FtttG
Gheobhaidh mé bás ar an gcnoc seo.
User ID: 1175
FtttG
Gheobhaidh mé bás ar an gcnoc seo.
25m ago
"Billionaires control the government."
Conspiracy theories are typically things that allege multiple actors secretly coordinating for malign purposes, while concealing the real plan from the public.
Pam_they're_the_same_picture.jpeg
FtttG
Gheobhaidh mé bás ar an gcnoc seo.
28m ago
"Trump is a Russian asset" is a definitive example of a conspiracy theory, given that it's directly borrowed from one of the most famous conspiracy films of all time. People who believe this conspiracy theory are not shy about where they got their inspiration from.
Antisemitism, with all the conspiracy theories and blood libel that implies, is more openly practised on the left than it has been for decades. The sitting mayor of New York City openly claims that the NYPD have only committed police brutality because they were trained to by the IDF. The New York Times uncritically ran an opinion piece claiming, with no real evidence, that the IDF trains dogs to rape Palestinian prisoners. Leftists are disproportionately likely to claim that the October 7th attacks were false flags, or that most of the civilians were actually killed by the IDF as part of the Hannibal doctrine. Leftists seem just as likely as groypers to believe the specific conspiracy theory that Jeffrey Epstein was a Mossad agent, and that the only reason for continued support for Israel among American politicians is because Mossad is blackmailing them using footage secretly filmed on Epstein's island.
Outside of Jew-hatred, American leftists are disproportionately likely to believe that a literal genocide of trans people is either imminent or already ongoing. They believe that numerous people have been successfully acquitted of killings they admitted to committing using the "trans panic" defense. Some would not characterise the BLM narrative as a conspiracy theory, but I think it bears a strong enough familial resemblance to be considered an honorary member at the bare minimum.
Obviously, there's the whole Russiagate thing. Many leftists believe that the assassination attempt against Trump was staged.
Many popular conspiracy theories (the moon landings were faked, vaccines cause autism, JFK was killed by the government) are equally popular among Democrats as Republicans.
I think conspiracy theories are at least as much of a problem on the American left as on the American right. The average American believes that at least one of the last three Presidential elections was illegitimate.
There's a saying in medicine, "when you hear hoofbeats, think horses, not zebras". The idea is that medical students' imaginations get captured by rare exotic diseases, which they spuriously diagnose their patients with on the flimsiest of evidence. It's far more likely that the patient is suffering from an extremely common illness (even an unusual presentation of a common illness) than that they're suffering from a rare, exotic illness. I'm currently rewatching the medical drama House, whose working title was Chasing Zebras, the idea being that House and his team are the ones who chase down the zebras only after the less talented and specialised medics have confirmed that it isn't a horse. Almost every episode begins with House being presented with an unsolved case whose etiology he dismisses as something banal and uninteresting: it's only after the patient's symptoms worsen that he realises it really is a zebra.
The admonition to think of horses rather than zebras is not just an amusing observation about the availability heuristic, about the funny fact that we fixate on statistically rare events at the expense of common ones. Rather, it is an important lesson for doctors to internalise, not just to improve their skill as diagnosticians, but for the sake of their patients' welfare and for the efficiency of the medical system as a whole. Ordering tests for a statistically rare illness your patient almost certainly doesn't have wastes their time and unnecessarily immiserates them: you should have started treatment for the common illness they probably do have. Ordering unnecessary tests is wasteful, a major contributor to Baumol's cost disease, and means that other doctors will get the results of tests they ordered much later (which in turn delays treatment for their patients). Doctors, sadly, are notoriously bad at statistics, which is a shame when statistics are such a huge part of their job.
