We means me (Part 1)

Posted by

Confirmation bias, also called confirmatory bias or myside bias, is the tendency to search for, interpret, favor, and recall information in a way that confirms one’s preexisting beliefs or hypotheses.

That makes sense.  I don’t think it applies to supreme court decisions.  It sure takes a big ego to apply it that way.  And it is pretty sad to lose your child because you have “confirmation bias.”

That’s just a sad story.  And again, it is all those other people who are affected, the next generation, and others too.

You cannot rationalize with an alcoholic, or people with a similar disposition.  It is hard to say where that comes from.  They’re kind of like followers in a cult like NXIVM.  It is not going stop until someone busts it up.  There are no winners.  Everyone is crippled, perhaps for life.

In this particular case, and NXIVM, and many others too, education is an issue.  In the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ and Latter-Day Saints wives have something like a 6th grade education, all of it through the church.  I think it becomes almost like a phobia and self-fulfilling prophecy.  I don’t understand so I can’t understand.  Anyone can get an education if they want to or they can just read (books) and learn, but instead they turn to “my side bias” (and Psychology Today).

Who says there are “sides” anyway?  I guess those who win or lose in court, or marriage, or a baseball game.  Is that therapy?  We–therapist and patient–we have to get over the sides.

I think you have to have a malleable personality to be in a cult.  If you don’t, you will rebel.  You could say that about society in general and marriage too.  You will provide your own confirmation bias.

And that gets back to narcissism.  Only the leader can be a narcissist.  And don’t forget bully, expressly confident but scared to death at the same time.  “Communication” means me.

The cult, the sides, –we versus them–but Psychology Today says we’re right.  That is really sad.  But I guess now we’re talking about deprogramming and what is the opposite of programming?  Deprogramming, and that sounds even worse.

I know this person.  She has a deep-seated inability to connect with anyone unless it is her way and about her or “me”  She says “we” but what comes out is “me.”  Personal responsibility, and a lack of avoidance and secrets?  There is none if it is a cult.

Anyway.  Time for some serious legal work.  But remember, keep it simple.  Board is notified; next up are Shrader, Leibe, et. al.

The noise has stopped enough so I can think and write.



This is interesting.  Here is a specific example.  It is true.  I agree.  It is well work learning and knowing.

But it doesn’t have anything to do with what I personally learned and experienced.

A person who texts someone 10 times within 10 minutes just to say Hi is not communicating.  There is nothing warm, informative, or communicative there.  It is a little bit like bullying, i.e., I’m saying Hi so you should listen.  I want your attention.  Please respond immediately when I write.  I’ll text until you do.

So let’s consider someone full of such insecurities and who is not adept at communication.  It is a person who hides behind lawyers and accountants; a person who treats others shabbily; and a person who has a very hard time expressing affection and showing empathy toward others.  It is a narcissistic, bullying person who either does not realize it or cannot compensate for it.

It is a person who can be infuriating:  a person, speaking form personal experience, I wanted to abuse.  I don’t abuse women (or men).  That is definitely the time to get out.

Take a wealthy male abuser and woman who–I think there is something in her personality or background that makes her want to be abused–and that is not a good marriage.  She chose to marry him and she put up with it for a number of years.  “If you don’t always report it,”  referring to just the tip of the iceberg (physical abuse) can be a flimsy excuse but it is also legitimate.  Physical abuse?  Get out.  Other abuse?  Perhaps that is part of the problem:  I deserve custody because he is abusive?  Wow.  That gets murkier.

A $10 million/year football player raped me so I get his money.  That is a similar argument and one with two potential “sides.”  Was it a rape or is she making it up for other reasons?  It does happen both ways and much evidence would be presented to make that determination.  Basically, the final decisions and documents did not include or address that.  It did not make it that far.

He was abusive toward me could be relevant evidence or not.  He was abusive toward me, and not proven, surely shouldn’t be a relevant factor.  How, why, when was he abusive?  Does that carry over to the child?

Suppose it is just two bad people and a terrible marriage.  Joint custody did not work because no one can get along.  The woman is more bad.  I’ll forget about the facts of the case because I don’t know them.  But I know her.  Someone has to make a decision…

The case venue was changed because someone local was familiar or biased.  The judge is a woman.

The research really is interesting.  Much of it is qualitative, convenience samples, and the like.  It is scientific, academic, and legit.

One of my concerns is does not seem to discuss the gender of the child.  The abuser or sexual predator is always the husband.  What if the woman is the abuser, as I know her to be?  (Abuser isn’t the right word; but awfully dangerous.)  Parents losing custody to abusers but the abuser is always the husband.  That is biased and dangerous.

The ex-husband’s previous wife still lives on his property and they co-exist.  How bad can he be?  All I saw in the documents was moderate to heavy drinking and some back and forth instances of anger.

The woman’s ex-husband, she left him because she became injured and he was too doting.  She is very narcissistic.  The judge hates her and has threatened to throw her in jail for various indiscretions.   She could have a drinking problem.

