Do you have a dumb question that you're kind of embarrassed to ask in the main thread? Is there something you're just not sure about?
This is your opportunity to ask questions. No question too simple or too silly.
Culture war topics are accepted, and proposals for a better intro post are appreciated.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
I think they're closely related.
When they (or a member of their in-group) do something they shouldn't have, hypoagentic people perceive themselves as at the mercy of fate. They apply the same framing when a member of their out-group does something impressive or admirable ("well, I could've founded Amazon if I'd been born into a rich family like Bezos's").
Where it gets messy is that these people tend to flip the valence: if a member of their in-group does something admirable they want full credit for it, but any mistakes they made were due to factors outside of their control. Conversely, members of their out-group are blamed entirely for mistakes they made, while admirable things they do are minimised as accidents of circumstance or attributed to factors beyond their control.
Most "hypoagentic" people are selectively so, using the framing to avoid their in-group receiving condemnation for mistakes (while still demanding full credit for impressive achievements). The Last Psychiatrist notes that this is a fundamentally unstable worldview.
More options
Context Copy link