posting her again and hoping she doesn't explode 🙏
here's my rambling about her design :D
so, my favourite thing about epic's circe that i wanted to carry onto my version is her playfulness. circe as a seductive force is smth that totally makes sense and designs that focus on that are cool. but, my artstyle isn't suited for that and i prefer drawing cheeky looking characters anyways. so, i went for this more playful energy with her.
so, her skin is very similar to my helios design and the hair with that combo is somewhat reminiscent of a lion, i think. in fact, when it's not tied up, her hair looks like a mane almost and i think that's cool. i gave her lioness like eyes. and ofc she's got the lioness on her cloak.
i was originally gonna go pink but, i think the lavender fits her better. so, i made the pink a sidekick to that purple colour. i coloured moly in a similar way - with weird golden roots to match. i need to draw it properly cuz it looks kinda dumb atm but, i have a vision at least.
her tattoo is a stylised moly - and it glows with magic use - and it kinda looks like the caduceus - but not really - and it matches with my hermes' chest tattoo. just thought that was a fun thing between them :D (it's not supposed to correlate in any way. it's just a coincidence for those two)
also, she has moly in her hair. it needed a pop of colour and i thought that fit.
the colours of the clothes were looking to light on her so, i added the black as a test and ended up really liking it. the stark contrast between the bright colours with the black allude to danger. but, more importantly, it looks cool ✨
the weird yellow, triplet freckle things are there and idk why i put them there but it's cute and links to helios. however, i think i'm gonna give perse similar freckles - her's would be blue probably but, in the same places as her daughter.
An option that looks real, is typically superior to other choices, but is unavailable (Pratkanis & Farquhar, 1992).
The key to selling a flimflam (i.e., the selling of pseudoscience, fringe science, and other questionable claims) is to sell the phantom as real and possible and something that can be obtained with the right belief, effort, and, of course, money, but, in reality, it is a false dream.
The sale of a phantom begins by creating ostensible solutions to satisfy our most basic needs and desires.
As such, phantoms often purport to provide things such as:
Health (quack cures, diets, “healing” rituals, mental health pseudoscience, psychic surgery, faith healing).
Social popularity (weight loss regimes, love potions, dating and romance fraud, becoming an “expert” with “secret” knowledge about UFOs, the Loch Ness Monster, and the moon landing).
Fear of death and the end of our existence (séances, life-after death claims).
Reduction in the anxiety of life’s uncertainties (advice given by horoscopes, astrology, psychic mediums, and other means, phrenology, psychic detectives, conspiracy theories that “make sense” of the world and the desires and feelings of those who spread them).
It is relatively easy to create a phantom since it does not actually need to solve these needs, but just appear to do so.
Compounding the problem, it’s often difficult to spot the real from the fake course of action without the needed knowledge, expertise, and critical thinking skills.
Although a phantom dream is imaginary, its impact on our behavior is quite real.
Story-Telling: The Invented Ruse
To allay our concerns, the seller of flimflam invents a ruse or story to make the fake look real (Bell & Whaley, 1991; Clark & Mitchell, 2019)
A good narrative:
helps to guide our thoughts (e.g., the cure is natural and traditional),
determines the credibility of information (e.g., as a natural cure, this makes sense), and
ultimately directs evaluation and choice (e.g., it works for Native Americans and Quakers, why not me?).
As such, stories cement information in our mind and tend to persist even in the face of strong, discrediting information (Anderson et al., 1980; see Pratkanis (2007) for the use of stories in influence).
Tailored Pitches
Fake healers can use the technique of pre-show to gather needed information.
For example: Before the healing event, attendees can fill out prayer cards with their healing requests and other information.
During the service, the fake healer can call out names and appear, by purported divine intervention, to know the person’s illness and personal life story.
Typically, the fake healer will “cure” shills (plants who fake illnesses) and those with painful health problems for which the pain can be overlooked in the excitement of the moment. The prayer cards (along with Googling and social media) provide the needed information.
