Small Indie Company (Horde) of Mal’ganis is looking for additional DPS and Healing support to join us through Dragonflight!

Please read the entire post before applying.

ABOUT
Much of the guild has earned multiple CE's in the past and are coming together to get cutting edge on a tight 2 day schedule.
In addition to raiding we are very active in the areas of Mythic+ and PvP. We love pushing keys as high as they go and a majority of us follow our Raiderio score closely.
We love doing things as a guild such as transmog runs, alt leveling, and even gaming outside of WoW. Guild engagement is important to us so if you are looking to only show up twice a week on raid day then we are not for you.
RAID DAYS/TIMES: Progression Raid Days - Tuesday/Thurs 7pm-11pm CST

NOTE: An additional day may be added if we are deep on prog on a mythic boss

DRAGONFLIGHT RAID PROGRESS

Vault of the Incarnates - 5/8M 10/10H

SHADOWLANDS RAID PROGRESS

Nathria - 6/10M SoD - 9/10M SoFO - 7/11M

RECRUITMENT STATUS

Ranged: Shadow, Warlock, Boomy, Mage, Ele
Melee: DK, WW, Enhance, Ret
Healers: Hpal, Priest, Shaman, Prevoker
Tanks: CLOSED

Regardless of posted needs ALL exceptional applicant will be considered for any role. So please Apply!
WHAT YOU NEED
DBM or BigWigs, Method Raid Tools, WeakAuras, RCLootCouncil, a working headset and microphone, a stable internet connection.
If you show up to raid without the above or are constantly DCing/Lagging you will be removed from raid.
WHAT WE EXPECT

1. Be on time for every raid
2. Bring a positive attitude to raid and the guild as a whole.
3. Be able to take constructive criticism without issues.
4. Do not become a “raid logger” aka someone who only logs on for raid and does nothing to advance themselves outside of raid.
5. Active Mythic+ running. It is the easiest way to gear up outside of raid and takes little to no time.
6. An understanding that you may be placed on the bench for certain prog fights either to better suit our progression fight comp or to allow benched players the ability to learn fights/get gear.

APPLYING WITH US
If you are interested please apply via our Discord at discord.gg/smallindiecompany.
If you have immediate questions feel free to reach out to us on Discord at: Stormy#5095

NOTE: We welcome any and all non-raid minded members to our guild with no application process needed.

Hello Friendly gitz! I have a 1000 pts tournament comming up, and I have found my self indecisive between two troll lists. I would love to hear your opinion, and suggestions on both. Thank you very much in advance.
The first list.
Has my favorite loon king, Skragrott. His spell is amazing at smashing key heroes and everything he does is very very handy. The king's gitz sub faction to make respawn more reliable. And speaky skull fetish to make troggs hit like a truck.
++ Pitched Battle GHB 2023 1,000 (Destruction - Gloomspite Gitz) [1,000pts] ++

• Leader +

Dankhold Troggboss [200pts]: Endless Spell: Malevolent Moon, General, Loonskin, Speaky-skull Fetish
Skragrott, the Loonking [160pts]

• Battleline +

Fellwater Troggoths [160pts]: 3 Fellwater Troggoths
Fellwater Troggoths [160pts]: 3 Fellwater Troggoths
Rockgut Troggoths [320pts]: 6 Rockgut Troggoths, Reinforced

• Scenery +

Bad Moon Loonshrine

• Allegiance +

Allegiance
. Gloomspite Gitz: Da King's Gitz

• Game Options +

Game Type: 1000 Points - Vanguard
Grand Strategy: Hold the Line
++ Total: [1,000pts] ++
And this is my second list, with the point to get skragrott I get two wizards with bad snatchers to push those critical spells. Moon face moment combined with túnel master to snagg objectives and give -1 to save to units being bullied by troggs.
++ **Pitched Battle GHB 2023 1,000 (Destruction - Gloomspite Gitz) [1,000pts] ++**
 
+ Core Battalion +
 
Core Battalion: Warlord: Extra Enhancement: Artefacts of Power
 
+ Leader +
 
Dankhold Troggboss [200pts]: Endless Spell: Malevolent Moon, General, Loonskin, Speaky-skull Fetish, Warlord - 1-2 Commanders
 
Fungoid Cave-Shaman [90pts]: Itchy Nuisance, Moonface Mommet, Tunnel Master, Warlord - 2-4 Sub-Commanders
 
