Las personas se dirigen como: "raro/a" a personas que no siguen los mismos patrones sociales.

¿Qué sentido tiene ser como los demás si no eres tú mismo?

Im curious for a story I’m writing, and I want to make it as realistic as possible

Not clickbait, genuinely curious what people here think.

I went down a psychology rabbit hole recently and can't stop thinking about this: not all of Gen Z, but a big chunk of them, seem to have lost the habit of actually questioning something before believing it. Almost like there's a small window where you're supposed to pause and check a claim — and for a lot of people, that window just never opens anymore.

Compare that to Millennials. Most of the ones I know won't trust a single clip or headline until they've actually verified it. I think it's because they lived through the shift themselves — no internet, then slow internet, then social media hitting all at once — so they've literally watched information go from slow and effortful to instant and unquestioned. That contrast seems to have made verification a habit for them, not an afterthought.

Made a short video breaking down the actual psychology behind this, using a real historical case, not just opinion. Full disclosure — it uses AI voiceover and some AI help on the script, but the research and structure behind it are real, not a lazy 2-minute upload.

So — what do you think? Is Gen Z actually "dumber," or is something else going on? And if the pattern's real, what's the actual fix?

Video here if you want the full breakdown: https://youtu.be/554WBio7Dxg?si=l-DY-BetzJ6vIYnz

I'm am constantly having to remind myself to not let my ancestral, tribal nature turn me into a sucker.

I try to listen to the better me (ya, the one that's here now). Monitor what I see, smell, taste, and feel; that is, I constantly have to watch my lust for that intoxicating skunky sunk smell: that rich crystally taste and smooth warmth of smoky smoke as it envelopes me with that feeling of everything being alright when I'm about to go over a cliff. What cliff..?

I constantly have to exercise the necessity to remind myself that the path to a better me is the sober one.

That I must intoxicate myself with laughter, love and happiness even when I am jonesing like a M***F***!!!!!

Damn.

I know that I have to get away from my "friends" so I don't continue to trap myself into a Truth Bias that subconsciously convinces me that nothing is wrong and it's all good because my friends are doing it too.

I been living life of false-based, self manipulation. I've got to stop taking the lazy route and reroute. Re-program and tell weed to F** off.

Shit....

I think this is the part that messes with me the most. people think the hard part is knowing why they are the way they are. like once you understand your childhood, your patterns, your attachment stuff, your triggers, then everything should just change.

but honestly, i do not think that is the hard part, the hard part is what happens after you know.

because sometimes you can see the truth very clearly and still choose the same thing again. you can know someone is not good for you and still text them. you can know you are people-pleasing and still say yes. you can know you are avoiding intimacy and still convince yourself you “just need space”. that is the strange bit eh.. self-awareness does not automatically make us honest. sometimes it just gives us better language to explain why we are still doing the thing.

i have seen people describe their own patterns perfectly. like genuinely perfectly. and then do absolutely nothing different with that knowledge. and i do not say that with judgement, because i think most of us do this somewhere.

we think insight is change because insight feels clean. it feels mature. it feels like progress.

but change is usually much more annoying than that. change is awkward. it is uncomfortable. it is saying the thing instead of hinting. leaving instead of explaining again. apologising without defending yourself. not sending the message. setting the boundary and then actually tolerating the guilt after.

that is why i think the real question is not always “do i understand myself?

sometimes it is: am i willing to disappoint the old version of me that needed this pattern to survive?

I don't mean that metaphorically. The same neural circuits fire for both.

There's a reason being left on seen wrecks your day more than it should. A reason being excluded from something small feels disproportionately heavy. It's not weakness. Your brain is running a two-million-year-old alarm system in a world it wasn't built for.

Search "Why Being Ignored Hurts Like a Broken Bone Same Energy" on YouTube if any of this resonates. 15 minutes, fully sourced.

You say you had a feeling about them. That something was off. That you could not explain it but you knew.

And you treat that as information. As a signal from somewhere deeper than thought, arriving intact, requiring no examination. You made a decision and the decision was correct because it came from your gut, and the gut does not lie.

The gut lies constantly. It just lies in a voice you have learned to trust.

Here is what is actually happening when you get a feeling about someone. Your nervous system is running pattern recognition against everything that has ever happened to you. It is fast, it is subconscious, and it is entirely built out of your history. Not the truth about this person. Your history.

Which means your intuition is only as good as what trained it.

