operative conditioning

Galactic Anthroplogy

“They mass-slaughter this organism called "flowers” and give the bound mass of corpses to their desired mate as a courting ritual, possibly as proof of ability. Truly fascinating.“

An excerpt from the widely acclaimed ‘A Comprehensive Study of the Complex Social Dynamics of Humans’, Section 347-D3, ‘Ritual Wooing

“- Amongst the many diverse cultures of the human hive, a fairly prominent behavior becomes apparent to the observer, unique for the fact that it seems instinctual despite geographic location. This contrasts with much of the operant conditioning observed through their constructed hives and cultural rituals.

As previously indicated, nearly all human colonies display dominion over the surrounding inorganic and organic structure, perhaps as an exercise to constantly re-establish themselves as the apex species on their planet (Though their subservience to particular grain bearing flora and vegetative growths is well documented, see section 235-A6 ‘Human Propagation of Flora and Fauna, the Mass Human Effort known as ‘Agriculture’)

This behavior is displayed further during social rituals to establish further emotional and cognitive bond amongst colony members. The individual human gathers certain flower bearing growths from their surroundings -either from gathering them from the soil themselves, or obtaining them from the local distributor in exchange for currency- and gifts the slowly dying biomass to other individuals for ritualistic purposes.

As practice, the act has much significance socially, ranging from welcoming colony mates who have established familial dens in the dwelling space next to them (though apartment plants seem to be mostly living growths in containers, a behavior that may be linked to their need to display dominion of their environ. See Section 654-H7 ‘Non Species Specific Social Interactions’) yet is diverse enough to extend to gifts toward the individual humans birther on the celebration day of birthers, and to attract both reproductive and nonreproductive mates.

Such an activity is distinctive to humans, and can be attributed to their constant need for external stimulus. The growths serve a multifaceted purpose by providing olfactory, visual, and textural stimuli in a non harmful way, creating a sort of positive reinforcement that is associated with the individual who gave them. This, of course, leads to an enhanced emotional and mental cognitive state between individuals in further social interaction.

(The absence of gustatory stimuli by such growths is often noted, and as such, humans have taken to presenting gifts of carbohydrate rich foodstuff to accommodate the lack of presence in the flora.)

Many actions are taken to ensure the longest amount of positive stimulus is received from the cut growths. Many humans receiving will create a solution of hydro-nutrient feed to extend the life of the growth, and place the container and the flora somewhere in their dwelling or productivity space. Despite humans understanding that the growths would have a longer effect if they were not cut from their subterranean feed systems, it is still most common to give the dying stalks of flora instead of a live organism. Here in lies yet another idiosyncrasy of the species, a instinctual effort dominating an intellectual knowledge, once again exposing their relatively new evolution into sentient beings.-’

A couple weeks ago I got an anoynmous message asking me to explain what “reverse racism” was and why people argue it doesn’t exist.
I was waiting for a good time to respond but I can’t find the message. Last night my roommate said that people can be racist toward white people. So I figured now is a good time.

And while I do know that my feed is completely liberal and full of people that hold a like mind toward mine, so I doubt I might find someone that this may trigger but here is some explanations you may share with someone if you hear them spit the “reverse racism” card.

First, the issues behind reverse racism can be caught with issues of semantics and rhetoric.

When we get into the issues of semantics people look at other pivotal and important aspects of racism such as prejudice and bigotry. And while it is true that people can have a prejudicial view towards white people that perspective is not bound by racism. Because by definition racism is the systematic oppression of people based entirely on race that trickles down and becomes an attitude that people hold toward another. In other words it is institutionalized and also exists among individuals. Since white people hold the highest advantage in society they can’t experience racism. Yes, we white people can experience negative attitude towards being white but that is not racism that is prejudice. And they are NOT the same thing. So, that’s the issue with semantics.

The other issue is with the rhetoric which directly plays off of the issue with semantics. White people play the “reverse racism” card in an attempt to undermine the oppression and suffering of those that experience racism. They do this because they want others to look at them as not holding racism, but that in itself is racism because you completely ignore the issues surrounding being a person of color in America. The whole, “ I don’t see color we all suffer. All lives matter.” It’s a rhetoric they play into in order to dissolve their guilt or blend their racism. So, the rhetoric is a completely inaccurate attempt to push the “reverse racist” card. Because the rhetoric does not even play into what they are actually trying to explain. The argument is completely unbounded. And falls short of meaning.

And the reality of racism is that no white person will ever experience the outcomes of racism to the extent that people of color do, and when they experience things like not getting a job application, being denied housing, being denied a job, police brutality, mass incarceration, unequal sentencing it is NEVER based on being white. While, on a larger scale often these outcomes directly come from being a person of color.

So next time a white person cries that they have experienced racism please tell us to check our white privilege. And furthermore, at any point I encourage a person of color to further elaborate or explain further because this is an issue that I completely feel that a white voice should never shout over those that truly experience the discussion at hand. And lastly, racism is beyond more complex than described as above and it’s important to note that I am entirely speaking of the American social construction of racism that exists here. Because I understand it may entirely operate in different conditions in different cultures and countries.
In(g/t)rained Femininity

So, as I’m guessing pretty much all of you know by now, I’m an animal trainer and have been for some time. It recently struck me how apparent, even in myself, the effects off operant and classical conditioning are in women who’ve effectively been trained to be feminine by society. 

Let’s start with the more well known: 

Classical Conditioning pairs a neutral stimulus with an uncontrolled response. In other words, the subject doesn’t realize they’re learning. Think of the famous Pavlov’s dogs. At first, that bell meant nothing to them; it just happened to sound when they were about to get fed and was therefore a neutral stimulus. The drooling isn’t something they were doing on purpose; it was an uncontrolled response. 