Madcap Shaman [70pts]: The Hand of Gork, Warlord - 2-4 Sub-Commanders
 
+ Battleline +
 
Fellwater Troggoths [160pts]: 3 Fellwater Troggoths, Warlord - 1-2 Troops
 
Fellwater Troggoths [160pts]: 3 Fellwater Troggoths
 
Rockgut Troggoths [320pts]: 6 Rockgut Troggoths, Reinforced
 
+ Scenery +
 
Bad Moon Loonshrine
 
+ Allegiance +
 
Allegiance
. Gloomspite Gitz: Badsnatchers
 
+ Game Options +
 
Game Type: 1000 Points - Vanguard
 
Grand Strategy: Hold the Line
 
++ Total: [1,000pts] ++

• It may seem easier to dodge the swords while standing on the lower, larger platforms, but while dodging it's inevitable to jump sometimes which could cause the swords to spawn near the top of the screen and therefore be invisible from the lower platform until it's potentially too late. I found it easier to stand on the higher tiny platforms, you pretty much need to jump and maneuver mid-air for each sword that gets thrown at you, but it's not a big deal and at least you're high enough that no sword will appear off screen which makes dodging much easier imho.
• You can hit him a little bit in the sword phase but it's better to avoid him for the most part, unless you're using Heavy Blow it's difficult to hit him hard enough to keep him at a distance in case he randomly decides to fly directly into you, which he definitely will at some point.
• It may seem hard to damage him properly during the spin attack, but actually it's gonna be super easy, barely an inconvenience. You just wait for the shield to spin around a couple times, then you shade cloak directly on top of him and you can safely pogo 3-4 times depending on the timing before using shade cloak again to get out of the shield's way. If there is a platform straight below him you can hit at least 5-6 times if you start soon enough, because he won't be pushed further down from your pogo which decreases the interval between each hit.
• He will only go to phase 2 when he drops below 50% hp so you can count how many times you hit him while he's in phase 1. If you're using pure nail and the Strenght charm you need to hit him exactly 16 times in ascended mode, or 11 I think in P5 but that's much harder to test (it's better not to spend soul in phase 1 because you're gonna need it for phase 2). Since he won't switch phase while doing his spinning attack, you can bring him to just before the turning point and then wait for him to start the attack when he's above a platform, so that you can deal as many hits as possible without him going immediately to the next phase.
• Once he gets to phase 2 it's still manageable to dodge the swords from the higher platforms, but it's much harder to use the pogo strategy without taking damage, and that's why you need to save all that soul. When he starts his spinning attack he can be hit twice by a Shade Soul unless he's directly next to a wall.

This means that in P5 he will die from 2-3 spells if you have followed the previous steps properly, but in ascended mode he's gonna have more health so you might either need some Abyss Shriek+Shaman Stone strategy or you need to find a safe way to hit him with your nail, which I haven't found yet.
But maybe you don't care that much about ascended mode and are only looking to beat P5, in which case I can tell you I beat him first try and quite easily in P5 with this strategy and took almost no damage so I could heal to full before the next fight started.
So after all this feel free to try out this strategy in your P5 attempts or share your strategy to deal with his phase 2 if you have any advice.

What we do here

Our team creates an environment that is laid back, but also internally competitive. We pride ourselves on having no drama internally, but pushing the edge of Cutting Edge. Riding the line of family and personal progression. We are a CE guild. Many of us have come from the Hall of Fame and between us all, we have collectively gotten CE in every tier to date. We are proud of what we have achieved but as time goes on so do responsibilities. We are not looking to push rank or force toon swapping/alts/splits. We want you to play what you enjoy and play what you will perform the best at in the game. Professionalism and performance equals progression.
If you are here, you want to be a better version of yourself. You want to be better than the last time you were in raid, or the last time you did that certain mythic+. We can help you do that and maintain that mindset. Being with others of the same mind makes the suck not suck so much.

What we offer in Unorganized Chaos

• We all push ourselves personally for each other. Be that example for each other. Give that raider to the left and right the professional courtesy of carrying your own weight.
• The Guild Master and Raid Lead will always post meeting minutes in discord to give you the most updated information on what the top leadership are working on to better our guild as a whole.
• The Guild Master and Raid Lead keep constant accountability on raiders’ personal progress through the “WoW Audit” to ensure everyone is kept at the same standard and to identify any shortcomings.
• Role Officers will mentor you on how to help you help yourself. Teach you the tools to make yourself successful, so you do not have to rely on others to be your success.
• Role Officers will keep constant accountability on their raiders’ BiS List through “ReadyCheck IO” to ensure the BiS gear goes to the right people.
• Raiders will help you get certain trinkets or weapons by spec/class stacking in M+, so you don't have to endlessly grind.
• Once you are reaching the pinnacle of you. We encourage you to play other toons, play other games, spend that extra time with your family, and/or give yourself time to clear your mind from the grind. Life is short; you should enjoy it!

