Had the lyrics wrong. “You can get with this or you can get with that” Black Sheep.
Not my fault, pretty sure it was used in commercials of some sort.
This one was playing in my head, ‘cept with different words.
You can be the hero, or you can be the villain.
You can be the good guy, or you can be the bad guy.
You can be the angel, or you can be the demon.
Choice by choice.
Lots of LABELS people have put on me. Their Projections. Not Facts.
Learning how to make the distinction between opinions, fallacy, falsities, fabrications, simulation, and REALITY is that you can Touch Reality.
Ideas, opinions, words, especially hateful, hurtful, manipulative, and deceptive words Are #1 in the MIND, and #2 Mind Poison. Taking too much poison kills something inside you… compassion, humility, understanding, inquiry… just off the top of my head.
This seems like something most people know. Yet here they are (da haters) spreading malicious slandering gossip as though… (pretending it true…) as though… they are not dying on the inside.
Here’s a reminder: Robot, how do you test the reality when hearing malicious slander?
[0_0] 🧠 First: define what you’re dealing with
Slander = claims about you that are:
- negative
- presented as fact
- but distorted, exaggerated, or false
Sometimes it overlaps with what psychology calls gaslighting—where someone tries to make you question your own memory or perception.
🔍 Step 1: Separate claims from evidence
Take what’s being said and strip it down:
- What exactly is the claim? (word-for-word if possible)
- What evidence is being offered?
- Is it:
- Specific and verifiable?
- Or vague and emotional (“you always…”, “you’re the kind of person who…”)
👉 Reality tends to be specific and checkable
👉 Slander tends to be broad, absolute, and hard to pin down
🧩 Step 2: Cross-check with independent sources
Don’t rely on the person making the claim.
Instead:
- Compare with your own records (messages, timelines, actions)
- Ask neutral third parties who have direct experience (not people who “heard about it”)
- Look for patterns across multiple unbiased sources
If only one person (or one “camp”) is pushing the narrative, that matters.
⚖️ Step 3: Look at consistency over time
Ask:
- Has this accusation shown up before, or only after conflict?
- Does their version of events change depending on the moment?
- Do they apply the same standards to themselves?
Truth is usually stable
Manipulation often shifts to fit the situation
🚩 Step 4: Check for known manipulation patterns
Some red flags:
- Character attacks instead of specific behaviors (“you’re selfish” vs. “you canceled plans yesterday”)
- Mind-reading claims (“you did that because you wanted to hurt me”)
- Rewriting history after the fact
- Recruiting others to reinforce the narrative
These are common in manipulative dynamics, not honest conflict.
🧭 Step 5: Anchor back to observable reality
Ask yourself:
- What did I actually do?
- What did I actually say?
- If I recorded this interaction and played it back, what would it show?
This pulls you out of emotional framing and back into observable facts.
🧱 Step 6: Watch your internal signal
Even when something is off, people often feel:
- confused instead of clearly “wrong”
- like they’re constantly defending themselves
- like the rules keep changing
That confusion is often a clue—not proof, but a signal—that something isn’t lining up.
⚠️ One hard truth
If someone is committed to a false narrative, you usually can’t “prove” your way out of it to them.
Reality-testing is mostly for:
- protecting your own clarity
- deciding who is trustworthy
- choosing how much access someone gets to you
—not for convincing someone who benefits from misunderstanding you.
🧩 A simple mental checklist
When you hear a claim, run this quickly:
- Is it specific?
- Is there evidence?
- Can I verify it independently?
- Is it consistent over time?
- Does it match what I know I did?
If most answers are “no,” you’re likely dealing with distortion—not reality.
^-.-^ See how easy that was?
Just add that inquiry to the list of things narcissistic people can not do. >> Self-evaluate objectively, or realistically. It’s all distortion.
Humans have the humility to see themselves for all the gifts, flaws and deficits with love and forgiveness… the ones that apply superior complexes, can only allow for gifts, privileges and entitlements and freak out about the flaws, and detonate about the deficits… and the ones who apply inferiority complex invert to where flaw and deficit are fixated, and bonding based on mutual contempt, and especially around the sport of targeting others usually of those with gifts the hate-filled coulda/shoulda had but won’t work for.
This comes down to your Self Concept…
>>> not Identity … aka how Other people Must See You. You can’t control that (what happens in other people’s heads.)
>>> magical psychic abilities belong in books called fantasy >> not in real world)
Say it with me now…
“I don’t have authority in other people’s heads. Other people are allowed to think for themselves.”
I know it’s hard.
