Riv | Message of the Day:

Preconceived ideas of what’s, ‘Perfect’.

“It angers me that in this society we’re trained from a very young age, watching television, to swallow preconceived ideas of what is the ideal man or ideal woman. It’s prejudice, really. Many people overcome it, but so many remain oppressed if they’re not happy with their looks, if they don’t look like Robert Redford,. It’s a shame, because they shouldn’t be. When I was younger, I was worried about how others viewed me and if I was good enough.

– I realize now that you can’t mold an image or try to be something that you are not.

A Letter to those who visit my country.

I have only one rule when you come with me to Haiti: leave all your guilt at the door. Don’t reach out of car windows handing street kids coins. Don’t take pictures of dirty kids to serve a higher purpose of making you “appreciate what it is that you have”. Haiti isn’t about you. I bring people to Haiti so they can learn about Haiti, not themselves– for how can one evolve only through a selfish gaze. This isn’t Eat Pray Love.

The problem with going to a place that you’ve already heard everything about is that you come with a preconceived notion– the idea that you must feel something, must experience some thing. What most people don’t realize is that feeling has already been concocted for you. Stories and movies of Haitian slums have already set your expectations. First world narratives of poverty have already eaten away at your soul leaving it so that you already feel guilt if you are not moved. That’s not what Haiti is about. The people who sold you that story feed on your belief of it so they can continue to vulture off a corrupt government and a never ending contribution of guilt money that never needs to be reported back; so people never have to know the names of Haitian kids or what exactly is they do all day.

So my rule is never ever ever sit in my country and treat my people like comparisons.  If you go to Haiti and tweet about a neighborhood based on its crime stats, take pictures with children that made you cry or made you feel “ashamed” about your privilege you’ve done nothing but make it about you. If you go and you write more brand names and talk more about organizations contributions than actual people: you’ve done nothing. People already KNOW Haiti is poor. It’s this shitty little thing where by reaffirming that narrative you remind them that black people are poor and dirty like they already believed and believe about blacks everywhere. That’s the something you’re feeling.

The country doesn’t need pity it needs economy. It needs you to tell people what you ate, what you drank, the jokes the kids told you, the fact that they love Rihanna and Drake. The fact that they think Supreme stuff is fire and make their own memes on Facebook at the Internet cafés and on their old model iPhones. That they too love J’s thought they may not have them. They ARE human. They need a shared experience, not more congratulations for the corporations that send them pity gifts but won’t walk their streets and will still speak of them through racist stereotypes so they can build their charity portfolio.

They need you to name the names of the beaches where you post your selfies and explain how beaches in Haiti are for white tourists because DUH we all live by the water on an island and tanning is not a hobby in a black ass country. They need you to tell the stories of the street vendors that sold you beer and fritaille and how the beer is still brewed in the homeland. They need people to know that 90% of the world exports can be grown on Haitian soil because its that fertile but we import everything because the government has abandoned its own people. They need the world to stop thinking of them as a place where they’re so broke they’ll kidnap you- because LOL at the idea of an American being kidnapped in Haiti. (Literally Haitians laugh at this notion.)

They don’t need to be markers for your personal evolution or your sadness or your gratefulness at having resources. They don’t need to be trotted out for pity so you can come back and throw a festival in their name. They need you to tell Young Thug and Future to come to Haiti because they love seeing them rep in their songs; that they are very much tuned into the “first world” but you do none of this.

You clap for yourselves as Americans and express shock that they are humans with a sense of community. You visit only Cite D’Soleil a slum so dangerous every single article in Haiti ever has mentioned it or interviewed someone there. A slum so “nefarious” it has its own movie—real nuance!. You rehash the narrative of oppressors rather than letting Haiti teach you how to laugh, how to cook fish, how to be a hedonist, how to drink rum, how to dance kompa, how to play dominoes, how to roast niggas in the dark while chopping down a 14ft stalk of sugar cane with a machete under the moon. How every Haitian that comes back from “an deyó” returns with nothing less than 4 suitcases of provisions. How grandmothers in Brooklyn stuff 200lbs of food, clothes, water etc and smuggle them home to drop off at Delmas, or Petionville or even an “affluent” hood like Vivi-Michel directly because they know the Red Cross and the UN aren’t going to real homes.