A huge proportion of complaints about the deficiencies of a given country's medical system ultimately boil down to people failing to understand the "think horses, not zebras" insight. You'll have an obese person who'll claim that a whole series of doctors erroneously assumed their health problems were caused by their obesity and their advice boiled down to "lose weight", only to discover that they actually had a tumour. We're meant to interpret this as evidence of entrenched fatphobia among medics or whatever, but whenever I hear one of these stories, I can only help but think that this is the medical system working exactly as intended. When an obese person complains of health problems consistent with those caused by obesity, nine times out of ten they are caused by obesity, and would be resolved with lifestyle changes. Running a cancer test on every obese patient who complains about trouble sleeping and shortness of breath would bankrupt the health service overnight. I feel the same when photogenic young women appear on television to complain that their doctors missed the symptoms of their breast cancer and they're trying to "raise awareness" thereof. Despite what ad and awareness campaigns would have us believe, breast cancer is a disease that overwhelmingly affects older women. Preemptively screening every woman in her twenties for breast cancer is not a remotely sensible use of scarce medical resources. But everyone loves a sob story, especially when the victim is young and attractive. Older women might as well not exist for how much attention people pay to them.
Likewise here. When a teenaged girl goes missing, and the police tell the family not to worry because she's only run away from home and she'll surely show up in a day or two – well, I don't have hard stats on this, but it wouldn't surprise me if they were correct nine times out of ten. Having the police drop everything and initiate a full-scale manhunt every time a teenage girl yells "I never asked to be born!" is not a remotely sensible allocation of scarce police resources. (Indeed, if it became common knowledge that this is how police departments react whenever a teenage girl goes missing, it would be something that organised criminals could exploit: pay a junkie a hundred quid to report her non-existent daughter missing, then rob a bank while they're preoccupied looking for her.)
On the margin, this approach inevitably means that doctors will occasionally miss a disease independent from an obese person's BMI, a young woman's breast cancer, or a teenager who actually has been abducted. This is regrettable, and yet I defy you to think of an alternative which is better on net. When you hear missing teenager, think runaway, not serial killer.
I know last month I devoted a whole post to criticising people who think the government should dictate who journalists are allowed to report on, how, and in what timeframe, pointing out the perverse incentives and side effects this would inevitably create. And yet I maintain the world would be a much better place if no one was allowed to report the news unless they could provide accurate definitions of "mean", "median" and "mode".
FtttG
Gheobhaidh mé bás ar an gcnoc seo.
9hr ago
I assume @monoamine meant something like: it's easy to look at a photo of Lindsay Clancy and think that she "looks" evil, but you probably see a hundred people who look a bit like her every day without thinking that any of them look evil, because they haven't done anything that might make you think that.
Or conversely, you might see someone with a "kind and approachable" face, learn that they volunteer for a charitable organisation in their spare time, and think "that checks out". But it never occurs to you that many other people who volunteer for charitable organisations don't have "kind and approachable" faces.
I think you will enjoy this comedy sketch.
FtttG
Gheobhaidh mé bás ar an gcnoc seo.
15hr ago
Nope, even in British/Commonwealth English that one's spelled "meter".
I did second-guess myself while writing it. Still, no need to be rude.
FtttG
Gheobhaidh mé bás ar an gcnoc seo.
22hr ago
Nevertheless, if I see a guy with a face like this, I'm giving him some space.
Are you "giving him some space" because of his "physiognomy" (i.e. drawing inferences about his psychology from his physical appearance), or because he's built like a brick shithouse and could beat the stuffing out of you if he so chose? Just because the latter is true, doesn't imply that the former is.
FtttG
Gheobhaidh mé bás ar an gcnoc seo.
23hr ago
Not quite as impressive as it sounds: I also did a half-marathon two weeks before that. But that one was the first long run (>10km) I'd done in about a year and a half.
FtttG
Gheobhaidh mé bás ar an gcnoc seo.
1d ago
How many campaigns ended because you came in a fluffer?
I feel a little ashamed of myself that I understood that reference.
FtttG
Gheobhaidh mé bás ar an gcnoc seo.