We are in need of:

• DPS w/ off heal spec
• Healer
• Melee DPS w/ off tank spec
• Melee DPS
  • Preferred classes:
    • Priest
    • Mage
    • Enhancement Shaman
    • Warrior
    • Demon Hunter

Raid Times:

Tues/Wed 9:30pm-12:30am CST

If interested please reach out!

Guild Master (Spirit)

• Thrall Legend#1297 - Bnet
• SpiritShadow#7255 - Discord

Recruiter (Shamurai)

• Soju#11176 - Bnet
• Shamurai#1575 - Discord

Eugene, OR – PSILO Temple (sil-oh) (Psychedelics. Sound. Integration. Love. Oneness.), a non-profit organization, announces its launch as a community dedicated to the intentional use of ancient practices and medicines, including psilocybin. PSILO Temple aims to cultivate spiritual growth, personal transformation, and community by providing education and a compassionate environment for individuals to experience the transformative power of psychedelic medicines and shamanic practices.
As a 501(c)(3) non-profit, PSILO Temple operates under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which allows space for the use of psilocybin in its spiritual practices. The organization honors ancient healing traditions from around the world and believes in the ability of these practices to expand hearts and minds, nurture inner peace, and enhance our capacity to love ourselves and one another.
“We are excited to launch PSILO Temple and bring together a community of like-minded individuals who are passionate about using ancient practices and medicines for spiritual growth and healing, says James Hin, Executive Director of PSILO Temple. “This is a culmination of many years of work, but especially the past two years here in Eugene, holding medicine ceremonies, 1:1 sessions, sound baths, integration meetings, educational events, and parties. Our community has been integral in making this happen, and we are thrilled for what’s to come."
PSILO Temple believes that access to these medicines should not be dependent on one's socioeconomic status, which is why the organization aims to provide equitable access to the intentional use of psilocybin as a sacrament. “In a profit-driven system, only those with means would be able to access the medicine, but our goal is to ensure that this ancient healing practice is available to all. It’s evident your profit first system isn’t working, it’s time to put people first.”
To kick off their launch, PSILO Temple will be hosting a celebratory event: "A Night of Sound, Medicine, and Community," on March 25th at 7pm at Alluvium. For more information, visit psilotemple.com.
About PSILO Temple: PSILO Temple is dedicated to the intentional sacred use of ancient practices and medicines, including meditation, sacred sound, and psilocybin. The mission of PSILO Temple is to cultivate spiritual growth, personal transformation, and community by providing education and a compassionate environment for individuals to experience the transformative power of psychedelic medicines and shamanic practices. The organization honors ancient healing traditions from around the world and believes in the ability of these practices to expand hearts and minds, nurture inner peace, and enhance our capacity to love ourselves and one another.

Sexual Response Cycle

The sexual response cycle is one model of physical and emotional changes that happens after you square measure collaborating in sexual intercourse. There square measure four phases during this cycle. coming is that the shortest section.What is the sexual response cycle?
The sexual response cycle refers to the sequence of physical and emotional changes that occur as someone becomes sexually aroused and participates in sexually stimulating activities, as well as intercourse and onanism.
​
Sexual Response Cycle
Knowing however your body responds throughout every section of the cycle will enhance your relationship and assist you pinpoint the reason for sexual disfunction. There square measure many totally different planned models of a sexual response cycle. The one that's reviewed here is one in all the a lot of ordinarily quoted.
What square measure the phases of the sexual response cycle?
The sexual response cycle has been represented as having four phases:1.Desire (libido).2.Arousal (excitement).3.Orgasm.4.Resolution.Both men and girls will expertise these phases, though the temporal order could also be totally different. for instance, it's extremely unlikely that each partners can reach coming at identical time. additionally, the intensity of the response and therefore the time spent in every section varies from person to person. many ladies will not undergo the sexual phases during this order.
Need for intimacy
A need for intimacy could also be a motivation for sexual intercourse in some people. Understanding these variations could facilitate partners higher perceive one another’s bodies and responses, and enhance the sexual expertise.
Several physiological changes could occur throughout totally different stages of sexual intercourse. people could expertise some, all or none of those changes.

Phase 1: Need

General characteristics of this section, which might last from a couple of minutes to many hours, and should embody any of the following:
• Muscle tension will increase.
• Heart rate quickens and respiration gets quicker.