You spend your nights talking to white people who steal from us rather than night riding in the ghost towns covered in colorful and faded hand-painted ads around Champs Mars and visiting the fish markets at 5am for the freshest catches and the funniest arguments–swerving through the traffic of mothers trying to get kids to school and get to work. You came back with nothing and you gave nothing and if your response is “I did all these things!” than why doesn’t it show? Next time you go to my country step off the pedestal of first world pity and feel the red soil in your toes. Learn the names and stories and then tell them with no additives. Tell them not to make people cry but to remind motherfuckers that this world is big, diverse and it’s beautiful and Haiti is the most beautiful place in the world. That black kids are people, poor or rich.

They’ll say im subbing you but I didn’t mention names because it isn’t one person and again it’s not about YOU. It’s everyone who insults me by asking if I’ll be “safe” when I’m going to visit my FAMILY for two weeks. It’s every person who goes to DR but would never consider the land just across the river. For everyone who goes to Africa, India, Brazil and does the same boohoo about being shocked that poor people are good to each other. It’s about real culture not the culture you retweet but the kind that makes people say PLEASAE TAKE ME WITH YOU rather than “I just donated.” Its about real connection and humanity not a pity narrative or a moral workout session for those who have over the havenots.

I don’t go to Haiti to feel better about being an American. I go to Haiti to be a better Haitian; to show real love. All I ask is that you all do the same. Be better and do better. I’m willing to take anyone anytime. My family begs that I bring friends with every trip because my uncle says they don’t really know us, they only know the white people’s view. I’m happy to show you the real way because it’s not a vacation destination to me: it’s home. Don’t ever do that to my heart again.


Bhat Boy

“Bhat Boy was born in London, England somewhere in the latter half of the 20th Century. He immigrated to Canada on a steam ship in 1966, and became a naturalized Canadian and grew up in the Nation’s Capital with his parents - a cleaning lady and a spy.” (Website)

“I am always being asked questions about my paintings. What does it mean? What is the story you are trying to tell? For my part, I enjoy engaging the imagination of spectators. The very fact that my painting inspires questions underscores its value as a work of art. Some of the characters that inhabit my works are deliberately designed to raise questions. I paint Nuns because people have so many preconceived ideas about who they are and what they should be doing, as a result they make an excellent counterpoint in my paintings to contrast with other elements. Dragons usually represent the darker side of the male psyche in my painting, while goldfish represent our relationship to the environment in the scenes that unfold on my canvases.”


How often do we see a hijab-wearing, career-driven, intelligent, independent Muslim woman on television with a voice of her own? It’s a groundbreaking role that I’m honored to play. Homeland is great at challenging our preconceived ideas. Many viewers will make up their minds about Fara the moment they set sight on her and hear her speak. She wears a headscarf and has a slight Iranian accent. She looks and feels completely out of place the moment she arrives at the CIA. She definitely senses that people define her by her appearance. The question is, has she become what society has imbued her with or does she prove them wrong? –Nazanin Boniadi


Sometimes, you don’t get the whole story from one side. When these ads are placed on a corner, they challenge the viewers preconceived ideas about animals. However, when they walk around the corner, the full extent of the ad can be seen.
This image was based off an image campaign created by Depaul. If you like the concept, please share the image by reblogging it! (full disclosure: The more viral I can get the image, the better my mark is)

She’s just the most down-to-earth person. She just seems like a really true friend, and it’s just really great to meet people in this industry [like her]. A lot of people I’ve met have a preconceived idea [about her], at least from tabloids, but she’s one of the most amazing people I’ve ever met.
—  Sarah Hyland on Taylor (x)
For let us make no mistake. If the end of the world appeared in all the literal trappings of the Apocalypse, if the modern materialist saw with his own eyes the heavens rolled up and the great white throne appearing, if he had the sensation of being himself hurled into the Lake of Fire, he would continue forever, in that lake itself, to regard his experience as an illusion and to find the explanation of it in psycho-analysis, or cerebral pathology. Experience by itself proves nothing. If a man doubts whether he is dreaming or waking, no experiment can solve his doubt, since every experiment may itself be part of the dream. Experience proves this, or that, or nothing, according to the preconceptions we bring it.
—  C.S. Lewis

anonymous asked:

Do you have any advice to offer for the socially anxious/awkward people regarding going on a first date?


Be present.

