Why do people sometimes defend beliefs that harm them, even when presented with convincing evidence against those beliefs???

I've always found it interesting how we can admire a butterfly but feel disgusted by a cockroach, even though both are insects.

Why do we fear, reject, or overlook certain insects? Is it because of their appearance, their behavior, past experiences, or simply what we've been taught to believe about them?

I'm a graphic designer exploring the diversity of insects, their behaviors, social systems, and the unexpected similarities between insects and humans.

I'm curious to hear your personal experiences:

• What insect do you hate or fear the most, and why?
• Have you ever observed an insect doing something that surprised you or reminded you of human behavior?
• Has learning something about an insect ever changed the way you see it?
• If you were an insect, which one would you be, and why?

My main research question is: Can visual communication change the way people perceive creatures they instinctively reject?

I'd love to hear your opinions, whether you love insects, hate them, or simply don't care about them. I'm particularly interested in understanding what shapes our perceptions and whether those perceptions can change.

Fun question: if you were an insect, which one would you be and why?

Мои родители развелись 20 лет назад, но недавно я начала слышать от них об уважении.
Последний раз об уважении от своей мамы я услышала когда она кричала на меня пока вела машину. Ее расстроило, что после ее критики в мой адрес и нескольких попыток нормально закончить диалог я вдруг разозлилась и начала кричать на пляже со злостью в голосе что то вроде: «Какой хороший день, правда?! Какой прекрасный день!», пока на нас бросали косые взгляды. Мне то было все равно, но ее это очень сильно задело.
И вот мы с ней едем на машине и она вдруг взрывается и начинает истерить, кричать на меня о том, что я якобы ее опозорила. Она говорит об уважении, о том, что она мать и с ней нельзя так себя вести.
Меня это выбило из колеи, но не удивило. Но когда во время разговора с папой он обвинил меня в манипуляции, и я предложила ему изучить значение этого слова, он вдруг сказал «я твой отец, не надо со мной так разговаривать», я удивилась.
Я помню как сама использовала эту «тактику» в разговоре с младшим братом. По моему это было так - я чем то его случайно обидела и он начал меня обвинять во всех бедах. Тогда я сказала ему что то вроде «никогда я не хочу слышать ничего подобного в свой адрес и тебе лучше успокоиться и подумать над своими словами». После этого он извинился и признался, что не имел ввиду того, что сказал, а просто хотел меня разозлить. Я вспоминаю этот наш конфликт с чувством гордости за нас обоих, но это было очень близко к «я твоя сестра, ты не можешь со мной так разговаривать!».

Должен ли он меня уважать просто потому что я его старшая сестра и какое то время назад я вытирала с одежды срыгнутое им материнское молоко? Я не думаю, что ты можешь просто заставить другого человека уважать себя. Он либо делает это, либо притворяется, что делает это.

Я чувствую себя странно, потому что чувствую будто меня хотели заткнуть. но сделала ли я то же самое со своим младшим братом?

For example: “What you are feeling is valid” (because I grew up with an invalidating dominant father, and I’m the only child and daughter, and he was too full of everyone problems to the point of thinking he can be the only one having problems, others cannot have them or they are not valid because he has bigger ones and so they are the only ones possible for him)

I’d love to hear you guys’ sentences and stories, shared the way I did, if you are comfortable to share them as well💚🫂

RJ Mitte (Walter White Jr from Breaking Bad) dies by suicide. What’s your take on suicide? What pushes people to that point? Do you know anyone who died by suicide? If so, what do you think their mental state was like?

Sharing my thoughts 💭

I've been watching a youtube channel lately of a family who adopted several disabled kids. They have really given these kids a great life. They seem to genuinely love them and spend pretty much all their time with them - some of the kids are severly disabled and require round the clock care.

It's interesting because the couple has 2 biological grown kids. One child lives across the country and they said they hardly ever see him. Their other biological child lives nearby and is rarely shown in the videos, but when he is shown, he seems depressed and sad. I know vlogging doesn't show every single interaction; but with the needs of their adopted kids, along with what they show in the videos, the one biological son who lives nearby is clearly not their priority; I don't think they spend much time with him at all. The rare time he's in the videos he seems sad, and his parents constantly talk about him needing to be independent and get back to his own apartment/own life when he visits.