NSI-189 is an experimental anti-depressant which failed phase two clinical trials for that purpose. Yet, prior to said trial’s subsequent failure, it got picked up over on Longecity—a forum of nootropic enthusiasts known for experimenting with novel research chemicals. A group buy was organized, and from there it gained a reputation.
Searching for anecdotes across the internet returns a plethora of differing reports. If you’re interested, here’s an old Google doc with a large collection of experiences: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1jMJ84rKR8lWHVkkEnsZsWTBvonVVArjzw7WxOWDtSG0/edit (note that these anecdotes seem to be skewed more towards enthusiasm than skepticism, hence, take with a grain of salt)
Though, to summarize: NSI-189’s reputation is that of an ‘emotional enhanceincreaser’ with a tendency to skew towards a childlike mindset. Skimming through the reports, memory enhancement seems to come in second place. As for side-effects: some anxiety, hyper-emotionality, sometimes paresthesia (tingling in extremities), occasionally fatigue, and rarely hunger.
I’ve experimented with NSI-189 in four cycles now, with this fourth being ongoing and intended to last for longer. It’s my favorite nootropic, by far. That’s an opinion most wouldn’t agree with if they tried the stuff. As I’d imagine, most would find themselves not enjoying the increase in emotionality that brings with it stronger highs and stronger lows.
For me, who’s usually quite flat, it’s nice. I’d forgotten the feeling of vibes like Christmas, or summer, the emotional refreshing of a forest walk, the stillness in the middle of the night, the nostalgia of old memories. These things grow stronger and more vivid on NSI-189. I find myself pausing to admire the way a particular moment feels, how a scene strikes me, or what comes to mind when a familiar sense unburies something I’d forgotten about.
There’s also an odd effect of ‘connecting dots’. For instance, I remember on my first cycle, I watched through a show, and the first few notes of one of the songs from their soundtrack would make me think of a different song I knew every time. And I found this happened with phrases, visuals, smells, etcetera. During a cycle, I’ll say a lot more often, “this has a similar vibe to X.” It’s like I relate many more things together. More interconnection.
This leads to an improvement in jokes and wit. I’m more imaginative or creative. And that imagination bleeds into daily life. That, in combination with the enhancement of emotions, especially ‘vibes’, led me to tell another person that "life feels a little bit more like a studio Ghibli film on NSI."
And perhaps it’s because of this, or perhaps it’s something to do with the drug itself, but it ends up as a constant +1 or +2 to mood. Just a small lift all the time that helps me feel more human.
Speaking of being more human, I can’t recall a single time in my life, ever, where I’ve felt like I could cry so often. Surprisingly not out of sadness but happiness. Consistently on walks or when listening to music, a strong euphoria and sensation that the world is a beautiful place overwhelms me so much that I have to hold back tears in public.
So, this substance simply makes me feel more engaged with life—more alive. I’m more social, empathetic, emotional, and human. I intend to stay on NSI-189 for some months in a row, because I’d like to explore a deeper cycle and see what it has to offer. Anyways, that’s all.

Life comes in many flavours, and each day we face many questions. Some of these questions are judgements. And some of these judgements involve others in significant and meaningful ways. On the one hand, we seek to satisfy our personal needs -- self-determination -- while maintaining a sense of virtue -- compassion and justice. For many, there is too much injustice and suffering just to ignore. On the other hand, balancing the needs of us and them beckons honest appraisal of situations and people. But where and how should our finger be pointed?