1d ago
Yeah. Basically you want to keep your Sniper(s) as close to the mission exit as you can before entering the ship, but still within sight of it. Everyone else stays next to the ship without actually entering. The only soldier who actually enters the ship is an Assault, who can high-tail it out of there once they discover what's onboard. Then it's just a matter of legging it to the mission exit, ideally using both actions to move (but using the second one to kill any Chrysalids who get too close, if necessary) while your Sniper(s) pick them off from a distance. By the time you're within sight of the mission exit, there shouldn't even be any Chrysalids left within your cone of vision.
But hindsight is 20/20: the first time I played this mission it did not go smoothly. Even the description above may not be entirely accurate: I'd forgotten you have to activate the transponder aboard the ship before the countdown starts.
FtttG
Gheobhaidh mé bás ar an gcnoc seo.
1d ago
The Newfoundland one is the one in Enemy Within with the
I do think that the first game is a purer, cleaner, less cluttered experience. While some of the new mechanics introduced in the sequel were interesting, a lot of them (e.g. the special ammunition that causes damage over time) didn't add much. I also really liked the ending in the first game in how
FtttG
Gheobhaidh mé bás ar an gcnoc seo.
1d ago
I've heard a lot about the Long War mods. On the one hand I want to check them out; on the other hand, I'm nervous that XCOM might just be the gateway to an even more dangerous addiction.
FtttG
Gheobhaidh mé bás ar an gcnoc seo.
1d ago
For the month of September I'm doing a thing for charity where I have to run a certain number of miles in the month. Having been focused on strength training for the last couple of years, it's good to get back into cardio, and I forgot how much I enjoyed a long run on the road as opposed to the treadmill. I ran a half-marathon last weekend (completing it just shy of two hours) and am planning to do another this Saturday. I'd love to get to a time of 1:45, but I'd settle for 1:50.
FtttG
Gheobhaidh mé bás ar an gcnoc seo.
1d ago
But this is assuming the conclusion. How do we know that the majority of people with faces perceived to be "kind and approachable" actually are "kind and approachable"? How do we know that those two things are correlated at all? Why is that the null hypothesis?
FtttG
Gheobhaidh mé bás ar an gcnoc seo.
1d ago
A moment of silence for our fellow commenter, who died tragically while in the middle of writing his post.
My bad, it's a work in progress.
(I have a long, nerdy post about my answer to this question below, but for those not interested in reading it, I'll start with the question itself.) So, what video games have you been playing this week?
I first played XCOM: Enemy Unknown in 2015, and became instantly hooked. Having completed it on Normal difficulty, I resolved to beat the game on Classic difficulty with Ironman mode enabled. "Ironman" means that each campaign has exactly one save file: if you make a mistake, you can't reload an old save. Every decision you make is final, so your only choices are to press on or start all over again.
It took me dozens of attempts and hundreds of hours spread out several years, but on St. Patrick's Day, 2020, I finally did it. There's a specific Steam achievement for completing the game with Ironman mode enabled on Classic difficulty or higher, and only 2.2% of players have been awarded it. I am the 2.2%.
Two years ago, I started playing the sequel XCOM 2 on Commander difficulty (the second game's equivalent of Classic difficulty) with Ironman disabled. The old addiction flamed within me once again. In January of this year I started playing the expansion pack, War of the Chosen, with the same settings enabled. I was about halfway through my playthrough when I resolved to match my earlier achievement: I was going to beat XCOM 2 on Commander difficulty with Ironman enabled, a goal I set out to achieve in earnest in February.
After 193 unique attempts, dozens of hours, innumerable ragequits, uninstalls and re-installs, I accomplished this goal at 11:46 a.m. yesterday. I marked the occasion with a snipe of prosecco. I'm not quite wearing a suit to play Football Manager but I'm certainly in the same ballpark. Curiously, although my subjective impression is that XCOM 2 is a more challenging game than XCOM 1, it didn't take me nearly as long to get this achievement as it did its equivalent in the first game, and 2.3% of Steam players have got it, as opposed to 2.2% for the first game.
