Psychology

318 readers
10 users here now

Come talk about psychology and related disciplines.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
1
 
 

In the realm of psychological and therapeutic work, we often encounter deeply ingrained societal beliefs that link outward appearance to moral character or potential harm. This assumption—that how someone presents themselves can somehow be equated with their intentions, capabilities, or threat to others—is a misconception rooted in cultural norms and biases rather than reality. The notion that wearing makeup or dressing in nontraditional ways signifies something morally or ethically negative not only lacks evidence but perpetuates harmful stereotypes.

The Evolution of Gender Norms and Social Conditioning

Historically, societal standards for gender presentation have fluctuated. For example, in the 18th century, it was common for men to wear makeup, powdered wigs, and elaborate clothing. The colour pink, now often considered "feminine," was once associated with masculinity and strength, while blue was considered delicate and appropriate for women. These shifts highlight the arbitrary nature of social norms and the fact that what is deemed "appropriate" is not fixed but culturally and temporally contingent.

When we evaluate individuals based on their adherence to these socially constructed norms, we’re not assessing their character, values, or intentions. Instead, we are reinforcing narrow, historically inconsistent frameworks. In clinical terms, this is a form of cognitive bias—specifically, "the halo effect"—wherein judgments about one aspect of a person (in this case, their appearance) unjustifiably influence our perception of their overall character.

The Psychological Impact of Gender Norms

From a therapeutic perspective, rigid adherence to societal norms around appearance and gender expression can have harmful psychological effects—both for those who feel confined by these expectations and for those who use them as criteria to evaluate others. Individuals who do not conform to traditional gender norms, for instance, may face prejudice, exclusion, or even accusations of potential harm simply because they challenge outdated stereotypes.

This is especially concerning in the context of family dynamics, where support, understanding, and acceptance are critical for healthy relationships. When someone expresses themselves through makeup or nontraditional clothing, this does not signify a departure from their core identity or moral integrity. Rather, it reflects an alignment with their authentic self. Rejecting or distancing oneself from a family member because of their appearance can lead to emotional distress, familial estrangement, and unnecessary conflict. From a therapeutic standpoint, this represents a missed opportunity for empathy and connection, as the focus is mistakenly placed on external factors rather than internal qualities or intentions.

Challenging the Link Between Appearance and Behaviour

One common fear associated with nonconformity in appearance is the idea that it somehow increases the risk of harm—particularly to children or vulnerable individuals. Yet, this fear is unsupported by research. There is no empirical evidence to suggest that wearing makeup, dressing outside of traditional gender norms, or expressing oneself through alternative fashion choices correlates with inappropriate or harmful behavior.

In fact, criminal psychology and research into deviant behavior show that external appearance is not a reliable indicator of potential for harm. Predatory behavior, for example, is more closely linked with factors like manipulation, lack of empathy, and antisocial personality traits—none of which are revealed by clothing or makeup choices. To draw a connection between someone’s outward expression and their likelihood to harm others is not only misguided but potentially damaging to relationships.

Psychological Flexibility and the Importance of Acceptance

From a therapeutic lens, psychological flexibility—the ability to adapt one's thinking and behavior in response to changing circumstances—is a crucial aspect of mental well-being. In this case, accepting a family member’s evolving sense of self-expression, rather than adhering to rigid and potentially harmful gender norms, can lead to healthier, more accepting relationships. Therapy encourages us to recognize the difference between deeply held beliefs and the actual evidence of harm.

Rejecting someone based on appearance alone reduces the opportunity to engage with them on a deeper level, to understand their values, emotions, and aspirations. This kind of rejection may stem from fear—often a fear rooted in cultural conditioning—but when we explore these fears in therapy, we usually find they are unfounded or based on misconceptions.

The Role of Identity and Self-Expression in Mental Health

Self-expression is a fundamental component of personal identity. From a developmental perspective, identity formation is a key psychological task that individuals engage with throughout their lives. The ability to express oneself authentically is critical for mental health, as it fosters self-acceptance, self-esteem, and resilience. Limiting someone’s ability to do so—whether through judgment, exclusion, or fear—can lead to emotional harm, including anxiety, depression, and a diminished sense of self-worth.

Conversely, allowing individuals the space to explore and express their identity—whether through makeup, fashion, or other means—can be an empowering and healing experience. This aligns with therapeutic goals of promoting self-compassion and authentic living, rather than living under the constraints of social conformity.

Conclusion: Breaking Free from Outdated Beliefs

To equate makeup, clothing choices, or nontraditional gender presentation with moral failing or potential harm is to fall into the trap of conflating appearance with behavior. As research and clinical experience have shown, these surface-level attributes do not provide insight into someone’s character or intent. Judgments based on appearance are reflective of social and cultural conditioning, not of empirical truths.

The path forward, both in individual relationships and in broader societal discourse, is one of understanding and flexibility. Rather than clinging to outdated norms, we must embrace a more nuanced and compassionate view of self-expression—one that recognizes the difference between how someone looks and who they truly are.

2
3
4
 
 
5
6
7
8
9
 
 

Imagine being able to remember every single day of your life, all the way back to when you were a newborn.