Core psychology of blame

Among the very earliest struggles in a person's life is the process of ego development. In its simplest, ego is about separating good from bad, self from other. Various theories and models strive to explain the ego, or its development, from various perspectives. For the purposes here, I will be referencing object relations theory, which is part psychoanalytic psychology and deals with very early development, starting at birth. A few things will be slightly simplified to keep the text concise.
Within this theory, the first several months involve what is termed the paranoid-schizoid position. The "schizoid" aspect refers to a cognitive-emotional process known as splitting. This is where external objects, including people, are split into opposing mental parts -- to form part objects, or the "good object" version and the "bad object" version of each meaningful external object or phenomenon. For example, when the caregiver is gratifying to the infant, that part object is the "good caretaker"; and when not so gratifying, that caretaker is the "bad caretaker". At this stage of development and understanding, these two "part objects" are not seen as from the same source. Rather, each is a separate thing appearing and disappearing as circumstances and feelings change. The key word here is separation, which we will come back to later.
The other aspect of the paranoid-schizoid position -- the "paranoid" aspect -- refers to a curious side effect of splitting everything into "good" and "bad". Because each "part object" is either all good, or all bad, and because the appearance and disappearance of these mysterious entities is more-or-less out of control, the infant begins to resent and fear the bad objects that keep happening. That is, the baby hates the bad objects but loves the good objects. This is perhaps the very first stage of moral awareness -- raw, albeit mistaken judgement; love the good; hate the bad; pure, uninhibited attraction and repulsion. As a result, or side effect, of these negative or aggressive feelings toward "the bad", the baby may fear possible persecution, invoking paranoia. Strange though that may sound, there is a bit more to it.
Splitting, as between the mentioned "good" and "bad" objects, is only half the story. The other half of splitting is between "good self" and "bad self". That is, because in the paranoid-schizoid position, objects are temporary and impermanent, so too is the self temporary and fleeting. Moreover, the self is either in comfort, or in distress, giving either "good self" or "bad self" -- depending on circumstance. Since the "good self" appears with the "good object", and likewise the "bad self" with the "bad object", the child fears the appearance of the "bad object" even more. This is because its presence entails essentially collapse of the previous self-concept, as if to enter a realm of deserved persecution for being the "bad self" -- and hence the emergence of paranoia.
On an interesting aside, this manner of judging objects and selves as good or bad based solely on whether one is currently in comfort or pain is the essence of Stage 1 in Lawrence Kohlberg's stages of moral development. This is a theory on the progression of individuals throughout life in moral reasoning. Stage 1, termed obedience and punishment orientation, judges those in trouble or pain as inherently bad. In many cases, this view basically blames the victim. Further, this type of reasoning is essentially the basis for the "might makes right" mindset seen in some cases of antisocial personality disorder (ASPD). One thing to keep in mind is that we all start there, but not everyone stays there. In this way, having crude moral reasoning later in life is effectively a sign of delayed or regressed development, much like a disability -- ie. "morally disabled".

Completing the person

Eventually, the child will reach a point in development where objects become whole and persistent, able to have simultaneously negative and positive qualities. Objects or people may take on accounts, or balances, allowing for consideration of simple reciprocity, including guilt and reparation. Self and caregiver become distinct entities, where "good" self is no longer lost each time caregiver is absent or busy. Assuming successful progression, blame and judgement is no longer split dichotically between two extremes. Otherwise a new type of splitting is come, where objects and entities, though whole and persistent, are either idealised or devalued.
An important key trend exists between consecutive steps of ego development. This is the trend of expanding persistence and relatedness. In the part-object stage, objects appear and vanish -- some good, some bad. These raw appearances are neither persistent, nor related. In the whole-object stage, objects become persistent, although at first not really related. Because of this initial lack of relation, the secondary type of splitting -- idealisation and devaluation -- is still likely. Basically, since one person or object is fundamentally unrelated to another, including the self, there is "no harm" in seeing one as all good, and another as all bad. Without a stabilising relation, moral judgements can be whimsical yet extreme. A person or object may alternate between being embraced and discarded, depending on present feelings or arrangements. But what makes a stabilising relation?
In general, stabilising relations develop naturally through observation and reason. For example, a caregiver may through time be taken as an intrinsic part of one's need for support. Or a sibling may eventually be seen as fundamentally similar and related. But the building of these relations, or attachments, can be hindered by certain experiences or feelings. For instance, an unstable or unavailable caregiver may leave a child feeling resentment, shame, or guilt. These feelings may then get in the way of building an emotional bond. The resulting lack of security, mixed with possible shame or guilt for not being good enough, may lead to maladaptive and unstable boundaries and self-definition. Some common results are narcissism and borderline personality -- the former as an escape mechanism from feelings of inadequacy, and the latter as unstable border-lines between what is embraced, and what is rejected. These early childhood misgivings can then live on subconsciously, infiltrating the psyche and its future engagements.