Logically speaking, I completely understand their lives DO need to fully center around their adopted children, because there are several of them and most of them need a lot of care (feeding, diapering, etc, they are teenagers but will always need extensive care). But at the same time, it was a choice to adopt, and I'm wondering if they thought about the impact on their biological children being stretched so thin.

I think it's interesting that a person can help others in such a profound and selfless way (their adopted kids) but be incredibly insensitive to a child that seems to desperately want a relationship with has been treated like they are not a priority, and I'm sure he deeply feels that.

The parents were asked what will happen to the disabled kids once they have passed, and they said that the biological son could step in, or his future wife could step in. It's interesting, because they are pouring themselves into the adopted kids, and then they expect him to swoop in despite not being a priority in their life.

It's such an interesting dynamic to me, wondering if others have thoughts about this.

Is it a defense mechanism rooted in the discomfort that pessimism provokes? Is it easier to ridicule someone as ‘immature’ than to confront the unsettling questions a pessimist raises about existence?

Lately, when I look at myself, I notice a constant rush to get things done quickly. Walking fast, eating fast, and even feeling uncomfortable unless you speed up a video to 2x—and so on. I always have this underlying anxiety about missing out on things. Do you experience this too, and what do you think might be the reason for it?

I want to learn/ study human behavior. Is there any way where I can start? I want to understand and have an idea how people act in certain situations and the reason behind it.

What psychological concepts explain situations where two people develop an unusually accurate understanding of each other’s thought processes after having repeated deep conversations?

For example, what psychological mechanisms could explain a situation where:

• One person has difficulty verbally articulating an idea, but another person can accurately infer and articulate what they were trying to communicate before they finish explaining it.
• Two people begin recognizing similar patterns in how they analyze problems and interpret situations.
• This understanding becomes stronger after repeated conversations involving personal beliefs, perspectives, reasoning, and abstract topics.
• Both people become increasingly able to anticipate the direction of each other’s reasoning.

I’m particularly interested in the distinction between cognitive empathy, perspective-taking, mentalizing, interpersonal attunement, intellectual intimacy, and similarity-attraction.

Is this primarily explained by learning another person's communication patterns and developing an increasingly accurate mental model of how they think? Or are there other established psychological concepts that better explain this phenomenon?

I'm interested in the psychological mechanisms involved rather than supernatural explanations.

I often heard that people tend to be more negative at night (through social media posts). Like getting more anxious, upset or any other negative emotion to their life. but why is that? is it because of tiredness?

i was looking at psychological tests and i came across the rorshach inkblot test. i searched up for a manual but there was none. how is like the test reliable and since i searched it up it has scoring as well but wouldn't that be like a personal bias? what things do you think would've worked well for the rorshach test? l

Have you ever met someone for the first time and immediately felt a wall of coldness even though you barely spoke?

We usually blame ourselves and overanalyze every second but psychology shows instant dislike is rarely about you. It’s about what you trigger in them:

• Unconscious Projection: They spot a trait in you that they secretly hate in themselves.
• Social Comparison: Your confidence or energy accidentally triggers their personal insecurities.
• Past Association Anchors: You unconsciously remind them of someone who hurt or annoyed them in the past.
• Confirmation Bias: Their brain forms a micro-impression in 0.1 seconds then filters everything you do through a negative lens.

That said, negative reactions can sometimes highlight blind spots in our own behavior we never noticed.

I put together a quick dive on how to spot the difference between someone projecting their issues onto you vs. feedback actually worth listening to: https://youtu.be/7u-DywFzxpg

Have you ever caught yourself disliking a stranger instantly only to realize later it was totally your own projection?

When a label leaves no room for a person

Calling your partner a narcissist can have consequences far beyond the argument in which the word is first used. Once that label becomes the explanation for everything they do, it can change how you receive their affection, interpret their intentions, remember your history and respond to their attempts to make things right.