Australian woman Rebecca Sharrock is one of only 60 people in the world with a highly superior autobiographical memory (HSAM), also known as hyperthymesia.

10
 
 

This is Nurse Apy with some quick practical tips on communicating with someone who has a serious mental illness! (SMI)

(Obviously the video is not a real patient, but I can't show you a real patient and I stg this is actually pretty spot on.)

Delusions have a tendency to strengthen themselves when confronted. Instead of new observations or information weakening the belief, they're usually incorporated into the delusional belief system. This means that when the person encounters that information or situation in the future, that information/situation will actually continually strengthen the belief. Don't confront delusions; instead, redirect!

Try to redirect the conversation towards things that reconnect the person with the wider human community. Ppl with serious and ongoing delusions have a tendency to become progressively isolated from those around them. They want to talk about delusional topics, and most people only know how to confront them about something they can clearly see is untrue. This pushes the person further into their delusions to avoid conflict with those around them. This isolation also often leads to suicidal ideation, behavior, and completion, ppl w psychosis are some of the highest risks of suicide.

Ways you can try to connect with the person are as varied as humans themselves. As the person who actually knows and interacts with a given person, you are likely the most knowledgeable about what the best topic to do that is in a given situation. Common examples include sports, popular media, and hobbies like sewing, woodworking, or gardening. Bonus points if it's related to a communal activity of some kind.

As an aside, this is a big reason q-anon rose to popularity during the pandemic and has remained entrenched ever since. It provided community where people were missing it, and we have a very confrontational and argumentative culture that often serves to strengthen ingrained belief systems like this.

TLDR: if you want to get your aunt off her q-anon roll, try to get her to go back to gardening club instead (preferably one that is not also q-anon-ers, a lot of people pushing it also understand these concepts).

11
 
 

"We are constantly making decisions with our limited time and cognitive resources and memory storage.

"We're not robots, and the fact that you can seemingly Google your way to anything does not make us smarter."

She was plagued by the idea that while we're living in the information age, life seems to be making less sense.

"It certainly doesn't seem to be feeling any better, even though the quality of life is overall actually improving.

"Our innate irrationalities, that have always existed, are being dialled up to 11 because of the culture that we've created."

Cognitive bias is a mental magic trick that we developed in order for us to make sense of the world sufficiently to survive it, she says.

"The natural world was always too much for us to process, if we had to catalogue the precise colour and shape of every twig in order to understand it, that would take more than a lifetime.

"So, we came up with these cognitive biases, dozens upon dozens of them. And they help us make decisions without our even noticing."

Every human has cognitive biases, but when they collide with digital information overload, bad things can happen

12
13
 
 

The phenomenon of hearing intelligible voices or noises in meaningless background noise is known as "auditory pareidolia." The sources of this noise vary; they may include electric fans; running water; airplane engines; the hums of washing machines; or white-noise machines, according to audiologists. It is an auditory sub-type of pareidolia, in which people see faces or other meaningful patterns in ambiguous images.

14
19
'Askers' vs. 'Guessers' (www.theatlantic.com)
submitted 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) by MelonYellow@lemmy.ca to c/psychology@lemmy.world
 
 

Are you an asker or a guesser? Short interesting read.

15
16
24
The Dunning-Kruger effect is not real (economicsfromthetopdown.com)
submitted 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) by rimu@piefed.social to c/psychology@lemmy.world
 
 

Have you heard of the ‘Dunning-Kruger effect’? It’s the (apparent) tendency for unskilled people to overestimate their competence. Discovered in 1999 by psychologists Justin Kruger and David Dunning, the effect has since become famous.

Except there’s a problem.

The Dunning-Kruger effect also emerges from data in which it shouldn’t. For instance, if you carefully craft random data so that it does not contain a Dunning-Kruger effect, you will still find the effect. The reason turns out to be embarrassingly simple: the Dunning-Kruger effect has nothing to do with human psychology.1 It is a statistical artifact — a stunning example of autocorrelation.

EDIT: see response from dustyData and the article they linked to https://www.bps.org.uk/psychologist/dunning-kruger-effect-and-its-discontents

17
18
19
20
21
22
 
 

In which Bateson argues that the efficacy of Alcoholics Anonymous is (in a Western, Cartesian context) comes at least in part from providing a more correct epistemology/ontology that subsumes a reified "self" into a larger system/circuit. The alcoholic is, by "hitting bottom," forced to shift from a destructive symmetrical to a complementary pattern of relation with the system.

23
24
 
 

Despite the persistence of anti-Black racism, White Americans report feeling worse off than Black Americans. We suggest that some White Americans may report low well-being despite high group-level status because of perceptions that they are falling behind their in-group. Using census-based quota sampling, we measured status comparisons and health among Black (N = 452, Wave 1) and White (N = 439, Wave 1) American adults over a period of 6 to 7 weeks. We found that Black and White Americans tended to make status comparisons within their own racial groups and that most Black participants felt better off than their racial group, whereas most White participants felt worse off than their racial group. Moreover, we found that White Americans’ perceptions of falling behind “most White people” predicted fewer positive emotions at a subsequent time, which predicted worse sleep quality and depressive symptoms in the future. Subjective within-group status did not have the same consequences among Black participants.

25
view more: next ›