Competition and judgement

While the capacity for blame and hate may emerge, as described above, from fundamental urges of attraction and repulsion -- mixed with innate capacity for making inference -- there is another powerful instinct at play. Complex social animals have a built-in game of gene-selection and mate-selection. This game relies on a simple heuristic, or objective -- form competitive hierarchies, and select those at the top. The evolutionary assumption is that competition filters out less desirable code. Without reflection, this pre-configured notion may be taken at face value, often in fact elevated -- whether spoken or kept silent -- to something of religious adherence. But is the argument sound?
In simple times, back in the tribe, individuals tended to grow up closely-knit and fairly uniformly. Regardless which parents one had, pretty much everyone had access to the same quality of food, healthcare, and education. Tools and other amenities could readily be made or obtained by any abled body, often with only modest effort. As a result, there was, compared to modern times, an extremely even playing field. Very little interfered with the above premise that those who achieved success in social hierarchy likely had something special inside. Sure, luck still played a part, but that part was not only far less significant than today, but also far more visible for those of simple tribes. In probably most cases, everybody knew when someone had encountered bad fortune, as individual stories were less hidden.
In the current age, however, personal merit is vastly more obscured and mangled by deceptive forces. The range of disparity in childhood resources and care, the long duration of schooling needed to be competitive, and the sheer price of admission into money-making pursuits, completely destroy any legitimacy the heuristic of selection by social hierarchy may previously have had. Luck may have played a part back then, but today the part played by the lottery of placement into a particular family, time, and place is riddled with inequity. On top of all that, the behaviours and exploits that set one person atop the next are lost from sight through the complex labyrinth of time, legalese, and the unfathomable size of modern society. Hence, the basis of soundness behind judging merit on personal outcome is no longer something that can be supported with any honesty. To praise or blame based on social status and wealth is to partake in folly.

Entity and arrangement defined

Entities are mental objects, and their social accounts, pertaining to people, groups, aggregates, and other moral agents. I say mental objects for two basic reasons. One, individuals and groups change through time. As the saying goes:

"A person never steps into the same river twice; for on the second occasion, one is neither the same person, nor is it the same river" (paraphrased) ~ Heraclitus of Ephesus.

Two, while we may posit that physical substance seems to exist out there, beyond the mind, we nevertheless must work within our mental model, or worldview, when considering those entities and other things of material or mental reality. Hence, entities and objects can be cognised, or considered, solely as mental objects. This phenomenon of the mental becomes even more apparent when we consider the nature of not only being, but identity, character, and personal story. None of these, from what I can tell, can rightly be said to exist outside the mind. Each has arbitrary, situation-specific, and continually shifting boundaries and connotations.
Arrangements, in contrast, are sets of objects; entities; their relative positions; their internal configurations; and their relations and interactions. Arrangements are hence the frameworks in place either materially or logically between and within entities and or objects. Common examples include law, culture, contract, education, and social hierarchy -- but also the physical placement of people and things.
Not surprisingly, the arrangements in place have substantial influence on the outcomes for individuals and society. The same person lowered into two different cultures and circumstances can be expected to have a different time. Education, ideas, values, struggles, and relationships may all be completely changed. The combinations of butterfly effect, disparity of opportunity, and idiosyncratic accident leave open the door for a wide variety of possibility.