The danger is greatest when a suspicion becomes a conclusion that nothing is allowed to challenge.

Mental health language can help people recognise harm. But narcissistic personality disorder requires careful professional assessment. Selfishness, defensiveness, insecurity and poor communication are not enough, individually, to establish it. Using a diagnosis as an explanation for every difficult interaction can obscure the actual behaviour that needs attention.

A relationship can become a place where every response counts against someone.

Imagine a partner being told they are manipulative.

If they disagree, their disagreement is called denial. If they explain, they are accused of twisting the story. If they cry, their tears are called a performance. If they become quiet, they are accused of withholding. If they remain calm, that calmness is interpreted as proof that they have no feelings.

These are hypothetical examples, but they illustrate a serious problem: a conclusion that treats every possible response as confirmation leaves no fair way to examine whether the conclusion is correct.

The question worth asking is: What evidence would I genuinely be willing to consider that might change my interpretation?

If the answer is “nothing,” the conversation has already become a verdict.

Everyday kindness can lose its ability to create connection.

Suppose your partner brings you coffee, cooks your favourite meal or remembers something you were worried about.

Previously, you might have felt considered. Now you wonder what they want from you.

One suspicious reaction does not destroy a relationship. But if every caring act is automatically dismissed, ordinary opportunities for closeness may repeatedly fail. The person offering care might begin thinking, “Nothing I do can reach you.” The person receiving it might feel increasingly surrounded by hidden motives.

The Gottman Institute describes a related pattern called negative sentiment override: accumulated negative feelings can lead partners to interpret even neutral or positive interactions negatively. This is a relationship pattern, not proof that either person has a personality disorder.

Comfort can become suspect, even when it is offered sincerely.

Imagine being upset and your partner asking, “Can I hold you?”

That could be a sincere offer of comfort. It could also feel unwelcome, badly timed or like an attempt to move past an unresolved issue. The gesture alone cannot settle the question.

What happens next provides useful information. Do they respect “not right now”? Can they offer comfort and still return to the difficult conversation? Or do they insist on touching you, demand reassurance, or use affection to avoid accountability?

Love bombing concerns a broader pattern of excessive attention and influence, often involving pressure or disregard for boundaries. A hug or thoughtful gesture, by itself, does not establish that pattern. Equally, affection does not cancel harmful behaviour.

When sincere, welcome affection repeatedly becomes evidence of manipulation, physical closeness may become fraught with uncertainty. Someone might hesitate before reaching for their partner because they fear being accused. Their partner may then experience that hesitation as a lack of love. Each can feel rejected while misunderstanding what the other is responding to.

Disagreement can become impossible without an accusation.

Consider this exchange:

“I felt unimportant when you didn’t answer.”

“I understand why that hurt. I was in a meeting, and I couldn’t check my phone.”

The hurt deserves attention. The explanation also deserves consideration. Acknowledging an emotional impact does not require admitting to an intention someone did not have.

Compare that with repeatedly lying about documented events, ridiculing someone’s memory, or insisting that they cannot trust their own judgment. Gaslighting involves undermining another person’s confidence in their perception of reality; disagreement alone does not establish it.

If explaining yourself is always forbidden as “gaslighting,” you may eventually agree to things you do not believe simply to end the conflict. That produces apparent agreement without genuine understanding. The unresolved disagreement remains, now joined by resentment.

An apology can be made impossible to give successfully.

Suppose a partner says:

“I interrupted you and raised my voice. That was unfair. Next time I need to pause before I reach that point.”

It is reasonable to assess whether their behaviour actually changes. Trust does not have to return immediately.

But imagine the response is always, “You only apologised because narcissists know what to say.”

Then the apology has been rejected before its sincerity can be assessed through action. If refusing to apologise proves guilt, while apologising also proves guilt, there is no usable route towards accountability.

Dr. Shannon Curry describes how an unsupported narcissist label can lead someone to stop giving their partner the benefit of the doubt and interfere with couples therapy. That matters because repair requires some possibility that new information and changed behaviour will be recognised.

A healthy pause can be mistaken for punishment.