Back to the research.  Much of it is fairly current.  Again, it is interesting and informative, but I don’t really know what it means in a courtroom.  Much more relevant is the psychology of the individuals involved, and that was, in this case, disparaging toward the woman.

It happened because I left him.  He is wealthy and powerful.  He is abusive.  The court system is stacked against me.  It is wrong and I’m not going to take it.

As I approach my cases as the plaintiff, they are not about me.  They are about the community and the definition of what is acceptable and what is not.  I will present the best cases I can and I will respect the decisions.  They are not about a person (i.e., a child) and I understand that.  I too am up against well-heeled and formidable adversaries.  But I will not blame the system if lose.

If I were a parent I would do what is right for the child.  The documents I read never said that.

The person I know never said that either.    It was just I’m not going to take it.

It is really sad.  The kid could turn out a mess.  A whole bunch of others involved could too.  Intractable is the word.  She is intractable.  It has nothing to do with men’s rights or a biased system.  I learned it is wise to stay away from her–she will not change; her vehemence is as bad as ever–and that seems to be a logical conclusion for the child.

For me the lesson has always been about the extremes of narcissism.  “Confirmation bias” is a new kind of synonym.

“You’re biased.”  Is that a legal defense?  Only if you can prove it.

Think about it this way.  Are you going to get your son back by complaining about men’s rights and legal bias?

Martyr was a word that really hit home.  I think this is a woman has been abused, expects to be abused, maybe even wants to be abused, and will forever complain about it.

Parental alienation

Suppose a parent says “I think you should stay away from your father or mother because they are really bad news.”  That would be the epitome of parental alienation.  Is it wrong if it is not a lie?  Of course it is wrong if attributed to either parent.

“I did not receive the 5-minute phone call from my child because of parental alienation.  It has been documented.”

Family court is about he said she said.  I think it is par for the course.  It is wrong, but again, is it really going to help to bring it up, to essentially blame the kid, and to insist that that is why things happened as they did?  That is where it becomes toxic.  And that is also, once again, about “me” and not “you.”


Domestic violence

“Domestic violence in relationships is often the catalyst for one spouse to file for a divorce or to leave a relationship.”  (source unimportant)

The definition of violence is much broader; it could mean abuse.  In law it means physical injury.

Let’s talk about Courtney Smith and E + R = O.

The last thing I want to do is quote Urbz.

If someone hits me and I am hurt, or scared, I have two choices.  One is to object,

stay away or even prosecute.  The other is to say I love you, forgive you, we will work it out, or something similar.

This is a woman who has been abused.  She is afraid to answer the phone.  She is afraid of everything.

I’m starting to formulate theories about what it must be like.  Courtney Smith had bruise and injury pictures and the implication with that is she didn’t like it.  Still she stayed, forgave, or whatever else caused the marriage to continue.  Seemingly, being the wife of a well-paid, in the spotlight football coach was a “stay” factor.  Kids, could be an influence too; but really, if the situation is terrible they shouldn’t be exposed to it either.  It is is sort of an oxymoron to say it was unacceptable but I put up with it.

So a capable woman doing the right thing leaves.  If there is a major incident and it is not the first one that is a good time.  It is a fact that courts take it into account.  Pictures and evidence will help with the divorce and custody.  While maybe not unanimous, it is agreed by most that that is the right thing.

The research suggests there is evidence that courts don’t always (or even usually) get it right.  A violent disturbed individual will likely continue.  Recidivism is a fact.

Domestic violence and prenup, no effect.  Domestic violence and custody, full custody.

She had custody and she lost it.  It cannot be due to men’s rights or a rigged legal system.  Eventually he gained joint custody, as probably should be the case for the good of the child, but she lost that too.

Narcissistic Parents.

Let’s do some research and learn something.  The above is a description of my mother (and me, but I realize it).  I’m very glad I took the time to do this.  These nine paragraphs (plus the literature and other references) are more valuable than anything that has ever been in Psychology Today (edit: the magazine is used as a source).  Most sources are books.

It is also a spot-on description of this woman.  The court called it suicidal tendencies in the child; I call it narcissistic parenting.

OMG I’m becoming complacent.  I’m experiencing confirmatory bias!

This is a woman so into herself that she lost it.  She lost custody.  That is what happened in the court case–her incessant meddling, complaining, and having her way (e.g., court filing on school choice).  Joint custody, 50/50 decisions, and what is best for the child wasn’t good enough for either of them.  It was bullying and the judge didn’t like it.  Hopefully she’ll get it back when she can exhibit an ability to control her narcissistic parenting.

Super-duper interesting.  I’d like to learn more about narcissism.  I didn’t know it can be inherited.

I learned that domestic violence, men’s rights (and women’s), parental alienation, and the court system do affect custody.  Duh.  I also confirmed that they are poor man’s (or woman’s) excuse for…  anything.

And I am going to remember in my upcoming legal cases it is not about me.  They are about my moving forward for sure, but they are about doing the right thing for everyone and, after a careful review by everyone, removing the bad apples.  But I’ll try not to blame them.  I’m just going to say the time has come for them to be removed.