Splitting and blaming the entity

Before talking about what to blame, or how to blame it, we might consider some phenomena which may influence one's ability to make sound judgement. As discussed previously, early development can play a big part in both the way one perceives and understands the world, and also the way one feels about, and hence reacts to, situations and challenges within the world. So let us look at some such phenomena.
Splitting, in the post-infancy sense, is the viewing of mental objects -- including and especially people -- as either idealised all good, or devalued all bad. The primary hypothesis goes something along the lines that a child who felt insufficiently loved or attended during infancy and early childhood may develop an internalised sense of unworthiness -- perhaps shame or guilt. In simple terms, the child may internalise a judgement of "not good enough". Since early, particularly pre-linguistic experiences tend to be deeply-seated and hard-conditioned, the person later in life may not only have little if any recall of such experience, but likely has little ability to reflect or challenge the resulting feelings or cognitive distortions. Basically, the only remnant clearly visible may be the feelings and intuitions themselves -- sense of shame, guilt, and never being good enough. However, as with other inescapable negative feelings, the child or later person is prone to forming habits of escape. Most notably here, the person may partake in defence mechanisms, or unconscious patterns of perception and thinking that seek to turn off or escape uncomfortable or stressful cognitions.
Projection is among the most used defence mechanisms. It involves taking an unwanted feeling or judgement, and throwing it upon someone or something else. The idea is to distance oneself from such negative connotations. In the case of internalised shame or guilt of being "not good enough" during childhood, the person is likely to begin casting this judgement upon others. Unreasonable or unattainable standards may be adopted. The world itself may be viewed as inherently broken or untenable. In the case of splitting specifically, black-or-white, all-or-none thinking may be employed to polarise objects or people -- including oneself -- into all good or all bad -- idealisation or devaluation. This type of projection sorts others into something of angels and demons. Furthermore, as in borderline personality disorder, these dichotic judgements may switch regularly depending on current affairs. The key thing to remember here is that projection is done to escape unfaceable feelings or judgements about oneself. Use of this defence mechanism may shift blame from self to another, often in a way that is difficult or impossible for the user to see.
More broadly, splitting belongs to a class of phenomena known as cognitive distortions. In addition to all-or-none thinking, cognitive distortions include overgeneralising, disqualifying the positive, jumping to conclusions, exaggeration, perfectionism, personalisation, always being right, and labelling of others. Obviously these all have significant implications for how one judges others, and indeed how one places blame. For the discussion here, let us talk about one more of these.
Personalisation is when a person takes the blame personally, regardless what external factors may be at play. This style of attribution is inherently self-deprecatory. Alternatively, blame may be placed entirely on another person or group. The distortion here is not that blame is occurring, but that the object is always a conventional moral agent, such as a human or AI. Essentially, an individual with this style of attribution may have an irrational tendency to place blame on agents, rather than circumstances. The trick is understanding why this happens.
As it turns out, the psychology behind placing blame disproportionately on people and other agents, rather than arrangements, is driven by the instinct of social hierarchy. Like brought up earlier, people have a tendency to compare and compete, judging one another into hierarchies of better and worse -- more or less worthy. The more insecure a person feels, or the more internalised shame or sense of inadequacy one has, the more the person may be compelled to cast blame on others. Put simply, insecurity activates the instinct of social hierarchy.
There are some noteworthy side effects to the habit of blaming the agent. One is scapegoating, or the projection of a group's fears and insecurities onto an external object. In scapegoating, the object chosen is often little, if at all, related to the underlying problem or dysfunction. Rather, the group seeks to unload its insecurity onto an unlucky target. This behaviour is much like that done in narcissistic personality disorder (NPD). One might say that groups too, not just people, can have NPD. One common target of scapegoating is minorities, of pretty much any type, who are often blamed for internal inadequacies of the majority regime. Another side effect of blaming the agent is kicking the dog, or chain reactions of blame shifting where each rung of the social hierarchy blames the next rung, all the way to the dog. Similar to scapegoating, kicking the dog picks a target generally unable to defend itself. This style of attribution, moreover, is contagious within organisations, hindering legitimate consideration of how the true underlying issues can best be resolved.

False object of blame

A curious distortion of interest is blindly taking the mental as fact. In the extreme, there is a phenomenon known as psychic equivalence. This is common in children, where the imagined monster under the bed is believed surely to exist. The line between mental and external is still thin. While most older individuals are beyond such explicit equivalence, we nevertheless have no other option for understanding reality than what our mind beholds. Whether for positive or negative, when we see or imagine someone, we are never seeing the real person. What we witness is our mental model, or mental object, of the other. The same goes for their view of us. When they behold us, they are really beholding someone else -- a construct of their imagination. Likewise, when we judge or blame another, we are really blaming someone else -- a monster of our own creation. Sometimes it can help to remember that in our mental, we are all mental.

Another defence mechanism

Aside from cognitive distortions, another key issue stands in the way of finding truth. In order to resolve deeply-seated emotional baggage, that baggage has to be opened. Yet doing so can be both painful and confusing. The mind has another trick up its sleeve to avoid facing the rain -- intellectualisation. Many have heard of rationalisation, or the making up of good-sounding stories to explain otherwise irrational or emotion-based actions and choices. Intellectualisation is related, but distinct. Instead of making up stories to seem more rational, intellectualisation makes up complex frameworks and red herrings to distract oneself and others from getting too close to the underlying feeling. Just like for splitting, the usual root cause is believed to be insecure attachment during infancy and early childhood. The result, especially later in life, is the excessive overreliance on logic and complex frameworks to avoid looking inside toward emotion. Reason becomes a comfortable hideout from hideous feeling. This disposition prevents proper reflection, making it hard or impossible to stop idealising and devaluing others. After all, one cannot stop spilling pain until one finds the source of that pain.

