I have a lot of forming ideas right now that sort of coalesce around a single subject, so bear with me as I throw them around a bit.
I was thinking about the whole monological belief system idea (about which there are several references) -- basically that once one is predisposed to believe in a conspiracy theory, one can easily adopt, adapt, and integrate multiple conspiracy theories, even when they contradict one another. And I think about how this applies to larries who now frequently express belief in two or more different ideas about who is behind babygate [sic], who Freddie's real parents are, how long Louis has to continue to participate, the degree to which Harry is involved, what compromises Louis has or has not had to make for any appearances at freedom or self-reliance, to what degree he is permitted to communicate secretly to the fandom, and so on.
I was also thinking about how one prominent larrie (I think it was Gabi t*llm*th*s*sn*tl*v*) who believes in a handful of entertainment industry conspiracies on her own, went through a list of those conspiracies and "examined" them in an attempt to explain why she was so convinced of THIS one in particular. She believed she was giving a rational overview of what was and was not compelling evidence for things like Beyonce faking her pregnancy with Blue, or Rob Pattinson and Kristen Stewart being secretly married with several hidden children, but she - and most larries, I find - really leave out the very real psychological effects of escalation of commitment and emotional investment.
It can certainly be interesting, fascinating, even, to delve into the rumors and stories of Scientology and those who escape it, or who is or is not part of the Illuminati, or Beyonce's apparently folding baby bump, but when one is actually LITERALLY running a blog devoted to exploring and celebrating the love between two boys (as larries say), one can't get away with suggesting they don't have an investment in maintaining that belief - ESPECIALLY when one says that the REASON they are blogging, that the REASON they love those boys IN PARTICULAR, is BECAUSE of that belief.
Escalation of commitment refers to a pattern of behavior in which an individual or group, when faced with increasingly negative outcomes from some decision, action, and investment, will continue rather than alter their course—something which is irrational, but in alignment with decisions and actions previously made.
Economists and behavioral scientists use a related term, sunk cost fallacy, to describe the justification of increased investment of money, time, lives, etc. in a decision, based on the cumulative prior investment ("sunk costs"); despite new evidence suggesting that the cost, beginning immediately, of continuing the decision outweighs the expected benefit.
So when we look at larries right now formulating new theories by the day, or even the hour, about what "all this means" and trying to figure out if Louis being represented by SJPR is "good or bad" or deciding that they should "wait and see," we have to understand that there is a very real phenomenon here that is telling the larries in their brains (and in their community) that a payoff is imminent, in part because they have invested so much already that they cannot accept that it was for nothing. So there HAS to be something.
Tendency to invest additional resources in an apparently losing proposition, influenced by effort, money, and time already invested.
The continued committment and allocation of resources to a course of action that is failing in the hope of recouping losses. Also called creeping committment.
I want us to refrain from the impulse to call these behaviors stupid, or crazy, because this is a real psychological and sociological phenomenon. Our asshole brains do this to us. Yes, we make our choices, and larries can make the choice to be a cyberbully or not, to issue threats or not, to doxx people or not, to shun and shit talk and vagueblog and send the mob after dissenters in the hopes of driving them to delete, or not, and they should be held responsible for their behaviors and the behaviors they incite in others.
But what compels them is not so alien.
I want us to keep this in mind when larries come to our inboxes and demand that we explain the bears, or the tattoos, or this one thing louis was rumored to have done this one time, or blue and green, or how 500 million sperm could fertilize an egg on a train going 60 miles in one direction (no pun intended) or whatever RANDOM GOTCHA idea from 2015 they present.
Let us consider that they feel the mountain of questions in their favor is so vast, when in actuality the only reason they have a mountain of questions is because they've had to account for a mountain of factual evidence. Why do we have to explain Louis saying a doll is a doll, when their explanation for how a birth certificate can be fraudulently filed with the state of California is that "illegal stuff happens” and “the law is irrelevant?” Why do we have to answer for a story in which Louis allegedly hugged a fan who told him "I know freddie isn't yours" when there are multiple stories (including on video) where he responded positively to congratulations about Freddie's birth, and called himself a Daddy, and said he got Father's Day, and said he loved being a young parent? Which is more likely to be the lie?
To quote myself:
...it can be observed that when what I would call a “disconfirming event” occurs - that is, something that appears to challenge any of the above Larrie beliefs, or others that I haven’t listed above - Larries tend to spring into one or several actions, such as:
sending/receiving anons expressing confusion that these things are “still” happening when they should reasonably have stopped
expressing frustration with the ongoing situation
expressed desires to delete or leave fandom
expressions of boredom or fatigue
increased interest in other fandoms and/or requests for recommendations about other fandoms
expressions of hostility towards anons, antis (who, it must be noted, did not and could not have made the disconfirming event occur) or fandom in general (“surrounded by idiots” rhetoric)
expressions of hostility towards Simon, Louis, his friends, family, significant others, and/or the all-encompassing “They”
That is to say, Larries themselves state in their own words that they are discontented following many of these occurrences. What I would suggest, given these examples, is that although they acknowledge their unhappiness, they fail to consider they might be experiencing it due to the conflict they hold in their minds between what they believe to be true and what they observe to be true.