So you finished a video game, so what? This post doesn't seem that nerdy.
You haven't seen the Sankey chart yet. I uploaded all 193 JSON save files to ChatGPT and got it to work its analytical magic.
The games in the XCOM franchise are some of the most definitive examples of the Early Game Hell trope. While most games start off easy then gradually ramp up in difficulty, XCOM is the opposite. The early game is so difficult that a single mistake can ruin your campaign, but by the end of the game you're killing enemies by breathing on them.
My own experiences bore this out. 193 unique campaigns sounds bad, but fully two-thirds of those (128 campaigns) were abandoned during the first mission, as I quickly realised that getting any rating other than "Flawless" was setting myself up for failure. (When comparing the interval between when a campaign was created and when it was abandoned/completed, the median interval was just 6 real-time minutes. Only 13 campaigns lasted longer than 24 real-time hours.) A further 39 were abandoned before I upgraded my squad from ballistic weapons to magnetic, and another 19 before completing the first story mission, "Investigate Alien Blacksite". Looking at this flowchart of key story missions/objectives, once I reached the "Advent Forge Facility Assault" mission, it was pretty much game over.
Another way of looking at this is via time. In-game, the campaign starts on February 28th, 2035. 165 campaigns were abandoned before the end of March. 17 made it as far as April, and 11 made it as far as May-December. Once you can get over the initial hump, completing the game is very doable. But getting over the initial hump is really hard.
Of the 26 campaigns in which I successfully researched magnetic weapons, it took me, on average, 33.5 in-game days to do so. Of the 7 campaigns in which I successfully completed the Blacksite mission, it took me an average of 85 in-game days to do so. Interestingly, my very last campaign (the one which succeeded, yesterday) had the longest in-game interval from the start of the campaign to the Blacksite mission in the dataset, just shy of four months.
But I don't want to overstate the ease of the endgame: it's not as if I did the last few missions in my sleep. The final mission, in particular, was a nail-biter. I started the mission with 7 soldiers, one of whom (my sole Ranger) was placed out of commission after only the second pod of enemies I encountered, forcing me to complete the rest of the mission with a squad of 6.* Of the 11 soldiers killed during this playthrough, two of them bought the farm during the final confrontation against the Avatars.
What did the experience teach me about myself XCOM 2?
XCOM 2 is a deceptive game. On the surface, its mechanics seem similar enough to its predecessor that you could be forgiven for assuming that any strategies which are viable for the first game will be viable for the sequel. This is a mistake, and my first few non-Ironman playthroughs in 2024 were dedicated to figuring out the differences between them. The big one is that the developers realised that the first game's mechanics incentivised an overly slow, cautious playstyle, and took steps to rectify this. This means that "Overwatch creeping" (advancing your soldiers through the map very slowly and placing them all on Overwatch, hoping that an alien will blunder into their cone of vision) is no longer a viable strategy on any mission with a time limit, which is the vast majority of them. On a non-Ironman playthrough, the ability to save scum and reload saves means that you can cheese your way through a mission without a deep understanding of the game's mechanics, but on an Ironman playthrough, the nuances of the mechanics have to become second nature. If you were to compare my earliest attempts at an Ironman playthrough with the one that succeeded, the main differences in how I took on the tactical missions would be concentrated in the following four areas:
- Guaranteed damage: Every XCOM player has a horror story about firing at an alien with a 90% (or even 95%) chance to hit, and missing. I know that, on the lower difficulties, the displayed chance-to-hit percentage is not representative of the actual percentage, and the game puts its thumb on the scale in various ways to benefit the player. While the game is no longer helping the player in this exact way on Commander difficulty, I suspect that the actual chance-to-hit percentage might still be significantly different from what is displayed onscreen. What this means is that any attack with a less-than-100% chance to hit cannot be relied upon, and that any attack which is guaranteed to hit is an absolute godsend. In the early game, this means favouring sword attacks (provided your Ranger has the Bladestorm ability: telling a Squaddie Ranger to attack with his sword is suicidal), explosives (unlike in the first game, in which the Heavy's rocket launcher only had a 90% chance to hit, every explosive thrown or launched in XCOM 2 will land exactly where you tell it to; also, you're no longer concerned about collecting weapon fragments) and environmental damage (in addition to blowing up vehicles or gas tanks the aliens are taking cover behind, blowing up the floor they're standing on will cause them to take fall damage). In the mid-game, it means favouring your Specialist's Gremlin attacks, and upgrading your Gremlin as quickly as possible. In the late game, it means training up Psi soldiers, most of whose offensive abilities are guaranteed to hit (in my non-Ironman playthroughs, I dispensed with Psi soldiers entirely: not a viable option when playing Ironman). I believe it was only in my very last playthrough that I experimented by giving one of my Grenadiers the "Hail of Bullets" ability (an attack which is guaranteed to hit, but which uses three pips of ammunition): after doing so, I wondered how I'd ever managed without it. It also means that, when adding mods to your weapons, the humble Stocks (which damage enemies even if an attack misses) are your best friend. While the Hair Trigger and Repeater might sound more interesting, you could go on an entire playthrough without either one ever triggering (even the best ones only offer a 15% chance of doing so), whereas equipping your soldier with a Stock means that every attack is guaranteed to cause at least 1 (or 2, or 3) points of damage no matter what. One of the reasons guaranteed damage is so important is that, unlike in the first game, successfully hitting an enemy who's on Overwatch (even for one point of damage) disables their Overwatch, giving the rest of your squad much more freedom to move around.
- Splash damage: I realised early on that the best way to initiate an ambush in the very first mission is to place all of your soldiers on Overwatch except for one, who lobs a grenade at a group of enemies. The mathematics of this are straightforward: if you have three enemies and you partially damage all three of them in the initial attack, the odds of all three surviving the ambush are much lower compared to damaging only one of them. It was embarrassingly late when I realised that this strategy remains viable a good ways into the game: for many of my earlier campaigns, after the first mission I would initiate the ambush by having my Sharpshooter take out one enemy. Any attack which does splash damage (explosives, many psi attacks, capacitor discharge) is a godsend, firstly because they're almost always guaranteed damage, secondly because the explosive attacks also destroy cover, and thirdly because, in the long run, applying a small amount of damage to a group of enemies is a safer strategy compared to possibly doing a large amount of damage to just one. Splash damage also synergises well with certain abilities: the Sharpshooter has an ability called Serial which makes any kill a free action. At full health, all but the weakest enemies can't be killed in one hit from a sniper rifle. But if they've been softened up beforehand with splash damage? Just like that, your sniper can rack up as many as six kills in one turn. The Ranger's Reaper ability is similar, but more contextual and most useful against heavily wounded enemies.