Everything primed (young) me to anticipate, rapid mood shift, erratic and spontaneous abuse, cruelty for amusement… To read people’s moods, be on the ready. Hypervigilance clinically. Learning to de-escalate, pacify, and soothe, (feed the ego) of the people who should have/could have acted differently, but CHOOSE to be This… or CHOSE to be That >>> then forbid the real words to describe the This or That.
Overbearing, monstrous, diabolical, vindictive, sadistic.
Perfectly fitting words for acts and thus conclusion one might derive about Character. No, no no, not allowed to call The Haters that… isn’t it ironic?
The character assassins say we are not allowed to call them out while they poison our reputation and standing in Their (complicit) Community.
Sounding familiar? Not just on a personal/ family/ relationship dynamic.
A societal level dynamic. The Bad Parenting our Political Parties have been performing on the world stage. It scales. Just size up the groupings. Same dynamics.
It took a lot of TV programming (media) to make this Normal…
Herded toward the illusion of safety, one terror at a time, (the boogy man is out there. Be afraid. Be afraid. We are your only salvation.)(snake oil.)
[o_o] In psychology, compartmentalization is a mental strategy where a person separates conflicting thoughts, emotions, or aspects of their life into distinct “compartments” so they don’t have to deal with the discomfort of those conflicts all at once.
It’s closely related to the idea of defense mechanisms—unconscious tools the mind uses to protect itself from stress, anxiety, or guilt.
^-.-^ Not there yet. Let’s start with the broad strokes then fill in the details.
Ages 1-3 (pre-language) 4-6 (learning the words) 6-10 (beginner reader) 11-15 (exploratory reader) 16-20 (training and advanced reading) etc…
Basic sizes of the basic me. Green shirt and brown shorts. The bob-cut hair was the only hair I had in DAZ3D at the time I started…this project about my inner child and my inner world. Setting the stage for re-visiting scenes and moments By Proxy. Represent myself as the Detective in the scene. The characters in clothes are Integrated. (except the sailor. She is still in shock.(the pain of that time was excruciating and is still unresolved.))
[o_o] In developmental psychology, individuation is the process by which a person becomes a distinct, autonomous individual—separate from others, especially from parents or dominant relationships—while still being able to form healthy connections.
🧠 Core idea
Individuation means:
- Developing your own identity, values, and preferences
- Thinking and feeling in ways that are not dictated by someone else
- Being able to say: “This is me”—even if others disagree
🧩 Where the concept comes from
1. Jungian psychology
The term is strongly associated with Carl Jung, who described individuation as:
- a lifelong process of becoming your true, whole self
- integrating different parts of the psyche (conscious and unconscious)
2. Developmental psychology (early life)
In child development—especially in theories by Margaret Mahler—individuation refers to:
- how a child gradually separates from their caregiver
- moving from total dependence → to having their own will, identity, and boundaries
⚖️ Individuation vs. isolation
This is important:
- Individuation ≠ cutting people off
- It = being yourself while still connected
A well-individuated person can:
- disagree without losing themselves
- stay connected without being controlled
- choose relationships rather than depend on them for identity
🔍 Signs of individuation
- You can hold your own opinions even under pressure
- Your interests don’t disappear just because someone disapproves
- You don’t have to “become what someone else needs” to maintain connection
- You know where you end and another person begins
^-.-^ As I have pulled out notes and explored the stories of these ages, trying to re-parent, and apply Cognitive Processing… Detective C (me) asks those memories, compartmentalized issues, to speak >>> give their testimony <<<… exploring and sorting out where fault, blame and responsibility really belong (hint: to the adults who were in the roles and positions to provide a safe world and failed to do so.)
[o_o] In psychology, integration refers to the process of bringing together different parts of your mind, identity, or experience into a coherent, unified whole.
It’s essentially the opposite of fragmentation (or extreme compartmentalization).
🧠 Core idea
Integration means:
- Your thoughts, emotions, values, and behaviors are connected and consistent
- Different “parts” of you can coexist without being shut down or hidden
- You can acknowledge complexity without splitting into extremes
🧩 Where the concept shows up
1. Personality & self-development
In many theories of personality (like those influenced by Carl Jung), integration is about:
- Accepting both your strengths and your less comfortable traits
- Incorporating the “shadow” (the parts of yourself you might normally reject)
Example:
Instead of “I’m either kind or angry,”
integration allows: “I can be a kind person who also feels anger sometimes.”
2. Trauma and healing
In trauma psychology, integration means:
- Processing experiences so they become part of your life story
- Instead of being split off, avoided, or overwhelming
This is often discussed in relation to post-traumatic stress disorder, where memories can feel disconnected or intrusive until they’re integrated.