For larries, this cognitive dissonance might be represented as:
apparent reality =/= larrie worldview
Anyway, I'm just sort of looking at the current state of larrie fandom and the way they say antis are pressed and I've yet, apart from our LEGITIMATELY being alarmed by larries saying they hoped an entire family would choke and the vast majority of larries seeming to be perfectly fine with that, to see that any part of our worldview has been shaken by anything that's happened this year. I hope that Danielle and Louis haven't broken up because they seemed happy together so recently, but if they did, I would assume it was a decision made that was best for both of them and not, you know, decide that they were lying about it and continue to call them a couple and spam Danielle's instagram asking why she's lying if she went about life as a single person or got into a relationship with someone else.
(I feel like that's the sort of thing Larries don't understand about non-larries and shippers in general. I can accept the things Louis presents about his life because he will do what he wants, and not what I want, and I can accept that those are things that he wants, because he’s a grown-ass man and he said so.)
I accidentally poured all the salt at the bottom of the bag of crushed tortilla chips into my chicken tortilla soup and now it is WAY too salty. But! I am not a quitter. Some sour cream should fix it, right?
New Post has been published on Crown of Compassion
New Post has been published on https://www.crownofcompassion.org/2021/04/29/trip-wires-our-triggers-and-tendencies/
Trip wires - our triggers and tendencies
“We all have triggers and tendencies that serve as trip wires. We’ve got to cut the rope by cutting those wires. How? The best way to break a habit is by establishing a good habit. When you attempt to establish a new habit, progress is slow. . . . You’ve got to work hard to establish a new habit, and you’ve got to do it one day at a time.”- Mark Batterson
In Chapter 10 (The Grand Gesture”) of Win the Day, Mark Batterson talks about a behavioral pattern called the escalation of commitment. The term refers to the natural human tendency, despite increasingly negative outcomes, to persist in doing what you’ve been doing. Even when it’s obviously not working.
Certainly, Pastor Batterson acknowledges, not everything you face is your fault. But, you still need to cut the rope. Make courageous decision that chart a new course.
However, Mark notes, slow initial progress occurs when you attempt to cultivate a new habit. Project management refers to this concept as an S curve. Because it take time to gain momentum. Above all, the hardest step is the first step. In addition, steps get harder before they get easier. And that’s true of every good habit. So, imagine unborn tomorrows rather than worry about them.
In 2007, author J. K. Rowling struggled to finish the final novel, The Deathly Hollows, in her Harry Potter series. Rowling tried writing in her home office, but constant distractions stymied her focus. As a result, she checked into a luxurious hotel to complete the novel.
The world of deep work refers to this curious but effective strategy as the grand gesture. And when God desires to do a deep work within us, that deep work often requires a grand gesture. For example, Mark observes, the Ephesians built a giant bonfire to burn their sorcery scrolls.
Therefore, the author encourages:
“Do you have a dream that is gathering dust? Give yourself a deadline! Not to finish, but to start. You can’t just imagine unborn tomorrows; you’ve got to get up every morning and move in the direction of that dream.”
Today’s question: What triggers and tendencies serve as your trip wires? Please share.
Tomorrow’s blog: “Playing the long game – unborn tomorrows”
Escalation of commitment refers to a pattern of behavior in which an individual or group will continue to rationalize their decisions, actions, and investments when faced with increasingly negative outcomes rather than alter their course.... The phenomenon and the sentiment underlying it are reflected in such proverbial images as "Throwing good money after bad" or "In for a penny, in for a pound".
Escalation of commitment refers to a pattern of behavior in which an individual or group will continue to rationalize their decisions, actions, and investments when faced with increasingly negative outcomes rather than alter their course. The related term sunk cost fallacy has been used by economists and behavioral scientists to describe the phenomenon where people justify increased investment of money, time, lives, etc. in a decision, based on the cumulative prior investment ("sunk costs"), despite new evidence suggesting that the cost, beginning immediately, of continuing the decision outweighs the expected benefit. These decisions are irrational in their current context but in alignment with decisions and actions previously made, and they can be influenced by a variety of determinants and contexts. The dilemmas leading up to such decisions usually involve the prior choices no longer working or causing personal or group losses. While there are options to either cease current actions or continue on with them, neither has clear outcomes or is the obvious choice.
Escalation of commitment then occurs when persistence is chosen over withdrawal.
The term describes poor decision-making in business, politics, and gambling and is frequently used in psychology and sociology. In the latter, it is also referred to as "irrational escalation", "irrational escalation of commitment" or "commitment bias". Examples of this are frequently seen when parties engage in a bidding war; the bidders can end up paying much more than the object is worth to justify the initial expenses associated with bidding (such as research), as well as part of a competitive instinct. The phenomenon and the sentiment underlying it are reflected in such proverbial images as "Throwing good money after bad" or "In for a penny, in for a pound".
The Misconception: You make rational decisions based on the future value of objects, investments and experiences.
The Truth: Your decisions are tainted by the emotional investments you accumulate, and the more you invest in something the harder it becomes to abandon it.