Enjoy yourself.

React to and interact with the person in front of you, not your preconceived ideas of them.

If you say or do something awkward, embrace it.

If the date is at a restaurant, remember your waiter’s name and treat him or her with respect; the way you treat a waiter is very important. People notice that.

Sharing a meal increases the intimacy on a date. Restaurants like Applebee’s have “2 for $20 Deals,” where you get two great meals to share for only $20.

Stay at the restaurant until midnight because the appetizers at Applebee’s become half-priced.

To begin with, the prices at Applebee’s are already very fair; taking advantage of this wonderful deal (only at Applebee’s) shows your date that you are a shrewd spender.

There’s no better place to watch football on Sunday than Applebee’s- they don’t call it “The Fan Zone” for nothing!

Want a big, mouth-watering Quesadilla Burger or sensible Thai shrimp salad? Either way, the ‘Bees has you covered.

With a staff that is as friendly as it is professional, there’s no better place than Applebee’s and no better time than right now. I really can’t think of a better place!

Like stick a fucking gun in my mouth and I swear to God I won’t think of a better restaurant.

There’s no place like the neighborhood!

Research Study Finds Most Aggressive Dog Breeds

Many people have preconceived ideas on the character of a dog based purely on their breed. This of course is unfair.

With Breed Specific Legislation acts coming into place within many states, dog such as Pit Bulls, Rottweilers, Doberman Pinschers and other breeds that are generally considered more aggressive, are in danger of losing their homes and in some cases their lives.

In many ways the media has exacerbated the issue. The notion that such breeds are innately more aggressive than others has been allowed to seep into the public conscience.

While cases of aggression in such breeds does happen, and severe cases will almost always be reported, there are other issues at play here.

A study released in 2008 in the journal of Applied Animal Behavior Science provides scientific data on what breeds are statistically more aggressive – and the results go some way to readdressing the balance of these long held dog breed stereotypes.

The study involved researchers from the University of Pennsylvania as well as 6,000 dog owners.

And the number one aggressive breed out of the 33 different breeds surveyed? The Dachshund. Non other than the wiener dog.

The results of the study found that “one in five dachshunds have bitten or tried to bite strangers, and a similar number have attacked other dogs; one in 12 have snapped at their owners.”

Number two on the list of most aggressive dog breeds is the tiny Chihuahua, while Jack Russells came in third.

And the results for those breeds that are stereotypically considered the most aggressive dogs of all?

Well Pit Bulls and Rottweilers scored average or below average in the aggression study.

congenitaldisease - it’s an old article, but I saw this and thought of you!

Ways Therapists Abuse their Clients

“You Don’t Matter” - Lack of respect, shaming & not listening
-Treating the client as a “diagnosis” rather than as a person
-Undermining the client’s self-confidence and self-esteem and making them feel humiliated; emphasising their “deficiency” and never acknowledging their good qualities
-Not listening properly to clients - and only “hearing” what fits in with the therapist’s own preconceived ideas
-Rubbishing the client’s own insight, understanding, ideals, goals etc. and making them doubt their own reality (gaslighting)
-Not allowing client to critically question the therapy they are being subjected to, demanding unlimited compliance and agreement and “faith” in the therapeutic process.
-Failing to act on/disbelieving/dismissing/writing off client’s complaints or distress re their emotional or psychological problems, engaging in the old “same time next week” attitude
-Treating the client as though he/she is malingering/feigning symptoms so as to get sympathy, time off work etc, and thereby discounting client’s complaints about symptoms
-Dismissing a client’s problem (for which they are seeking help) with “you just need to deal with it/exercise/pray/do volunteer work/be more grateful” etc.
-Refusal/inability to acknowledge the realities of the client’s circumstances (e.g. insisting a client of workplace bullying return to work without proper support or changes to the situation)
-Construing client’s belief system as deviant/bad for their mental health/downright delusional simply because it differs from what the therapist considers “normal” (This can also occur when e.g. male therapists encounter feminists or their supporters.)
-Asking the client to pursue “homework” that is never used in the process of the therapy (e.g. telling client to “think about it!” then forgetting all about it, dismissing it as unimportant or accusing client of “wanting to stay stuck on an issue”)
-Breaking promises made to a client