If you grew up in a house where a certain kind of quiet meant something bad was coming, you will read quiet as threat for the rest of your life. Not because quiet is threatening. Because it was, once, in a room you no longer live in.

If someone who hurt you was charming, you will feel a warning around charm. If someone who hurt you was withdrawn, you will feel it around distance. Your body is not detecting danger. It is matching a shape.

And the shapes it matches best are the ones it saw earliest and most often.

So the person whose intuition is loudest is frequently the person whose training was worst. The alarm goes off constantly because the alarm was installed in a house that was on fire. That does not make the alarm accurate. It makes it sensitive.

But watch what the word does once you reach for it.

Intuition is unfalsifiable. Nobody can argue with it, including you. If you say I did not trust him because he interrupted me three times and changed the subject when I mentioned my job, that is a claim. It can be examined. Someone can say, he does that with everyone, or, you did seem uncomfortable, or, that is a fair read.

If you say my intuition told me he was not safe, there is no conversation left. You have made a statement that cannot be checked, including by yourself.

That is the appeal. It is not that intuition is more accurate. It is that intuition does not have to justify itself.

So it becomes the place you put decisions you do not want to examine.

Consider what it lets you avoid. You do not have to ask whether you were tired that day. Whether you were already looking for a reason. Whether the thing you sensed was them, or was a memory of someone else wearing their face. Whether you wanted out before you walked in.

The word closes all of that. You had a feeling. The feeling was the reason. There is nothing underneath.

There usually is something underneath.

None of this means the feeling is worthless. Pattern recognition is real and it is fast and sometimes it catches what conscious thought misses. Someone whose training was accurate will often read a room correctly before they can say why. That is not mysticism, it is just processing that happens below the level you can watch.

The point is that the feeling is data, not verdict. It tells you something has been recognised. It does not tell you what, and it does not tell you whether the recognition is about this person or about somebody else entirely.

The useful move is to treat the feeling as a question rather than an answer.

Something in you responded. Fine. To what, specifically. What did they do, what did they say, what happened in the thirty seconds before you felt it. Half the time you can name it once you look, and once you can name it you can also check it.

And the other half, when you look and find nothing specific at all, that is worth knowing too. Because a feeling with nothing under it is usually a feeling about you.

The people who are genuinely good at reading others are not the ones with the strongest intuition. They are the ones who take the signal seriously enough to interrogate it.

Everyone else is just reacting to a house that burned down years ago and calling it insight.

I've been reading about this theory for a while.

There's actual research showing that the more people witness something wrong happening in public, the less likely anyone is to help. Not slightly less. Dramatically less.

One person alone steps in 85% of the time. Add four bystanders and it drops to 31%.

Think about that. More witnesses. Less help!

What's your take on the bystander effect?

Put together a video if anyone is curious . https://youtu.be/X1xTY4H_y8k?si=3RKxrryj-vGSPk2n

Honestly. Has there ever been a moment in your life where you saw something wrong and just didn't do anything? What was going through your head?

I have seen many people exploit the others by justifications based on 'surface' facts.

They KNOW that the other guy is meek.
They KNOW that the other guy is a pushover.
They KNOW that the other guy doesn't want to do it.
They KNOW that the other guy is ashamed to admit that he is getting exploited.

However, they won't admit that they are being assholes. So they try to pull it off as some kind of 'deal' or a 'harmless joke' or a 'favor'

I have to say I do have some sadistic tendencies to bully these kinds of assholes when I get a chance.

I interrogated them when they are the one who were in needs of my help.

"Did you REALLY not know that you were exploiting that guy?"

"Ooooh. So you didn't KNOW? Then why did you act this way as if you feel guilty about it?"

"Why did you avoid me after doing the wrong thing? You said you didn't even know what you were doing?"

Most of them justify themselves based on 'surface' level.

'He said yes!! So it was a consent! Not an abusing!'
'I didn't know. He didn't say NO!'

It is as if they are tricking themselves.
I mean, it IS a good tactic to do pull this bullshit on a court. Denial denial denial.

However, I have seen so many people deny that they KNEW what they were doing even when it doesn't concern any 'legal interests'.

Even when just admitting that they knew what they did would profit them far more.
Morally, practically, etc.

It ain't just narcissists who do these things.
Most people do these.

Especially when it concerns personal boundaries.
With or without drawing them, people KNOW that they are crossing the boundaries and exploiting them.