How does this translate to being trained into femininity? Behold:

I was working on rearranging my apartment recently, and just didn’t have much motivation. I decided to put on a bra even though I live alone because wearing a bra makes me feel like I should be doing something. When I was about 11, a neutral stimulus (my bra) was added to a situation that already made me feel productive (going to school, work, etc) and 14 years later I’ve been classically conditioned to feel more productive when I put a bra on. 

The same could easily be said for makeup and, indeed, I used to apply makeup to make myself feel more productive as well. 

But the main difference between the two types of conditioning is that in classical conditioning it’s simply pairing a stimulus with a behavior. There’s no praise, there’s no punishment. That’s all for operant conditioning. 

Operant conditioning tries to induce or eliminate an action using positive and negative rewards and positive and negative punishment. Forget the emotional aspects of ‘positive’ and ‘negative’. Here they just mean ‘to add’ and ‘to take away’. Let’s look at the rewards. 

A girl is wearing a pretty dress. Her family gushes over her, telling her how beautiful she looks. This is a positive reward. They are adding their praise. 

The same girl enjoyed a nice holiday dinner with her family, but now it’s time to clean up. Her mother tells her to just run upstairs and play; she wouldn’t want her to get her pretty dress dirty. This is negative reward; an unpleasant task is being taken away. 

Now let’s look at the punishments.

The same girl says something rude and gets her bottom smacked. This is positive punishment, as the smack was added. Then, because she can’t act like a lady, she’s told to change out of her pretty dress which she adores because of the rewards she received. This is negative punishment; something she likes or desires is being taken away as punishment. Think of another scenario with the same girl, only now she’s asked to play outside. She’s told ‘no’; she’ll get her dress dirty. This is negative punishment as, again, something she likes or desires is being withheld to correct behavior (incorrect behavior being that she wants to play outside rather than wear a pretty dress inside)

Think of how this leaks into society even as adult women. Wearing makeup, pretty clothes, and heels can mean people are nicer to you in general or may even net you a promotion (positive reward) People offering to do things for you (negative reward) Being denied a promotion over a more feminine peer (negative punishment) Being harassed or even assaulted for being GNC (positive punishment). 

So you start to get this:

and once you try to unlearn femininity, you run into another problem. As with any animal I’ve ever worked with, the training never ends. It’s always reinforced and sometimes so subtly you can barely catch it or can’t at all. Sometimes it’s outright, ridiculous, or downright dangerous. But it’s always there. 

Food for thought. 

For those doubting the potential for MCU BuckyNat, saying “they don’t have time” or “they don’t want to go there”…

They can give us a backstory reveal at any point now by having the two characters *look at each other*.

That’s all that’s needed. That’s all that’s left.


For both of them, they’ve established: Russian backgrounds, mind manipulation, empty space in their timelines, opportunities to work with other operatives, living conditions that would doom any romance they stumbled into. Shared traumatic experience. Similar desires for redemption.

They were both weapons once, to be used. We know this about each of them separately. It just hasn’t been said in the same sentence yet.

It’s all there. We just need evidence they knew each other before.

That takes a look, or throw in a “Natalia” for good measure.

Top Ten Things We Know About Real Dogs:
1. It’s all chew toys to them(no concept of artifacts)
2.Amoral (no right vs. wrong, only safe vs. dangerous)
3. Self-interested (no desire to please)
4.Lemon-brains(i.e, small and convoluted brains that learn through operant and classical conditioning)
5.Predators (search, chase, bite, dissect and chew all strongly wired)
6.Highly social (bond strongly and doesn’t cope well with isolation)
7. Finite socialization period (fight or flight when not socialized to some social stimulus category)
8. Opportunistic scavengers (if it’s edible and within reach, eat it now)
9. Resolve conflict through ritualized aggression (never write letters to the editor, never sue)
10.Well-developed olfactory systems
—   Jean Donaldson, Culture Clash
Operant Conditioning in Dog Training

So after reblogging the post earlier discussing negative punishment vs. negative reinforcement, I got 4 or 5 messages asking me to elaborate on the different quadrants and if x tool falls in which quadrant. 

These are the four quadrants:

  • Positive Punishment
  • Negative Punishment
  • Positive Reinforcement
  • Negative Reinforcement 

Positive doesn’t mean good or bad in this context. Positive in the context of operant conditioning means “to add”. You are adding something. That is all it means. Negative in this context means the exact opposite: you are removing something. Again, these terms cannot be understood in terms of every-day semantics. 

Punishment means you are attempting to stop or discourage a behavior. Reinforcement means you are trying to create or encourage a behavior. 

So here is the breakdown: 

Positive Punishment means you are adding something to stop or discourage a behavior. 

Negative Punishment means you are taking something away to stop or discourage a behavior. 

Positive Reinforcement means you are adding something to encourage or create a behavior. 

Negative Reinforcement means you are taking away something to encourage or create a behavior. 

So when people ask questions like “so is this tool positive punishment or negative reinforcement?” it depends on the context of your use. 

The quadrants in and of itself are mere arbitrary nomenclature that you are supposed to cover in dog training 101 and then move on from there. The tools you use cannot be neatly labeled and put into a corresponding quadrant box. I’m continually surprised at the number of people who don’t think that a head collar can be an aversive tool, or that a reward isn’t always food. 

Even a flat collar can be used as a tool for positive punishment. The tool itself is neutral, just like the quadrants. It is how you apply them that determines whether it is positive punishment or something else. 