“You Don’t Need To Know” - Withholding information
-Lying, withholding or distorting informationInflicting any kind of treatment modality on the client without discussing the treatment and particulars with client first and gaining their consent
-Not telling the client that the therapist is making some kind of assessment or diagnosis of them, and/or not informing the client of any diagnosis which has been made
-Not allowing client to critically question the therapy they are being subjected to, demanding unlimited compliance and agreement and “faith” in the therapeutic process
-Refusing to allow a client access to their client record
-Deliberately confusing a client in order to keep the client off-balance
-Refusal to explain terminology the therapist is using, such as any psychology or DSM terms
-Refusal to answer direct requests for clarification of the therapist’s words or non-verbal communications

“I’m in Charge” - Controlling, threatening and manipulative behaviour

-Shifting the balance of power further in favour of the therapist
-Refusal to address the issues which the client wishes to address in therapy
-Setting the client’s goals for them without reference to what the client sees as important, in relation to either therapy or life in general
-Making a client work on an issue on the therapist’s agenda or to his timing
-Threatening to have the client forcibly admitted to a mental hospital
-Guilt-tripping the client with phrases such as “You don’t want to get better”, “You have a problem with trust” etc.
-Using threats of termination to control a client’s actions, reactions, or behaviour
-Deliberately confusing a client so as to throw them off-balance
-Emotional blackmail and verbal assault
-Manipulation through the use of withdrawal and silence (e.g. encouraging client to overstate their distress so as to get a reaction)
Unconditional positive regard (conveying the impression that the therapist cares and understands)
-Arbitrary, capricious or variable attitude to client (cf. “Good Cop, Bad Cop” routine)
-Making the client make “contracts” as a method of control (e.g. making a client be a “Pollyanna” by having a contract where the client must report “good things that have happened” regardless of the reality of the client’s life and recent happenings)
-Therapist passive-aggressively re-enacts a traumatic or abusive incident that client experienced, without client’s consent or knowledge of this “therapeutic technique”, just to see how client will respond

“I Know Best” - Misinterpretation of client’s symptoms/situation & imposing own beliefs/ preconceptions
-Not listening properly to clients - and only “hearing” what fits in with the therapist’s own preconceived ideas
-Defining clients in terms of the therapist’s own outlook, beliefs, ideals etc
-Using circular self-confirming hypotheses, i.e. basing assessments on the therapists’s conjecture rather than actual evidence, and then making further assumptions about the client based on those assessments
-Labelling understandable distress/anger etc at external events in terms of mental illnessInsisting the client accepts the therapist’s interpretation of their distress and submits to a therapy protocol which is not designed for nor is effective for client’s specific problem (e.g. treating a depressed person for narcissistic or antisocial personality disorder)
-Developing endless attributions for client’s behaviour (e.g. depression/anxiety/OCD etc.) to justify solving it for a long time, and when behaviour is still present after therapy, develop a new attribution for the behaviour
-Making the client make “contracts” as a way to control the client or to minimise the client’s emotional situation, not as a useful therapy tool (e.g. where the client must report only “good things that have happened” regardless of the reality of the client’s life and recent happening)
-Using ANY type of spiritual/religious or otherwise-not-mainstream “therapy” without first explaining such and getting consentInsisting client adopt therapist’s belief system

“You Need Me” - Encouraging dependence & setting self up as only hope
-Persuading the client that the therapist is their only hope of happiness, and that they should accept and do everything the therapist says
-Encouraging an unhealthy dependence on therapy and/or the therapist
-Making extreme and seeming serious suggestions like cutting off contact with family members or verbally abusing family members, and justifying this behaviour by claiming it will “facilitate the therapeutic process”

Use of jargon, clichés, pretence and other inappropriate modes of address
-Using complex jargon to confuse and disadvantage the client
-Making jokes at the client’s expense
-Passing off abusive comments as “just a joke”
-Passing off superficial clichés as “insight” and “wisdom”
-Using manipulative phrases which contain a critical subtext,
e.g.:“This is life, you must learn to deal with it” (subtext: “You are deficient”)
“Choose to like where you are at, what you’ve got and to be with whoever you are with” (subtext: “Stop complaining”)
“I never promised you a rose garden” (subtext: “You are unreasonable” - when the only expectation may have been for decent and respectful behaviour!)
“Be grateful for what you have” (subtext: “You are ungrateful” )
“Do volunteer work” (subtext: “You are ungiving”)
“Now you’re sadder but wiser” (subtext: “Don’t be ungrateful - I’ve done something for you” - even though you sought help in dealing with the sadness)
“To have a friend you must be a friend” (subtext: “You are the problem - and if you say anything against other people, you’re paranoid”)
“There’s no such word as ‘can’t’” (subtext: “You are pathetic”, or “I don’t believe you”)
“Don’t you know that?” (subtext: “You ought to know that”)
“Don’t you want to get better?” (subtext: “You don’t want to get better”, or “ You will only get better if you do what I say”)

