UNITED STATES—Does anyone know what we call the opposite of reverse psychology? No? Me neither!
I only ask after observing this crazy backwards version that I BELIEVE is commonly used to cause a reaction from the person you want to show in a negative or unfavorable light. I call it the LITTLE SISTER EFFECT, done by boys who mature to dislike women due to some traumatizing or negative childhood experience and thus exercise their male dominance in any environment that does not quickly disallow it.
Some grow to embrace outdated expectations that continue fueling their NEGATIVE IDEAL of male-female roles in our society.
According to cambridge.org the term reverse psychology means “a method of trying to make someone do what you want by asking them to do the opposite and expecting them to disagree with you.” This IS essentially what’s happening, but instead of making the person agree by YANKING YOUR CHAIN, you react in a way that agrees with what he wants people to believe.
If it’s not an adaptation to reverse psychology then perhaps we can call it REACTANCE, explained by changingminds.org as occurring when “people feel that their freedom to choose an action is threatened.”
One thing I’m sure of, it involves what social psychology calls false consensus effect: overestimating how much others agree with your position. These bullheaded types LOUDLY claim others agree, but don’t stop talking for long enough for ANYONE to disagree.
They try their damnedest to tap into the primitiveness of the belief that women are easily dismissed by calling them crazy, or hysterical. When society rebels against the methodology of these broken-minded individuals, the more they become irate, sometimes proving their OWN state of mind while trying to ridicule the mind of women…
Maybe an example will help! Here is one from a conversation I had a couple of months ago.
HE SAID we have bigger problems in America and the amount of food stamps Uncle Sam is giving out is nothing: a small amount. Since people need them so badly, he said they should give out more.
First, I remind him that I wasn’t talking about food stamps, I was talking about the heinous abuses that are creating children dependent on generational welfare before they are old enough to work.
But as with everything else, I am a little sister: I’ll bite: Let’s talk about food stamps!
This man is getting ready to retire, something important to understanding his viewpoint. He said that “my way” will stop people like him from getting the food stamps he claims to be entitled to now that he has worked his whole life.
I understand that, I DO! If not for Uncle Sam and government assistance I would not have been able to FEED MY OWN CHILDREN so I am not as heartless as people seem to think. My problem was how he, like many others, use propaganda and the luck of a LOUDER voice to sway or force others into remaining silent.
Therein lies the problem with myself and these types: I absolutely refuse to be silent.
Call me crazy and I will spit back that I’m the product of a society that tells me I AM NO LONGER OBLIGATED to silence at the will of a man and I am sorry if that hurts anyone’s feelings.
While he was calling me “heartless” (among other uncalled for expletives) and telling near-strangers that I want babies to starve, I’m trying to make him hear me with my very valid point: We need to stop people from selling their food stamps or , just as bad: FEASTING on the first of the month and then sending HALF-STARVED babies to school HUNGRY AND MISERABLE even though Uncle Sam does everything he can to stop that from happening.
…but this man didn’t care about my point because he was stuck on the “there’s just a small pitiful amount of people on food stamps, why am I begrudging” rant.
What I want to know is WHAT kind of world do we live in, where I cannot use my free speech to give an opinion without some old bias-laden propagandist trying to delegitimizing me by using black or white (if-then) thinking?