So what do these quadrants look like in practice? 

Positive Punishment: Remember, you are adding something to stop a behavior. If my dog is pulling on her leash and I apply a strong force and jerk her backward, I am using positive punishment. If my dog barks at birds and I zap her with an e-collar, or spray her with a garden hose, I am using positive punishment. If I have a prong collar around my dog’s neck and it applies pressure to her when she pulls, I am using positive punishment. 

Negative Reinforcement: Remember, you are taking away something to encourage or create a behavior. If I have prong collar around my dog’s neck and it is applying pressure to her, because she is pulling, and she stops pulling and the pressure is removed, I am using negative reinforcement. Yes, that means that in one single training moment, the prong collar is being used by two quadrants. If I want my dog to sit, and I zap her with an e-collar until she sits, I am using negative reinforcement. 

Positive Reinforcement: Now here is the example, where most R+ trainers lose their minds. I have personally witnessed one person fail their dog trainer exam over this very question, because she could not wrap her head around it. If I tell my dog to sit, and she does not move fast enough, and I zap her with the e-collar once to spurn her on, I am using positive reinforcement.Why? I am adding something (the shock) to create or encourage a behavior (the sit). Here is something I want to stress and I cannot stress it enough: positive reinforcement does not equal force free. You should have seen my face when my teacher told me this. My world view was shattered. The most common and popular example of positive reinforcement is to reward a dog for doing a desired behavior by giving them a treat, but it is not the only example. Use of an aversive can be positive punishment or positive reinforcement or negative reinforcement all at the same time, depending on how you are using it. Aversives are a whole different terminological league. 

Negative Punishment: We are removing something, to stop or discourage a behavior, so an example of this is if I am playing with my dog and she is being too rough, so I leave the room or stop playing with her until she plays nice. Every time she plays too rough, I stop, until she eventually stops being so rough. Another example is if I am teaching her to not pull. She wants to keep walking because she wants to sniff that very cool looking butterfly, but I stop walking because she is pulling and I want her to knock it off. In this moment, she wants nothing more than to keep walking, and I am punishing her by not allowing the walk to continue. Once she stops pulling, we keep walking, which is her reward (positive reinforcement). 

The quadrants were never meant to describe a training style, but to explain the four basic ways we can influence canine behavior during training.R+ training has become an accepted term to describe non-aversive trainers, and many popular and famous dog trainers use it in that way, but it’s technically inaccurate. Positive does not mean “good” in the colloquial sense. It simply means “to add”. And even a “positive” tool can be an aversive, depending on the dog. 

On a final note, no training is ever “purely positive” in a (admittedly extremely) technical sense. We all use negative punishment at some point or another, and that is okay. In terms of dog training terminology, negative is a completely arbitrary word used to describe a course of action. 

It is important to understand the quadrants in their entirety, but don’t spend so much time worrying about whether you’re being a positive enough trainer that you neglect perfectly valid training methods to help your dog, or even condemn a method entirely simply because it has the word “negative” or “punishment” in it. 

Humans aren’t *that* special

So I’ve been really enjoying a lot of the “humans are space orcs”/”humans are space cat memes”/”earth is space australia” kind of stuff going around, but a lot of it falls a little flat for me because it takes characteristics that we share with literally everyone on our planet, like things that ants do and mice do and platypi do and whatever, and speculates, “but what if not one single alien sapient race did that thing?”

Some of it is really, really legit. Like music. There are no other mammals that respond to music like we do. I’m not sure birds respond to music the same way we do (although given that songbirds tweet for territory, I think sapient songbirds would really appreciate a lot of the hip-hop oeuvre, especially the stuff about “I am fucking awesome and you are a piece of shit” kind of thing). Or throwing objects. Nothing on Earth throws objects like a human. But stuff like… superstition? That’s a function of our incredible pattern matching engine, and all intelligent species on Earth carry something like it (we see it in other animals with avoidance of harmless objects that were previously associated with something unpleasant. Superstition is operant conditioning carried verbally.) Fiction? How do you predict the future without the ability to run “what if” scenarios in your head, and how do you interact socially without mirror neurons to tell you what others of your kind would feel, and why are you sapient if you can’t interact socially? It’s only a useful trait for social species. I can believe humans are the best at it, but not that we’re the only ones who ever came up with it.

For my own fiction, I think I’d like to nail down what traits I believe, based on evolutionary biology, are probably necessary to all sapient species, and which ones could be unique to humans. For example: love. I believe that all sapient species must be capable of love, though they do not necessarily need to be able to extend it outside their species and they do not necessarily need to employ it in mating. But all evolved sapient beings, by definition, must have far, far more that they need to be taught than that they can have pre-programmed by instinct, so all will be relatively helpless in comparison to adult forms when they’re born and need to learn, so all need to have parents who desire to protect them, teach them, and not eat the little shits even though they’re annoying and time-consuming to deal with. All species must have some concept of parental love, and from our experiences on Earth it seems that the closer to sapient you are, the more you extend emotions out from one very specific circumstance to cover multiple circumstances. Also, sapient species have to be social, so they must all have the concept of friends and allies, and that implies, if not love, at least liking and enjoying the company of your own kind somewhat. There doesn’t need to be romantic love, but love, as a concept, must exist.

(If your sapient species was created rather than being evolved, then a lot of base assumptions about what a sapient species must have don’t apply; you could have a robot society without love. But who would want to build that if they themselves are capable of love?)