Attempting to lead client to therapist’s predetermined conclusions by any of the following:

-Lying, omitting or distorting information
-Loaded questions
-Feigning ignorance about a topic
-Passing attributional suggestions off as compliments (e.g. “you are a tidy person”)
-Making coercive/fear inducing statements (e.g. “that sounds pretty paranoid to me…”)
-Feigning an anger response to client to regain control or compliance
-Feigning identification with client’s feelings
-Playing on client’s weaknesses/fears/needs/vulnerabilities
-Setting client up by encouraging him/her to do something that will fail or appear silly
-Playing games with client (e.g. therapist brings own problems into sessions and has an “isn’t it terrible” competition - “you think you got problems, well, I’ll give you a reason to be depressed….”)

Causing disruption to client’s life, including breach of confidentiality

-Encouraging or causing disruption to client’s long term friendships and marital relationships
-Failing to respect client’s lifestyle choices as a “given”
-Discussing the client with others outside the therapy setting, unless the client has given explicit and informed consent to such discussions (which may include both giving and receiving information)
-Character assassination

Financial/material exploitation

-Using ANYTHING from a client for the therapist’s personal gain, without their knowledge (including the client’s story as an anecdotal case study for publication in a book)
-Keeping any item belonging to the client, even if the item was “created” during therapy or a session of therapy (poetry, artwork, journals etc), and refusing to return these items when asked to do so
-Using billing or financial arrangements to control or manipulate the client (e.g. requiring them to pay for a fixed number of sessions when client has decided to terminate early, or threatening to withdraw counselling which is being provided free or at reduced cost) 

“It’s Your Fault” - Blaming the client & denial of any responsibility for distress in therapy

  • “Pollyannaism” - emphasizing only good qualities, people are all nice, well-adjusted, polite, and kind, so if a problem occurs it’s the client’s fault, while ignoring/overlooking/minimizing bad things people do, or the possibility that people can deliberately do bad things to others; if client questions trustworthiness of others, he/she is labelled “paranoid”
  • Demanding client “confess” to doing bad things as part of the therapeutic process and refusing to believe denials (e.g. using illegal narcotics, hurting other people, “being an asshole”, theft, lying)
  • “Cure must fit the symptom” (i.e. if client has excessive guilt feelings, therapist insists client must have done something bad to make client feel guilty and must “come clean about what you did”)
  • Treating the client as though he/she is malingering/feigning symptoms
  • Saying a client is deliberately “dragging their feet” in getting well when the client is confused or does not understand what is going on in the therapy
  • Labelling the client as manipulative or disturbed for questioning the therapist’s approach (e.g. diagnosing a personality disorder in order to discredit a client who makes a legitimate complaint)
  • Labelling the client as resistant or in denial if they don’t accept the therapist’s understanding
  • Refusing to accept that therapists ever make mistakes and blaming the client for any distress the therapist has caused them
  • Character assassination
  • Assuming all therapy “works”, even the latest fad, and if client doesn’t improve then they are “doing something wrong” (which entails many more hours of therapy) because the “theory” certainly cannot be at fault
  • Playing the victim when the client makes a complaint

(from )

I feel like authenticity is a constant pursuit in this ever accelerating and disconnected world, and it circles back to communication. Being able to engage each other with a sense of compassion is a big part of that for me. So, first I surround myself with people who hold me accountable to my authentic self. Particularly people who have known me for many years, well before all the hoopla of my career. It’s more complicated to pursue authenticity when people have preconceived notions and ideas about my personality based only on a public persona. Old friends help me stay solid and committed to a truth that can be easily obfuscated by the chaos of my particular industry. I also have pets. They help remind me often of simplicity and unconditional love. Yoga. Meditation. A good book. A museum. A walk in Central Park. And always, always, always the theater. These things are essential for me.