Source Credibility and Authority
Two of the most robust research findings in social psychology are as follows: (a) we tend to listen to those who are credible (expert and trustworthy) sources (Hovland et al., 1953); (b) we tend to obey authorities (Milgram, 1974).
The merchant of flimflam leverages these 2 basic human tendencies by creating a persona as a credible authority and then using that persona to hawk a phantom.
Social Consensus and Social Identity
Flimflam merchants will use our social relationships to sell their phantoms by employing the influence tactics of social consensus and social identity.
When we see other people doing something, we are more likely to do the same through the conformity created by social consensus – if everyone is doing it, it must be the right thing to do.
Social consensus engages 2 psychological processes that promote conformity (Deutsch & Gerard, 1955):
information or social proof (“if other people are doing it, it must be correct”; Cialdini, 1984) and
normative influences or social pressure to agree or go along with the group (“I don’t want to be different from the group”; Asch, 1951).
The seller of flimflam will manufacture a false consensus (or take advantage of an apparent one). Quack remedies, astrological readings, unproven Covid treatments, get-rich schemes often feature testimonials of people who speak to the “value” of the product.
Once we become engaged with a flimflam, it can provide us with a desired social identity or a sense of who we are based on our reference group memberships, whether they be real or aspirational (Abrams et al., 1990; Kelley & Volkart, 1952; Tajfel, 1981).
Scarcity
Another social influence tactic to make a flimflam look desirable is to make it look scarce (Cialdini, 1984).
Given that phantoms are generally rare, this is rather easily accomplished.
As an effective social influence tactic, scarcity:
plays on a rule in our head, “if it is rare, it must be valuable”;
creates a sense of urgency and panic that we need to act now and feeling of frustration (reactance) when we do not obtain the phantom; and
inflates our feelings of uniqueness and self-worth when we obtain something that is rare (Pratkanis, 2007).
Information Control: False Accusations, Projection, and Doubt Campaigns
The sellers of flimflam often encounter scientists, journalists, magicians, lawyers, informed citizens, and other “do-gooders and crusaders” who use evidence and reason to point out false claims made in selling the phantom.
If left to stand, these criticisms can cut into sales and deflate the entire scheme. As such, the flimflam merchant needs to control the information environment and can do so using at least 3 techniques:
First, the peddler of a flimflam can falsely accuse the critics. Such attacks can be effective because it can result in a negative impression of the target of attack, undermining their reputation (Wegner et al., 1981). In addition, such allegations set up a chilling, coercive effect as others may become fearful of speaking out.
A second information control tool for the flimflam merchant is a variant of the false accusation known as the projection tactic – accusing others of the misdeed you are doing (Rucker & Pratkanis, 2001). In research, we find that a projection attack: (a) focused attention on the accused and away from the person making the accusation, (b) increased the blame placed on the target of projection, and (c) decreased the culpability of the accuser, making the accuser look good and moral for raising such issues. The effects of projection persisted despite attempts to raise suspicions about the motives of the accuser and providing evidence that the accuser was indeed guilty of the deeds.
A third approach to controlling the information environment is through a doubt campaign (Michaels, 2008; Oreskes & Conway, 2010). The purpose of a doubt campaign is not to convince someone of something (say, the value of the flimflam) but instead to raise doubts and confusion about the facts with the goals of (a) making it difficult to know the truth, (b) creating the impression that there is a controversy (when there is little or none), and (c) forestalling any action until the “controversy” is resolved. The doubt campaign was pioneered in the 1950s and 1960s by tobacco companies seeking to dissuade consumers that their products were harmful, but now is used to create doubt and confusion on such issues as climate change, the efficacy of vaccines such as those preventing childhood illnesses and COVID-19, the value of masks for limiting the spread of COVID-19, and evidence against various conspiracy theories.
Self-Generated Persuasion
One of the most effective means of influence is to have the target generate arguments in support of a position and thereby persuade her- or himself (Boninger et al., 1990; Lewin, 1947).
Self-generated persuasion is effective because in essence it asks the target to think up good reasons for a proposition and to refute any counter argument.