I also… don’t really like the concept that humans are the only special ones. Most of this is backlash against “humans are the generic and have no special talents specific to their species” style of SF/fantasy worldbuilding, and I hate that too, but the alternative isn’t “no one has anything special but humans”, it’s “everyone has something special, including humans.” So if humans are the “hold my beer” species then someone else is the “over-analyze everything” species and someone else is the “do what the ancestors would have done” species and so forth. 

Sang Woo, attachment style, BPD (Borderline Personality Disorder) and Yoon Bum.

I have seen many readers suspecting Bum to have BPD, but I also believe Sang Woo may suffer from BPD. As someone else had done a very detailed overview of Sang Woo and BPD (Part 1, Part 2), I’ll be quite brief about my own stand (and support) on this. 

(Warning: this mini essay of mine will undoubtedly be messy as I did not plan for smooth segue nor am I that organised to plan an essay before writing. This applies to my academic works as well; I’m more of a let’s-just-write-and-see-where-it-goes kind of person. Do not be like me. You will regret it by the time you’re half way through the essay and you have no idea what you’re talking).

Now while BPD is associated with self-harming behaviour and ‘clinging’ dependency, they may also funnel their aggression to external environment (i.e. externalised aggression (EA)). Individual with BPD exhibiting EA can (note it is in bold) perpetuate domestic violence, assault of those who are familiar to the individuals (e.g. friends, acquaintance) and aggressive criminal behaviour such as murder in the form of familicide and serial killing (this is very, very rare. Its rarity level is on par to unicorn) (Gross, 2007; Sansone et al., 2012). 

Many men suffering from BPD are more likely to be misdiagnosed as anti-social personality disorder (ASPD) compared to women who are more correlated with BPD, although comorbidity (co-occurrence of more than one disorder) between BPD and ASPD can and do happen (For review, see Bateman et al., 2008).

It is interesting to note that many clinicians calls for BPD to be considered as not as a personality disorder, but as an attachment disorder (unfortunately for many neither DSM-V(1) or ICD-10(2) has not made this change). Many clinicians suggest the BPD’s core psychopathology arises within the domain of interpersonal relations (e.g. intolerance of aloneness) (See, Adler, 1993; Benjamin, 1986; Gunderson, 1984, 1996; Masterson, 1972)

Our attachment we form with our primary caregiver as a baby provides a basis to how we navigate our relationship with others as adults (Bowlby, 1969). Many empirical evidences suggests insecure and to some extent, avoidant and disorganised attachment are prevalent amongst individuals with BPD (e.g. Meyer et al., 2001). 

I believe Sang Woo fits the criteria for insecure attachment. While we cannot actually turn Sang Woo into a baby and into a room with a two-way mirror, bring back his dead mother and have her go in and out of the room while observing a stranger’s and his mother’s interaction with baby Sang Woo as well as his own response and interaction with them (AKA Strange Situation experiment designed to measure attachment) (Ainsworth & Bell, 1970), we can see estimate from the glimpses we have seen of his past interaction with his mother and more importantly, his social skills as adults and particularly his relationship with Bum, we can ‘guess’ his attachment to his mother was most likely to be insecure.

For more information about the experiment ‘Strange situation’: Experiment video

Random trivia: Today, while this experiment certainly gave great deal of insight into potential how the bond humans develop, this is considered very unethical from modern point of view. One of experimenter’s ethical guides is bringing no physical or mental harm to the participant and in the video; babies are obviously in high distress. 

Another example is ‘Little Albert’ who the experimenters wanted to find out about classical/operant conditioning so decided to traumatise an innocent baby named Albert (No, not Albert as in the Albert Wesker like in the Resident Evil haha, yeah sorry I’m bad at making jokes) and they made him develop phobia against furry objects as well as animal (e.g. dogs). Unfortunately for our Albert, he grew up to develop wide range of phobia including furry objects. His parent was paid only $1 for Albert’s participation and sadly, Albert (not his real name) passed away at the age of 6.

What is an insecure attachment?

Ainsworth (1979) put forward the ‘caregiver sensitivity hypothesis’ to explain for different attachment types. It suggest child’s attachment type depends on their primary caregiver (i.e. mothers usually) behaviour toward the child.

Insecure attachment is more likely to form if a mother is less ‘sensitive’, ‘emotionally available’ ‘inconsistent’ and ‘attentive’ to the child. This meant sometimes the child’s needs were met while sometimes they were ignored by the primary caregiver therefore the child come to believe communication of needs has no influence on their parent/guardian. 

Children with insecure attachment showed conflicting behaviours mirroring their caregiver’s. The children are often feels distrustful or suspicious of their mother, but they also act desperate toward and cling to their mothers and highly distressed when the mother leaves them, even for a while but when the mother approaches them, they ignore or even, push them away. 

These children then grow up to have a preoccupied attachment patterns that resembles the pathology of BPD which are the need for reassurance and approval, excessive dependency on their partner or someone they are close to, fear of rejection and are reject-sensitive etc.

Now we have seen that Sang Woo came from a very abusive household and seeing this manhwa is Korean, we can assume that his household was a very typical Korean household: patriarchal household (in Sang Woo’s case with angry father) and emphasis on the mother’s role as a provider of emotional wealth and rearing of the children. As a Korean, this picture is very familiar; of course, patriarchal household =/= Eastern-restricted custom.

We can clearly see his mother was very protective and very likely to be the primary caregiver of Sang Woo from her husband and his father’s wrath. Maternal instinct to protect their child is a very strong and compelling force; however the mother also knew that she has to be alive to be able to protect Sang Woo from his father.