More Thoughts on Si

Something I shared recently with someone struggling to determine if they use Si.

Si and Ne are both idealistic, which is why SJs and NPs tend toward such things as idealism. Si comes with a preconceived idea of how things OUGHT to be, and Ne sees what they COULD be, in a more idealized state, so they work together to produce expectations that are often far greater in concept than reality.

Think of it this way: Si has an expectation of what a castle is. It is huge, the rooms are spacious and filled with expensive furniture; it is perched on the top or the side of a mountain with gargoyles, spires, arches and marble corridors. It’s a fairy tale happily ever after castle with a gorgeous blue ceiling embedded with diamonds, under which sits the king and queen’s gold-encrusted, velvet-seated thrones in the great hall, where regular balls are held. The knights are handsome, strong, virtuous and chivalrous, clean shaven with perfect manners.

If that idea of a castle is firmly ingrained in Si’s mind, anything that does not seem the right shape, or color, or live up to those expectations, is not considered worthy to be called a “castle.” Si expects that gorgeous perfect castle, only to discover in real life that castles are small, cramped, dirty things, half-crumbling, rather ugly from the outside, and cold. Instead of marble floors, there is sunken stones once covered in rushes to soak up the urine that the filthy knights squirted in corners. (Not kidding.)

Confronted with this “reality,” Si balks. Si does not like this! This is not what it expected, not what it hoped for, not what a castle ought to be, or what it wanted to find. It doesn’t match the idea in Si’s collective consciousness as to what a castle is supposed to be like. This is reality… dirty, filthy, boring, unpleasant reality. Si yearns for the more perfect, ideal castle. Si knows that this reality isn’t what it could be, and labors under the weight of this dismal discovery.

Si now has a choice. It can broaden its expectations and understandings by accepting that castles can also look and function like THIS, or it can reject the castle in favor of the more idealized one inside its consciousness. It can choose reality and possibly the unhappiness it brings (but also find an eventual sense of reality, self, and realism in that knowledge), or it can choose denial in favor of the ideal. If people, places, ideas, things, food, situations, etc., are not what Si expects, or how they SHOULD be in a more perfect state, Si struggles to accept the new framework. Ne enables it to forever expand those definitions, but in SJ it is fighting against Si-dom or aux, so it’s an uphill battle. Many Si’s find it so uncomfortable to reconstruct their entire inner framework that they give up completely; others proceed with caution, because now their expectation has been dashed. Their entire internal library must be torn apart, and old books replaced with new volumes, but the ghost of the former expectation lingers, rising up to whisper that their expectation is better, that it’s more pure, that they should hold on to the enormous castle and the noble knights.

Obviously the castle is symbolic and meant to encompass all of reality (expectations about family, friends, what it’s like to be an adult, ideas about marriage, heroism, etc); the bottom line is that Si approaches life with EXPECTATIONS, which is why when introduced to the idea of something it has no former experience with or awareness of, it has trepidation, because it doesn’t have an impressionistic expectation to fall back on for referencing. What if Si has never heard of a castle and no one explains it to them? They have NO IDEA what a castle is!

Si’s expectations are often pulled from eternal truths, from previous experience, and from mythological roots… once Si understands what a castle is, Ne takes over and makes it BETTER than it is.

Ni and Se users do not tend to enter life with these expectations; there is no ‘’life SHOULD be like this,’ but there is instead ‘life WILL be like this…’ Se grounds them with brutal objectivity and Ni visualizes what will come to pass.


When his career is observed, it seems to have spent much time and effort to counter the perception others had about you. — Until a certain point. But much of what you say is linked to ‘The Fall’. It’s the kind of role for which I had never considered, because of preconceived ideas about the kind of actor you should be if you have participated in campaigns for fashion brands. They had never given me the opportunity. He did not seek revenge, but simply exercise my interpretive muscle in a far from what you usually expect from me project. I admired discover that I was comfortable in such a dark ground. Each paper helps you learn new things about yourself. It’s complicated when you play someone so evil, but you have to dig in yourself, to find things you carry inside you. For example, I know there is anger inside me. Almost never comes to the point that my friends have never seen it and my wife does not even know it exists, but I know it’s there. — Jamie Dornan for ICON (El país)