- Bullet sponges: One of the best ways to protect your squad is to get the aliens to attack things which aren't your squad. To this end, you should research and build the Mimic Beacon as quickly as possible. It's a holographic projection of the soldier who threw it, and any enemy who has it within its cone of vision will always prioritise attacking it over your soldiers, sometimes even suicidally so. (I believe the developers described the item as a "get out of jail free" card.) Bring at least one of them on every mission, and you won't regret it. To the same end, abilities which allow you to take control of enemies (hacking and mind control) are useful not primarily for using the enemies' abilities, but simply for their utility as
humanalien shields. (Forget the comparisons between XCOM [the in-game organisation] and ISIS: XCOM is Hamas.) I'm not sure if it's quite as overt as the Mimic Beacon, but I get the impression the enemy AI considers mind-controlled fellow aliens graver threats than human soldiers. The final mission was a case in point. I had killed two out of three Avatars, and killing the last one would win the game immediately. However, the game had spawned in somewhere in the region of 10-15 enemies at a chokepoint, and I did not fancy having to waste time thinning the herd before I could focus my fire on the surviving Avatar again. Fortunately, in the previous turn I had both mind-controlled a Berserker and hacked an Advent MEC. The aliens wasted their turns attacking their mind-controlled allies, allowing my soldiers to focus their fire on the Avatar and win the game. - Rocket-tag gameplay: In the first game, armour absorbed damage, so that soldiers could take a few points of damage without being laid up in the infirmary. Not so here: any amount of damage will wound your soldiers. This is to encourage you to do everything in your power to prevent them from being harmed at all. The absolute best outcome for any mission is that the aliens never even attack your soldiers, as you kill them before they get a chance to put their fingers on the trigger. (You will be awarded a Flawless rating on a mission if none of your soldiers are killed or wounded, but I consider a mission in which the "Most Under Fire" field is null an A+.) In order of preference, the best outcomes are 1) enemy is dead; 2) enemy is unable to attack; and 3) enemy is able to attack, but unable to use special abilities. This is why attacks guaranteed to do damage are so important; it's why the second-tier sword (which has a chance to stun enemies) is more useful than the third (which has a chance to set them alight); it's why you should learn how to hack or mind-control enemies; and it's why flashbangs are utterly vital in the early game. Bring at least two on every mission. They impair your enemies' aim, prevent them from using special attacks (the Stun Lancer can't use his baton, and the Muton can't counterattack if you attack him with a sword), they disable Overwatch, and they even cancel the Sectoid's mind control. Counterintuitively, the importance of killing enemies as quickly as possible (or, failing that, disabling them) also means that most of the special ammunition, grenade and armour types aren't as useful as they might seem at first blush. Weapons or armour that cause damage-over-time (in the form of flames, acid or poison) might sound cool, but what you really want is for the enemy to die the same turn they appear: if they're living long enough for the damage over time to take effect, it suggests you aren't killing them as efficiently as you could be. Weapons that cause damage-over-time are only really useful against enemies who a) you can't realistically expect to kill in a single turn and b) you have no way of temporarily disabling. The only enemies in the game meeting that description are Avatars and (I think) Gatekeepers. In every other situation, you should favour items that will cause more damage, or temporarily disable: Bluescreen ammo and grenades, Armour-Piercing ammo, Talon ammo, Plasma grenades.
On the strategic layer, the big thing you need to unlearn from the first game is the lose condition. In the first game, if eight countries' panic levels rose too high and they left the Council, it was an immediate game over. This could lead to nail-biting situations early on, but once you got a few satellites up, most countries' panic levels would stop rising of their own accord, and the possibility of their leaving the council could could be pretty much ignored. The temptation is to analogise the panic level in the first game to the Avatar Progress meter in the second, assuming that contacting regions will prevent the aliens from making progress on the Avatar Project. This is a mistake. To incentivise more proactive play, no matter what you do, the Avatar Progress meter will always continually tick up. Contacting more regions is instrumentally useful in providing you with more income and allowing you to attack facilities when you discover them, but unlike deploying satellites in the first game, contacting regions does not prevent the Avatar Progress meter from ticking up.
You also need to learn the importance of assigning engineers to specific facilities and juggling them based on what's most important at any particular instance. I found a Steam guide which recommended that, in the top three rows of facility slots, you should place a Workshop absolutely dead centre. He was right: this is a lifesaver. By assigning an engineer to the workshop, you can assign a Workshop Gremlin to up to four of the adjacent facilities: the Workshop effectively gives you four engineers for the price of one. It's a testament to how different playing with and without Ironman are that I didn't build a Workshop at all in my earliest non-Ironman playthroughs.