 It is most likely that the Sang Woo’s father threatened to abuse Sang Woo (more and in worse way than he already does) if his mother don’t do what he says. This could very likely mean that Sang Woo’s father wanted thing done in a way he likes, for example, wanting no signs of having a presence of a child living within the house. This puts huge pressure on the mother who knows if she doesn’t do what he says, his wrath would fall on her and then on Sang Woo who in the father’s eyes, ‘the root of all problems.’

To try and hide signs of children in the house is very difficult; Sang Woo, who probably wanted to play with toys freely out on the floor, want to cry, want to play, want to run around, just generally want to be a child and telling the child not to be a child is something children won’t understand because their mental capacity isn’t as developed as adults. 

Because of this, sometimes mothers tend to resort restricting their children often in harsh way and quite interestingly, the child comes to feel more angry and resentful of non-abusing parent than toward the abuser themselves. So Sang Woo, as a child, would probably have been very confused as he did not know whether the next time he saw his mother looking at him, it’d be a loving hug or her being cold towards him.

There were hints Sang Woo might have murdered his mother so it could be that, Sang Woo felt betrayed and confused at his mother who were supposed to be his protector, the only one in the world who understood and loved him acting in a way he saw was no better than his father, who he probably remembers as being nothing but violent, unloving, neglectful to the point Sang Woo probably sees him as a stranger who also happened to live with him and his mother. 

We don’t know what happened to Sang Woo’s mother, but if he did murder her it could have been that she was thinking of abandoning Sang Woo and her husband, unable to bear such living no longer and Sang Woo snaps, or her leaving him to his father for another man, or he killed her because as he grew up he came to see her as a weak mother who did not love her son as much as she perhaps did of her husband; who was so weak and selfish that she didn’t even leave Sang Woo’s father earlier or when she had the chance to take him away from the abuse if she really loved Sang Woo. 

He probably thought that being in the street, starving and cold and with nowhere else to go was much more better than being under a roof that was no better than hell. Because he’d still have his mother who had proven she loved him and that’s all he wanted and needed.

BPD + ASPD = Perfect Match or Chaos?

Now this brings to the question since there are conflicts whether Bum suffers from BPD or Sang Woo suffers from ASPD and let’s say, for the sake of this argument, Bum suffers from BPD and Sang Woo has ASPD. 

How would the two mental disorder clash and if they end up having a relationship, could they have mutual respect for one another and make the relationship work or would they eventually cannibalise each other with their deceitful nature?

I, for the life of me, cannot remember where, but I read somewhere that pathologies of BPD’s subconsciously need and seek those with ASPD and such setup may work (“Opposite attracts”). 

Such relationship can become very pathological that resembles a strange, unhealthy cat and mouse game and this is a course typical in such relationship (think of Joker and Harley Quinn). 

Pushing buttons to see how they respond; making use of their fear of abandonment against them; knowing they won’t actually leave and would just keep taking it. It’d be a continuous circle through idealisation and devaluation.

·         One (ASPD) takes nothing personally (e.g. Borderline accusation/insults); the other (BPD) takes everything personally.

·         Psychopathic detachment can diffuse Borderline reactive rage

·         BPD extreme emotion can be sufficiently ‘loud’ to penetrate psychopathic flattened affect

·         BPD idealises and feeds into the narcissism and need to be approved that ASPD has.

·         The non-judgmental approach of a ASPD can counter black/white thinking of a Borderline, in the ‘quiet’ times when they’re receptive to logic.

·         Because of ASPD’s ‘fearlessness’ attributes, they are not so bothered about the ‘walking on eggshells’ aspect of BPD.

·         The ASPD love bombs BPD, flooding the BPD with affection and making them think as though they are special, ‘consoling’ BPD’s fear of abandonment desires.

·         The BPD might be more oblivious to gas-lighting(3) and dowsing. Their fear of abandonment and senses off self-emptiness (which is a trait in ASPD also) and their unstable self-image can be ‘easy’ for ASPD to manipulate.

·         BPD may appreciate the optimism and drive of ASPD.

·         BPD and ASPD tend to be reckless and impulsive, but this can mean accepting of the others impulsiveness.

·         Those BPD may also be more desensitised and have higher threshold for the abuses (abuses are not confined to physical, it can also mean emotional), as they typically do not internalize things as other individual (whether they have BPD or depression or have no known diagnosis) would internalise the same situation.

·         But ASPD will abandon (eventually) and with the abandonment issue of BPD, it will not end well. But if they are stabilised by that point, they’ll usually breathe a sigh of relief as they chuck up the deuces.

BUT! This is not to say those with ASPD or BPD or other mental disorder will end up killing or doing some sort of horrendous crimes or acts! Certain portrayal of certain mental disorder does not mean everyone will follow that same path.

A researcher called Rosenhan conducted an experiment called ‘On being sane in insane places’. Long story short, he had mentally healthy patients (pseudopatients) going in for a psychiatric examination and told them to tell the doctors they were experiencing psychotic symptoms. 

After they were admitted, Rosenhan had instructed them prior to the institutionalisation that they should start acting ‘normal’ and ‘sane’ and see how many doctors/staff noticed and realised they were actually not mentally ill. No doctors or staff noticed during their stays, ranging from 7 to 52 days although the other patients quickly noticed they were mentally healthy and wasn’t mentally ill. 

The pseudopatients noticed how when they began to act ‘normal’, the staff and doctors labelled their behaviours and acts as some sort of psychotic symptoms. For example, a group of bored patients waiting outside the cafeteria for lunch early were said by a doctor to his students to be experiencing “oral-acquisitive” psychiatric symptoms.