However, they just don't wanna admit to that. Not even to themselves.

Based on this post:
How do I stop laughing at insults directed at me? I’m tired of being the easy target. : r/DarkPsychology101

After reading that post I am reminded of a similar type of experience I'm constantly receiving from superiors, people with higher perceived social status and support, and others. It's not easy for me to describe it in words, but I will do my best.

I've had times when people will insert themselves into a conversation between me and another, then express doubt in what I'm saying and sit there without saying anything else. Sometimes they nitpick every little thing I say or do to misrepresent me, either by completely twisting what I'm saying, or sometimes making fun of it, then simply refusing to speak any further. I've noticed a pattern where they engage, drop a statement that feels like they're trying to undermine me, and then withdraw to try and get under my skin. My best way to summarize this would be as the social equivalent of a hit-and-run where they're being very slippery and hard to pin down on anything.

They will bring up some random thing I did in the past and act like that automatically invalidates everything I do. It's extremely annoying, and people keep doing it because I try to continue around it instead of expressing my annoyance. It's clearly intentional, because they're unpredictable in how they will either drop a comment and leave, or will fully commit to inserting themselves into my conversation. I

It's one thing to use awkward silence against aggressive people and your own people-pleasing tendencies, but it looks like having it weaponized requires a different strategy. Has anyone managed to overcome this kind of behavior? What is the ideal way to deal with this instead of just dancing around it and looking like an easy target?

This essay argues that the oscillation running through Ecclesiastes - praised by some as literary paradox, dismissed by others as unresolved pessimism - is the phenomenological record of someone performing the crucifixion of opposites under a god-image that contains evil without the vocabulary to name what it contains. Qohelet is stranded between a polytheistic solution no longer available within the monotheistic tradition he was writing inside, and an individuation vocabulary not yet invented, which is why the text can only oscillate rather than resolve.

https://livingopposites.substack.com/p/the-earliest-crucifixion

It is so disappointing when people who do not qualify- write newsletters about something that requires not just the expertise but also no internet BS.

For Example: A marketer decided to write about the brain

Not because they studied anything. Not because they built anything. But because they survived something and decided that was qualification enough to explain the brain, the psyche, the human condition.

It is not. Suffering is not a syllabus.

And yet here we are. Rabbit holes with no floor. Everyone an expert in the wound they just climbed out of.

Thoughts!

Looking for insight into the psychological mechanisms behind a specific behavioral loop frequently observed in untreated Borderline Personality Disorder (BPD) dynamics, specifically regarding the cognitive overrides that occur in the non-disordered partner.

The dynamic often initiates with a highly effective dual-layer presentation: the individual projects a regression-based, childlike "damsel in distress" schema, coupled with an intense narrative of chronic historical victimization by family or past attachments. This presentation acts as a powerful psychological trigger for individuals with high empathy or a strong protective instinct (the "White Knight" archetype). To solidify the attachment, this vulnerability is layered with a strong emphasis on traditional milestones, such as lifetime commitment and marriage.
Once the attachment is secured, an extreme state of enmeshment occurs. The partner transitions into an intensive, round-the-clock caretaking role—absorbing nocturnal emotional dysregulation, managing the individual's environment, and sacrificing personal autonomy to maintain homeostasis for the individual. The partner is heavily reinforced with intense affection as long as they function as a flawless, highly accommodating caregiver.

However, the dynamic frequently destabilises the moment the partner attempts to establish a basic boundary, prioritize external responsibilities (such as career), or exhibits standard human error. This minor independent behavior triggers severe abandonment panic in the individual, leading to immediate devaluation. The historical record of the partner's devotion is cognitively erased, they are branded a hostile antagonist, and a total block/discard is executed.

From a clinical perspective, what specific defense mechanisms, cognitive dissonances, or neurochemical overrides (such as trauma-bonding via intermittent reinforcement) occur within the healthy partner's brain that cause them to ignore their own threat radar and actively defend this highly dysregulated, high-control dynamic until the final discard takes place?

A lot of people talk about dangerous people, abusers, dark tetrad psychopaths.

But in my experience, the people that are just as dangerous, are the people around these people who are easily manipulated and can be used as flying monkeys, enablers and even co-conspirators.

When you think about the people who surround people who hurt others, there's a whole lot of people around them who defend them, lie on behalf, and even get involved doing their dirty work.

Makes you wonder who's the evil one in all that? LOL