Lastly, the advice to avoid making XCOM too brittle remains as useful in the second game as the first. If you look at your roster and you have <=6 high-ranked soldiers and a bunch of Squaddies, you are in a very precarious position indeed. In the more forgiving and less time-sensitive first game, this meant sending out lower-ranked soldiers on missions accompanying your more experienced soldiers, so that the less experienced soldiers could level up. But in XCOM 2, as early as April, sending a rookie into the field is a luxury you can no longer afford. To this end, one of the most important upgrades you can buy is "Wet Work" in the guerrilla training school, which increases the amount of XP your soldiers get from kills (allowing them to be promoted faster). You should also build an Advanced Warfare Centre at your earliest convenience: in addition to healing your soldiers faster, whenever a soldier gets promoted, the game rolls a dice and potentially assigns them an ability outside of their class. Thus, building this facility sooner rather than later maximises the chances of your soldiers learning extra abilities. It also means that you should buy high-ranked soldiers whenever your budget permits. In my last playthrough, by the end of the game I had something like nine Colonels (or whatever the Psi equivalent of that rank is), allowing me to send three of them on the Network Tower Assault mission and still having enough non-wounded Colonels left over to send six on the final mission.
Right. I'm done with the turn-based thing for awhile. Maybe done with XCOM for good. Here's hoping they never make XCOM 3, or I'll be spending six months trying to beat that on Classic Ironman too.
*Despite what the game says about every decision being final with Ironman enabled, a quick Google reveals that if all your soldiers are killed in the final mission, the game will graciously allow you to try again. After making such a potentially catastrophic error so early on, I was seriously considered killing my surviving squadmates and starting the final mission over, but in the end I decided just to press on. Thus my successful Ironman run is also a "pure" Ironman run, as I never had to avail of any of the exceptions to Ironman the game carves out for players.
FtttG
Gheobhaidh mé bás ar an gcnoc seo.
1d ago
New Year's resolution check-in:
- Went to the gym three times last week and again yesterday evening. I can deadlift 1.82x my bodyweight, squat 1.33x and bench press 0.82x.
- Have not consumed any pornography since waking up on January 1st.
How goes it @self_made_human, @thejdizzler, @birb_cromble, @ThomasdelVasto and @falling-star?
FtttG
Gheobhaidh mé bás ar an gcnoc seo.
1d ago
But are they able to tell that the person is rotten based on their physiognomy or based on their demeanour?
I dunno how much of that is just projecting what we already know about Lindsay on to her appearance. If her photo had been used in a human interest story about a local mom running a bake sale to raise money for sick kittens, I very much doubt you'd look at her twice. To me, she looks like a completely unremarkable suburban mother which, if anything, makes the enormity of her crimes even more disturbing than they would otherwise have been.
Look at photos of any convicted con man or fraudster, and my guess is that you'll consider them more handsome than the average person – many of them will likely have been said to have "a face you can trust". Despite what third-wave feminists would have us believe, most convicted rapists are not sexually frustrated incels, but rather men who already have lots of casual sex. The cad (the handsome, charming man who sweet-talks his way into a woman's knickers only to ditch her when he's had his fun) is an established archetype in basically every culture in the world. If physiognomy was a reliable guide to people's conduct, why do domestic abuse shelters exist (in countries which don't practise arranged marriages)? Why are there so many single mothers? Looking at the poor sexual and romantic choices made by women (made by people, arguably), the underlying cause in most cases is placing too much stock in physiognomic appraisals rather than too little.
I think they're closely related.
When they (or a member of their in-group) do something they shouldn't have, hypoagentic people perceive themselves as at the mercy of fate. They apply the same framing when a member of their out-group does something impressive or admirable ("well, I could've founded Amazon if I'd been born into a rich family like Bezos's").
Where it gets messy is that these people tend to flip the valence when it suits them: if a member of their in-group does something admirable, they want full credit for it, but any mistakes they made were due to factors outside of their control. Conversely, members of their out-group are blamed entirely for any mistakes they made, while admirable things they do are minimised as accidents of circumstance or attributed to factors beyond their control.
Most "hypoagentic" people are selectively so, using the framing to avoid their in-group receiving condemnation for mistakes (while still demanding full credit for impressive achievements). The Last Psychiatrist notes that this is a fundamentally unstable worldview.
Thanks, fixed.
More options
Context Copy link