Lesson from this study: don’t generalise what you see or heard of someone’s behaviour or actions with certain mental illness to other people who also have same disorder.

A/N: Planning on writing my ‘In the defense of Alois Trancy’ next - the character is horribly misunderstood and judged.


(1)   DSM: Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) is published by the American Psychiatric Association (APA) and offers a common language and standard criteria for the classification of mental disorders. The current updated edition is the 5th edition published in 2013 (DSM-V). Trivia: Majority of funding for DSM comes from pharmaceutical company. Hmmm…

(2)   ICD: The International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems is a coding of diseases and signs, symptoms, abnormal findings, complaints, social circumstances and external causes of injury or diseases, as classified by the World Health Organization (WHO). Currently in its 10th revision. Trivia: The ICD is actually the official mental health system for the US, but even many professionals do not realise this due to the dominance of the DSM.

(3)   Gas-lighting: manipulation of someone by psychological means into doubting their own sanity. This is similar to an operant conditioning (rewarding wanted behaviour, punishing unwanted behaviour) observed by B.F. Skinner. It induces the feeling of learned helplessness and erode their logicality by manipulating someone to think what they are experiencing is ‘not so bad’, causing gradual acceptance of abuse. Synonymous to ‘grooming’.


Adler, G., (1988) Borderline Psychopathology and Its Treatment. The American Journal of Psychiatry, 145(2), 264.

Ainsworth, M. D. & Bell, S. M. (1970). Attachment, Exploration, and Separation: Illustrated by the Behavior of One-Year-Olds in a Strange Situation. Child Development, 41(1), 49-67.

Ainsworth, M. D. S., & Wittig, B. A. (1969). Attachment and exploratory behavior of one-year-olds in a strange situation. In B. M. Foss(Ed. ), Determinants of infant behavior (Vol. 4,pp. 111-136). London: Methuen.

Bateman, A., Fonagy, P., Dimaggio, Giancarlo, & Norcross, John C. (2008). Comorbid antisocial and borderline personality disorders: Mentalization‐based treatment. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 64(2), 181-194.

Benjamin, L. (1996). Interpersonal diagnosis and treatment of personality disorders (2nd ed., Diagnosis and treatment of mental disorders. Y). New York ; London: Guilford Press.

Bowlby, J. (1969). Attachment. Attachment and loss: Vol. 1. Loss. New York: Basic Books.

Graffagnino, P. (1973). THE TREATMENT OF THE BORDERLINE ADOLESCENT: A DEVELOPMENTAL APPROACH. Psychiatric Annals, 3(11), 98-100.

Gross, J., & Juni, Sam. (2007). Aggression in Hospitalized Criminal Offenders with Mental Illness and Personality Disorders: A Psychoanalytic Retrospective Longitudinal Study, ProQuest Dissertations and Theses.

Gunderson, J. (1996). The borderline patient’s intolerance of aloneness: Insecure attachments and therapist availability. The American Journal of Psychiatry, 153(6), 752-8.

Gunderson, J. (2011). Borderline Personality Disorder. The New England Journal of Medicine, 364(21), 2037-2042.

Meyer, B., Pilkonis, P., Proietti, J., Heape, C., & Egan, M. (2001). Attachment styles and personality disorders as predictors of symptom course. Journal of Personality Disorders, 15(5), 371-89.

Sansone, Lam, & Wiederman. (2011). The relationship between illegal behaviors and borderline personality symptoms among internal medicine outpatients. Comprehensive Psychiatry, Comprehensive Psychiatry. 

Story Time!

Story time with Wesley. This is a client I have worked with for roughly 6-ish months, we’ll call them L - a now 14 month old neutered male lab/mastiff mix - and A - L’s owner who wants what’s best for her puppy.

L and A came to me as a referral around six months ago. A adopted L from a shelter, was told he was a two year old pit bull mix, and has never had a dog before. A lived with a roommate, and L was about 65-70lb. She came to me because L was extremely reactive to people and other dogs, and was cowering away from her roommate and any people who came close to him. She specifically stated she wanted no harsh corrections, no prong collars, no shock collars. I invited her in for an evaluation so I could see what L was doing in person; upon arrival, L was very clearly NOT two years old and not a pit bull. He was very likely somewhere in the 8 month old range, mostly labrador, possibly some mastiff/molosser type mixed in, no bull breed I could discern. He was also extremely underconfident. He shook as he came into my ring, refused all but the stinkiest of cheeses, and peed if I came within about five feet of him. A was almost in tears and told me she hated seeing L so terrified. When I brought Rogue out as a test dog, L erupted into barking and lunging, but could be redirected if he was on the other side of the store. I told A that we could work with him, but it would be a long journey and she would need to go at his pace. She agreed and we started.

The first week I didn’t bother touching on his reactivity. We did confidence building games, engagement games with A, and I even got a tail wag out of him after our first hour. L was a very curious puppy and we were able to get that curiosity to override his fear through small games and easy choices. I learned at this time that A’s roommate was shoving L in his crate and banging on the sides of it when he was in it, and that A had made plans to move back in with her parents when she learned of this. I agreed it was best for both of them. I sent her home with games to play, reintroduction to the crate, and some basic recall/focus/loose leash walking (we found turning around and Premack’s worked best with L for loose leash training).