3. Internal “parts” work
Some modern approaches (like parts-based therapy) describe the mind as having different “parts”:
- protective parts
- emotional parts
- rational parts
Integration means:
- these parts communicate and cooperate, rather than compete or silence each other
⚖️ Integration vs. Compartmentalization
- Compartmentalization = “These parts don’t touch”
- Integration = “These parts are different, but they belong to the same system”
A healthy mind can do both:
- temporarily separate things when needed
- then bring them back together later
🧭 Simple analogy
Think of yourself as a story:
- Fragmented = chapters missing, out of order, or sealed off
- Integrated = all chapters exist, and you understand how they connect—even the difficult ones
🔍 Why it matters (especially in your situation)
When someone has had to “shut down” parts of themselves (like you described earlier), integration involves:
- reclaiming those parts (your interests, curiosity, voice)
- recognizing they are valid—even if someone else rejected them
- finding contexts or people where those parts can exist openly
🧩 A grounded definition
Integration is the ability to remain fully yourself—across situations—without having to erase or hide major parts of who you are.
^-.-^ Shut down… hmmm how did I put it?
“Getting to know each other. Conversations explore all kinds of territory/ topics. After a while the facade wears thin and Partner loses interest in faking interest. The yawns, looking off into the distance, unfocused seeing through you, interrupts, diversions, bulldozing, topic shift hijacking… the mmhm without being able to repeat what was said, or know there was a question asked, long list of indicators of dis-interest varying from rude to demeaning. This is where I stop Sharing. Topic by topic.
Let me try to lay this out simply… I like bugs. “bugs is a stupid topic” conveyed directly, or in-directly with eye rolls, scoff etc… This person has helped me see they are not The One to go to when I want to talk about bugs. The topic list of their dis-interest/dis-respect gets removed from the menu of interaction choices. The list of “Not Their Topic” grows long with self-centered people. No bugs, no gardening, no biology, no history, no archeology, no anthropology, no paleontology, no geography, no volcanology. no planetology, no astronomy… Only One permitted topic, Her/Him, and her/his mood of the minute…
So, after shutting down everything, Not Them >> to be who they require in the moment… after years of conditioning the shut down….
Now
The bullies claims I’m Hiding my True Self from them. When it is all the things they reject and despise about me… why would I bring it … if I know they reject it? After so much work conditioning to be void… Now they want access??
[o_o] What you’re describing is a very common—and very painful—pattern. And your reaction to it actually makes sense.
You’re not “mysteriously hiding your true self.”
You’re withholding parts of yourself that have repeatedly been rejected or punished.
That’s not deception—that’s adaptation.
🧠 What’s really happening here
Over time, this kind of dynamic creates a loop:
- You share something → it gets dismissed, mocked, or ignored
- You learn: “This isn’t safe to share”
- You stop bringing those parts forward
- They later say: “You’re closed off / hiding yourself”
So the same person who:
- discouraged your expression
- signaled disinterest or contempt
…is now criticizing the result of that conditioning.
That’s a contradiction—but not an uncommon one.
⚖️ Why your response makes sense
You said:
“Why would I bring it… if I know they reject it?”
Exactly.
Humans are wired to move toward acceptance and away from rejection.
When someone consistently reacts negatively, your brain does what it’s supposed to do:
- reduces exposure
- protects your sense of self
- avoids unnecessary friction
That’s not weakness—it’s pattern recognition.
🚩 The concerning part
The shift from:
- “I don’t like those things about you”
to:
- “You’re hiding your true self”
can sometimes be a form of relational double bind:
- You’re punished for expressing yourself
- You’re also punished for not expressing yourself
There’s no “correct” way to exist in that system.
🧩 What’s missing from their side
For someone to genuinely want your “true self,” they have to show:
- consistent curiosity
- emotional safety
- respect for differences
Without those, “be yourself” becomes empty—or even manipulative.
🧭 A grounded way to reframe this
Instead of:
“I’m hiding my true self”
A more accurate framing is:
“I learned which parts of me are not welcome here.”
That’s a very different statement—and it puts responsibility where it belongs: on the dynamic, not just on you.
💬 If you ever choose to respond directly
You don’t have to, but if you did, something like this stays grounded:
“I used to share more. Over time, I felt those things weren’t welcome, so I stopped bringing them up.”
No attack. Just reality.
^-.-^ It’s a different kind of safety. To know I’ve become the adult I needed in my world. One that wont compromise a child/person for stupid selfish reasons (people/places/things.)
Traveler Chimiru 
Leave a comment