This self-generated message comes from a source that is considered credible, trustworthy, respected, and liked – ourselves.
Commitment
In order to establish continued advocacy and use of a flimflam, the seller needs to secure a commitment, especially a public one, from the target.
With a public commitment, a person is linked to a behavior or course of action – in this case, advocating for and using a flimflam.
Breaking this binding produces a negative tension of not living up to one’s promises and a concern that one will look inconsistent and untrustworthy (e.g., a need to save face). As such, securing a commitment increases the likelihood that the target will comply and perform that behavior (Brockner & Rubin, 1985; Salancik, 1977; Staw, 1976).
Commitments are strongest when the behavior is public/visible, irreversible, and perceived to be freely chosen.
One method for securing a commitment is through the use of the foot-in-the-door tactic (Freedman & Fraser, 1966).
Flimflam is rampant on social media, and we can easily see why.
Social media, with its emphasis on engagement (liking, reposting, posting, commenting, posing, arguing) provides many opportunities to make public, irreversible, and freely chosen commitments (as well as to allow those commitments to be used to create the appearance of social consensus as to the value of the flimflam).
While making a commitment increases compliance, it also results in perhaps the most important ingredient in selling a flimflam: setting a rationalization trap.
The Rationalization Trap
Once a person is sold on a flimflam, and especially when he or she comes to purchase and publically advocate for the phantom option, it changes the way a person processes information.
No longer is the goal “to find things out” but instead to defend and justify the beliefs and actions in what can be called a rationalization trap (Festinger, 1957; Pratkanis & Shadel, 2005; Tavris & Aronson, 2007).
When a person holds 2 discrepant thoughts, what social psychologists call cognitive dissonance, it results in an aversive tension state with painful implications for the self.
In such a state, we are highly motivated to reduce the dissonance.
Of course, one way to reduce the dissonance is to admit a mistake – I was wrong about the cure – and to take responsibility for one’s actions by alerting others and rejecting or, at least scrutinizing more carefully, the source of the disinformation about the quack COVID-19 treatment.
While a mature response and what science requires (Feynman, 1985), it is often difficult to take this route to dissonance reduction, especially when we have made public commitments, self-generated arguments, and linked our social identities to the flimflam, in this case, the quack cure.
Admitting a mistake often is taken to mean – to ourselves and to others – that we are not a good and capable person.
After all, we were unable to see through the deception and then told others to do something that might damage their health.
Unfortunately, an all-too-often course of action is to dig in our heels further and to rationalize and justify our behavior.
Some common ways to do this include:
deny the evidence (“the data showing the ineffectiveness of the cure is made-up”),
take some irrelevant aspect of the disagreeable research and pretend that it is damning (“the study was only done in New York”),
derogate the source (“that’s from the biased media and the doctors’ union”),
derogate others who expose the quackery (“nurses and doctors don’t care about people”),
perform a selective information search (search out and spread any study or claim no matter how unreliable that supports one’s position),
keep repeating discredit research as if it is true, bolster one’s own self and one’s intuition as a way of knowing (“I can see through the media; I did my research unlike those duped by big pharma”),
derogate other forms of knowing, particularly science and reason (“science is a limited way of knowing unlike my intuition”),
use whataboutism (“what about the time Fauci might have said something wrong”),
seek external justification (“a cure that might work is better than having to wear a mask”), and, perhaps worst of all,
self-censorship of putting ourselves in an information bubble where we only hear agreeable information and anything disagreeable is either not heard or ridiculed.
Obviously, a rationalization trap is a very effective means of selling a flimflam.
Once we are in the trap, we will continue to buy the flimflam and advocate for the phantom option in an attempt to justify ourselves in the face of failing evidence.
A key component of being an active truth-finder is to have a plan for evaluating and making decisions about claims.
When we do make a mistake, the honorable thing to do is to admit the error and take responsibility for our actions.
turnnoffyourmind
discoholicmusic
stormborns
ellievsbear
baratheonpilled