L recovered quickly once at A’s parents’ house and began to slowly accept his crate. We added in a front clip harness because of L’s size and reactivity - A had a hard time controlling him and I was worried of him injuring her. We started on BAT and LAT for his reactivity toward dogs using Rogue and Remy as decoy dogs. Associates were brought in from the store with stinky cheese and junk food treats to reward when L chose to interact with them - something he picked up on quickly! After a few weeks we were able to do entire classes on foundation work with Rogue on her mat about eight feet from L without him stressing (sometimes Rogue would even get a wiggle and play bow from him). A reported only a few incidents on walks, and all involving dogs rushing straight up to L, but she was able to redirect and get him a safe distance away.

After several months of building up L’s confidence, the once-timid lab mix puppy found his stride. We ditched the front clip harness as A no longer needed it and L now walks on a flat collar and 6ft leash. Recently, A reported that L’s jumping and biting/mouthing was increasing as he grew more confident. We did impulse control games (It’s Your Choice) and implemented 5 second time outs as well as more redirection, but L persisted and A was starting to bear the brunt of his enthusiasm. When she came in with bruises and cuts down her legs, I decided it was time to add in a correction. L would only latch onto her when he would get over excited on his walks - and he would bite her boots and not let go. We continued to work on an out command, impulse control, and A’s ability to recognize when L was going to have a tantrum, but we also added in a basket muzzle (to which he took to wonderfully after the adding of string cheese) for safety and a light leash correction. He responded well to the correction and didn’t display signs of stress. He would refocus better and finish his walk more or less peacefully. 

We have since removed the muzzle and A is now recognizing L’s excitement limits better. She still employs the leash correction if appropriate, but has reported that walks have gone well. We are continuing to work with him on impulse control and channeling his exuberance into good life choices, but I’m really, really happy where A and L have come. In L’s training, A and I have both compromised and found solutions that fit L the best and have created a happy, loved family member. All four quadrants of operant conditioning have been used with L, along with counter-conditioning, Premack’s Principle, 300 Peck, and BAT. We also are working on some focused heeling and tricks for fun! 

It’s been a long journey for L and A, but clients like them are why I do what I do, and why I keep an open mind and train the dog in front of me. 

Guzma/Reader headcanons? 

  • Guzma is a sucker for kisses, never before had he felt such affection. So if you ever just sneak a kiss on his cheek on kiss his hand he will melt. He will get so flustered and stutters whenever you surprise him like that.
  • It’s almost impossible for Guzma to wake up before noon. You’re more of a morning person so trying to get him to wake up any earlier is a challenge for you. You’ve tried using an operant conditioning technique but it still failed. He started to clue in on your attempts and after you gave up he surprised you by waking you up with a cup of coffee.
  • You first met waiting in line at the Hau’oli cafe, the both of you ordered a Tapu Cocoa. The barista on cash never asked for either of your names so when they called out the first order you both reached for the drink at the same time accidentally knocking it over in the process… Guess you could say your first meeting was a hot mess.
  • Guzma excels at math, it took you by surprise when he blurted out the answer to an equation you were working on. You use him as your own personal Pokemon battling tactician now when regarding type advantages and damage dealt.

anonymous asked:

imagine viktor and yuuri married but yuuri puts a ban on puns

There’s a jar on the shelf.

When they have guests over, they always say, “Isn’t it dangerous to have that much money just sitting there out in the open?”

(Hundreds of dollars, all in cash and coins. The jar begins to overflow. Yuuri empties it into their bank account and starts afresh. Within a few weeks, it’s full again.)

“I thought this would get better over time,” Yuuri tells him one night, after Victor had had to get out of bed three times over the past few hours to put another dollar in the Pun Jar.

Victor sighs, defeated. “Operant conditioning just doesn’t work on me.”

Yuuri cups Victor’s cheek, comforting. “Try harder?”

“What’s the point in trying harder if the money I put in the Pun Jar just ends up back in our joint bank account? And if you get an adorable crease on your forehead every time I make a pun?”

“I’ll stop the crease,” Yuuri warns.

“I’m punstoppable.”

“One dollar.”

“Yuuri, it’s one in the morning, and I don’t have any cash on me–”


“I love you,” Victor mumbles as he rolls out of the bed.

“I love you too.”

When is Illinois gonna just abandon the concept of speed limits and let rural highways operate in like, Autobahn conditions. Illinois drivers aren’t fuckin following the speed limit anyways lmao


One thing I have always loved about the manga, and love to see Crystal carrying on, is the sheer scope of the universe it portrays.

And what nobody is saying, but Haruka and Michiru are very heavily implying with their tone of reverence, is that the Serenitys were more than just royalty. And I don’t think they mean ‘ray of light’ metaphorically, here. We know that in the future, the power of the ginzuishou fills all of the people of Earth, extending their lives. But it seems the ginzuishou’s scope reached well beyond the Moon in the past, stretching even as far as Pluto. 

But even beyond the ginzuishou’s power itself, Queen Serenity was more or less a goddess, and they speak about her as such. They weren’t just serving a ruler. They were following the will of a goddess.

And that is important to know about the Outers. Because following a queen’s orders ceases to be important after that queen is long dead. But a goddess, even a dead goddess, cannot be crossed. The laws that she created still bind them, even today. They are still tied to their talismans, and their talismans still operate under the conditions that will soon create Saturn, whether they wish to or not. 

And no matter how much the three of them fight to subvert the roles they have been given, not one of them curses Serenity’s name. Because she was their light. Even as she doomed them to darkness.

Because T6T has shown another evidence of how well Molly can handle Sherlock, I can imagine that in (my shipper) future when Sherlock and Molly have children, Sherlock will just suddenly be smacked by the realization that they have well adjusted little geniuses because of Molly.

It would go like this:

*Sherlock dismissing Greg without saying thank you*

*Mini-sherlock stepping in the way*: Daddy you have to say ‘Thank You’ when people do nice things to you!

