get a reputation for offensive and oppressive behavior, not just towards one person, but towards all people who share that person’s oppressions.  So it goes from “John and I had a fight” to “John oppressed me for being a disabled woman” to “John oppresses disabled women”.

Even when oppression is a big part of the picture, you should use and understand this communication formula with caution.  While there’s plenty of people in the world who will just go “huh?”, people who care about oppression are going to take such a description seriously, and many of them are not going to ask for the other side of the story before they take on board the idea that someone is oppressive towards you, and then that easily and rapidly morphs into that idea that this person behaves oppressively towards people like you, habitually, all the time.  And that morphs into the idea that this person shouldn’t be listened to about just about anything, is in general a bad person, should not be in leadership positions for any reason, deserves to lose friends and allies, may even deserve a community-wide shunning.

And given that there is not a person alive right now who does not behave oppressively, abuse their privilege, and hurt other people (both in oppressive contexts and in contexts where oppression really isn’t the issue), then you should be very careful before you use this formula to describe an interaction.

And you should also be very careful when you read things described using this formula.  Even if your gut tells you that oppression is involved, be very careful.  Not all oppressive interactions are equally oppressive.  And once you see the situation entirely in terms of one oppressive dynamic, you’re likely to see the person in a very different light (and interpret their behavior as oppressive even when it’s not).  And it’s very easy to make the leap from “this person engaged in a specific oppressive behavior towards a specific oppressed person” to “this person engages habitually in oppressive behavior of all kinds and severities, towards all people who share that person’s oppressions”.  

You’re also unlikely, at that point, to see whether oppression was actually flowing the other way in the interaction.  I’ve seen many situations where a white disabled person was being racist towards a nondisabled person of color who was being ableist.  And basically, whichever oppression people mentioned first was the one most likely to be believed, regardless of which one was the worst in the situation (or whether one was even worse than the other).  So if people first said “Joe was ableist towards John”, people were more likely to see the ableism than the racism.  And if people said “John was racist towards Joe,” then people were more likely to see the racism than the ableism.

And that fact often makes people rush in to be the first one to bring oppression into the situation.  So that then if the other person mentions that the oppression was happening in the other direction too, o hen they’re more likely to be seen as just making excuses for their own oppressive behavior.

Note that I’m not saying that oppressive behavior is a good thing, that it never comes into play during ordinary conflicts, or that people shouldn’t talk about it.  And I’m not saying that being accused of oppressive behavior is as bad as being oppressed, or that making such accusations means that you’re always going to be believed.

But in communities where a large number of people are aware of (at least certain kinds of) oppression and see it as a bad thing that needs to be fought against.  Then such accusations are a powerful social force in themselves, and unleash powerful social forces against those accused.  In extreme cases, I have seen this way of formulating a situation escalate a conflict from the status of personality conflict, to an all-out war between two factions of people.  Lost friends, lost community, mass shunning.  It can get really ugly, and it can all start from one simple sentence, using the formula I’ve described.

So no matter how angry you are, no matter how justified you believe you are, always stop and think about the consequences before you use this formula to tell someone off, or describe an interaction you have.

And when you read something written in that formulation, always stop and think before you pass it on.  I’ve noticed that there’s something almost viral about the speed at which “So-and-so behaved oppressively towards a disabled woman” spreads all over the place, becomes “common knowledge”, and morphs into “So-and-so oppresses disabled women.”  Don’t be part of that viral transmission unless you’re damn sure of the facts.  Because a lot of the time, there’s at most one tiny grain of truth that gets expanded and generalized to a wider statement about a person.  And sometimes the only grain of truth is not so much that someone behaved oppressively towards a certain type of person, certainly not that this is habitual behavior towards everyone who is oppressed in that way, but rather than the person got into a fight or argument with someone who was oppressed in that manner, and someone somewhere along the way generalized that in a huge way.  And even when someone did behave oppressively in one instance, it doesn’t necessarily mean that they make a habit of it.

As an autistic person, I frequently see instances of this in the autistic community.  Someone will get into a fight with an autistic person one single time, and suddenly the person is pretty much blacklisted throughout the autistic community as a person who behaves oppressively towards autistic people in general.

And the very first warning sign that something like this is going to happen, is when a discussion starts off not with “You just hurt me” but “You just hurt an autistic person”, with an implicit accusation that the hurting involved (which in some cases is as little as disagreement or naive ignorance about an issue that isn’t widely understood) has something to do with the person being autistic or oppressed in some other way.  

So when you see someone say that, think twice.  Think three times.

And if you feel tempted to say it yourself early on in a disagreement, think twenty times.  It can become almost a reflex to try to say that at the earliest point possible, and it goes along with an entire way of thinking that on the one hand can help you understand oppression, but on the other hand can manipulate your own thoughts and the thoughts of others in ways that aren’t really fair.  Saying things like that tends to polarize people, and people in anti-oppression communities will feel pressure to take your side, or else to declare that you’re the one being oppressive and fight it out over which one of you is the most oppressive.  Either way, nothing constructive is happening and a lot of destructive things are set in motion both inside and outside of yourself.