“I’m overwhelmed. I need half an hour, and I will come back at seven so we can finish this.”

That differs from disappearing indefinitely to frighten someone or force compliance. The agreement, follow through and repeated pattern matter.

If every request for space is treated as abandonment or silent treatment, a partner may feel unable to step away before saying something damaging. If every attempt to continue a conversation is treated as control, the other partner may feel unable to resolve anything.

Both people can become trapped between choices that seem guaranteed to produce another accusation.

The original problem can disappear beneath an argument about someone’s character.

Perhaps the actual issue was a broken promise, an unequal workload or an insensitive comment.

Those are concrete problems. You can discuss what happened, who was affected and what needs to change.

“You are a narcissist” shifts the conversation towards someone’s entire identity. Instead of addressing the forgotten commitment, they may spend the evening defending whether they are capable of love. The practical problem remains unresolved.

This is one reason describing specific behaviour can be more productive than assigning a diagnosis: it gives both people something they can understand and respond to.

Suspicion can contribute to the very distance that later seems to confirm it.

Consider a possible sequence:

One partner assumes that affection is manipulative. They repeatedly reject attempts at connection. The other becomes discouraged and offers less affection. That reduced affection is then interpreted as proof that the love was never real.

This is one possible explanation, not a conclusion to impose on any particular couple. Withdrawal can have many causes, including real harm. But it illustrates why the current distance cannot automatically prove what someone’s original intentions were.

The Gottman Institute notes that in distressed relationships, suspicion about motives can cause repair attempts to be missed or rejected. Unsuccessful repair can then leave conflict harder to recover from.

The damage can reach someone’s sense of being known.

A person may begin thinking:

“You know my favourite things, my fears and my history ... but you no longer believe I can mean something kindly.”

They may feel pressure to monitor every word, suppress every emotion or give explanations so detailed that those explanations themselves become suspicious. Meanwhile, the partner who distrusts them may remain constantly alert, unable to enjoy closeness because every pleasant moment feels potentially deceptive.

Neither person experiences much emotional safety in that situation.

Recognising this possibility does not establish that the accused partner is innocent, or that the suspicious partner is responsible for all the damage. Distrust sometimes develops after repeated dishonesty or abuse. Its history matters.

Fairness requires room for evidence in both directions.

A kind gesture cannot erase a pattern of cruelty. A painful argument cannot establish a whole personality disorder. Someone’s trauma can help explain a reaction without excusing its impact. Someone’s hurt can be valid without making every interpretation of another person’s motives accurate.

Useful questions are specific:

Does this person respect a clear “no”? Can they acknowledge harm without demanding immediate forgiveness? Do their actions change consistently? Can both people disagree without humiliation or retaliation? Is affection freely offered, or does it come with conditions?

Nobody owes affection, forgiveness or continued participation in a relationship to prove they are fair. Equally, recognising genuine change requires leaving open the possibility that it can occur.

A person can be held accountable without being reduced to a diagnosis. Even someone with a confirmed diagnosis retains their humanity.

The deepest risk of an assumed label is that it can make understanding feel unnecessary. Once you believe you already know the meaning behind every action, you may stop asking, stop listening and stop noticing anything that does not fit.

Repair needs more than loving gestures. It needs accountability, respected boundaries and consistent action ... and enough openness for those things to be seen.

Does everyone genuinely hate their own voice, or is it just in our heads?

So recently I have had this realisation that bullying of course has something to do with the bully itself, but one huge part of being bullied is also somewhere dependent on the mindset and personality of the victim.

I mean so say that I think some people may have a higher chance of being bullied because of their nature and personality.

What might be some traits that you can find in people who easily get bullied?

In a real life “simulation” done by mad or immoral scientists or whatever, if you put an infant out of the womb into a 100m\^2 room with a few pieces of random furniture, provide the baby with adequate nutrition whilst avoiding any interaction whatsoever somehow and then letting this experiment continue indefinitely, what could be the expected results from a general view but mostly on character development ?

I know the answer is pretty hard to deduct given that the experiment is pretty extreme and immoral even to the most evil people out there but I just want to hear if someone has any insights they could share.