*Sherlock geniunely confused but also surprised by the vehemence in his mini-me’s voice*: Why?

*Sherlock mini-me responding with a lecturing voice*: When you say thank you, they appreciate and that positive feeling encourages them to do the same thing again. Operant conditioning daddy, just like the dogs with the whistle.

*Sherlock stunned by his mini-me*

*Sherlock mini-me, holding his father’s gaze, inevitably reminding his father of the same look he receives from his wife that says “Go on, we both know I can wait this out.”*

*Sherlock concedes and turns back to Lestrade*: Thank you, Gizmo

*A stunned Lestrade just nods as his mind tries to accomodate Sherlock thanking him and also being likened to a dog*

*A still recovering from being stunned by his mini-me Sherlock, bends down to carry his tiny version*: Come on spawn, I believe Mrs. Hudson has some gingernuts for you.

*A satisfied and excited mini-me Sherlock*: Yay, I love gingernuts!

While stepping downstairs, Sherlock can’t help but stare at his tiny version. Here is a little him that can spout advanced knowledge while saying adorable, polite things in one breathe. In his arms, he is carrying a little genius who is perfectly comfortable reciting the pi and then squealing in delight when his Granny H gives him fairy cakes. Here is a little boy who can deduce who among his playmates is lying, but chooses not to do so in public and instead confronts the guilty boy in a corner so that he can coax him into telling the truth, thus minimizing the kindergarten drama without damaging his social engagements (or as he like to call them: “my buddies”).

He, Sherlock Holmes Mr-Alone-Protects-Me, has a well-adjusted genius son.

His heart swells with pride, but being Sherlock Holmes, it comes out as: The dog with the whistle is an experiment by Ivan Pavlov and it’s for classical conditioning.

*Tiny Sherlock giggling*: Oh silly me! I got them confused! It’s the one with the cats!

*Sherlock stunned again by another manifestation of his son being a well adjusted boy who does not beat himself up when he gets things wrong, unlike a certain someone.*: Yes, the one with the cats. It’s okay, you are still learning.

*Tiny Sherlock still excited about the prospect of eating his favorite nummies*: I learned it from Mummy, she said we should appreciate people and when I asked her why, she told me it makes them feel good and then she told me the stories about the dogs and then the one about the cats. Mummy taught me so much! She’s brilliant!

*Sherlock already filled with so much pride for his son, becomes inundated with pride and gratitude for his wife.*: Yes…she really is.

Rewarding Moments

A Joshaya Fanfiction

Story By: @hoffkk

Requested by: Anonymous

Prompt: Can you do a Joshaya fanfiction with Maya and Josh dating and she is 18 and they get caught by Cory, Topanga, Riley, Shawn etc “studying”

Summary: Josh helps Maya study for her psychology final and finds a creative way to get her motivated that’s fun for both of them! ;)


Maya felt a rush of relief when her phone pinged, signaling an incoming text.  She’d take any excuse she could to get out of studying for this psychology final.

Riles: Where are you?:P

Maya: BFs.  Studying.

Maya couldn’t help but smile as she typed her reply.  It took barely half a semester at NYU before Josh asked her out and they officially became a couple.  College couldn’t have gotten off to a better start, especially since her best friend was her roommate in the freshman dorm.  Yeah, life was pretty good.

Riles: Okay! :)

Maya was about to type back a response when a teasing voice broke through her thoughts.

“Phone away.” Josh said as he handed her a fresh cup of coffee. “You need to focus, young lady.”

Maya just grunted and took a long sip of her drink while Josh laughed and continued.  "I know this psych final is stressing you out, but if you just apply yourself and get through all the chapter reviews, you’ll be sure to ace it.“

"I guess.  It’s just soooo boring.  Who cares about Skinner and his operant conditioning psychobabble?” Maya whined, starting to regret asking Josh to help her study. He was being helpful and all, but almost too helpful.  Josh was acting more like a drill sergeant than tutor.

“Come on, it’s not that bad.  Tell you what, how about we take a two minute break then try some rapid fire flashcard Q&A?”

“Okay, it’s cute that you care so much and all, but are you serious?” Maya questioned.

“What?”  Josh retorted, slightly confused.

“For one… two minutes is not a break, two… rapid fire flashcards sounds like the worst game ever, and three… if you are gonna be such a drill sergeant about this, you could at least wear the uniform.”

Josh blushed as he quirked a brow at Maya who just shrugged and added, “I’m kidding… kind of.” before taking another mouthful of coffee.

Smirking, Josh shook his head and tried a different approach with Maya.  "You know, Skinner had the right idea with the use of reward systems. For instance, if you stay focused and study hard, you will be rewarded with a good grade.“

"Yeah, that was all fine and dandy about three hours ago when we first started, but I don’t think the stress is worth it anymore. ”  Maya answered.

“But… you’d also get the pride of a job well done.”  Josh replied, attempting yet again to motivate his girlfriend.

“Eh, I guess.” She shrugged then put her drink on the side table.

“Come on, I think that is something worth working hard for.”  He said honestly.

“And I think it is adorable that you think that.”  Maya noted with a cheeky smile.

Josh tried and failed to stifle his smile before giving in and saying, “Okay, so maybe for your last final, those rewards don’t seem like much…. but it’s what you’ve got, and we can’t change it.”

Maya sighed and said, “I know, I’m just sick of studying.  I don’t know how Riley did this all through middle school and high school.”

“Well, what if we made it more interesting?” He offered with a mischievous glint in his eyes.

“What do you mean?” She queried.

Keep reading