Relation to free will

The notion of free will comes in many definitions. These can get technical. But one fairly common theme is what they seek to support -- often some type of personal, or entity-centric, responsibility or blame. Regardless whether logically sound, the pursuit is in many cases a rationalisation of the instinctual and emotional urges of social hierarchy and ego defence. Essentially, many debates about free will are really struggles, or disagreements, on the nature of blame, and to where it should aim. In general, the belief in free will -- regardless the definition chosen -- is argued in support of some type of entity attribution. Likewise, the disbelief in free will is usually argued in support of system attribution, or blaming the way society or culture is structured. A person may choose a definition specifically to assert the desired end -- a psychological phenomenon called motivated reasoning. This text will avoid choosing a definition, as the underlying principles of behaviour are more important.
A less known paradox exists within the bounds of psychological agency. As is regularly discussed in certain circles of spirituality, there exists a spectrum of self-boundary between immediate, local, relative and timeless, non-local, absolute. This mental state of contraction or expansion depends in part on the grasping or release of fear and attachment. For those unfamiliar, the felt sense of personal agency -- sometimes called doership -- and one's associated beliefs about personal causation, are prone to change, or shift, depending on the present level of anxiety -- especially social and existential anxiety. There are two key aspects related to the sense of being in control.
The first aspect of interest is that of causal scope, or how far we trace the causes and influences behind any given event or decision. For example, as I type this, among the most immediate, or smallest causal scopes, is that of my finger pressing a key. Moving toward greater scope, we may consider that the arm is moving the finger. Further, of course, one might say the body is doing the typing. But the scope need not end there. We can trace back through the causal chains, finding all manner of influence. After all, why do I care about this? What social factors and life experiences influenced this cause? The more immediate the causal scope, the longer and more encumbered the causal chains. Hence, even though when afraid we may focus on the more immediate, hence feeling more in direct control, the more our felt boundaries of self and causality contract, the more short-sighted, distracted, and materially-bound we are. The paradox is in the inverted pyramid of influence atop our actions.
The second aspect relates to impulse and desire versus self-control and composure. Human desire may be divided broadly into basic animal instinct and social image. In Freudian terms, these would be id and ego. The former is often viewed as impulsive or animalistic; the latter as controlled and composed. A meaningful portion of pro-free will arguments seems to equate or compare the composure and planning of socially-conscious actions and choices as representative of the essence of "free will". That is, more "controlled" or deliberate actions were exercising greater free will than their more impulsive or animalistic counterparts. But is this assessment sensible?
On the one hand, being more socially aware likely helps to prevent being manipulated or impeded by others. Most would probably agree thus far. But on the other hand, the more we care about fitting in, or otherwise playing the game of social hierarchy, the more we submit ourselves to social norms and other hive behaviours. Essentially, the more we care about image, the more we let society control us. Despite this emotional tether, those with the biggest egos often proclaim the greatest sense of self-determination. Certainly one could argue that being on top of the hierarchy usually entails greater access to social amenities, some of which offering greater freedom. But there may be some right reservations here. Firstly, the enhanced freedom of high status often comes with enhanced fitment and scrutiny into the externally-defined social mould. This is not always the case, as for example with dictators. But secondly, the vast majority of those playing the ego game are neither in positions of status and power, nor emotionally secure enough to go their own way toward personal happiness. Perhaps most prominently, for most social animals, the hive provides only minimal amenity, and maximal loss of autonomy. Yet the internalised ego and self-concept obscure this reality by making cultural, emotional artifacts of socialisation -- especially during childhood -- appear as self-chosen. The person is thus a product of upbringing, but because these aspects of conditioning are so deep and unconscious, their effects are simply taken for granted as part of who one is. Hence, a second paradox exists in that what may appear as evidence for free will -- ego and composure -- is in fact the very thing enacting the long-seated will of the hive.
On a different note of the free will debate, there seems to be a phenomenon somewhat like "free will of the gaps", where any unknown of psychology or physics is received wholeheartedly as evidence for freedom. While no doubt one may never really know, particularly when stuck in the subjective mind-box, one might consider the effect of splitting, or black-and-white thinking. This habit may, without enough reflection, colour one's assessment of personal agency as either wholly existing, or wholly absent. This is not to say undue burden and other explicit interference is unregarded, but more that even the mere existence of randomness or unpredictability may be taken as sufficient reason to ward off the behavioural influences and effects known by modern psychology. Remember that splitting is driven by egoic insecurity, and that ego has vested interest in building the narrative which best places oneself in the social hierarchy of the mind. Impulsive or controlled, what we choose is there to satisfy instinct, whether animalistic, or socially-focused.

Blaming the arrangement

On the other side of inferred causation -- after instinct -- we have experience, conditioning, and circumstance. Experience and conditioning are carry-overs from past arrangement while circumstance reflects the present arrangement. For simplicity, I will place all three simply under arrangement. To borrow from earlier:

Arrangements ... are sets of objects; entities; their relative positions; their internal configurations; and their relations and interactions. Arrangements are hence the frameworks in place either materially or logically between and within entities and or objects. Common examples include law, culture, contract, education, and social hierarchy -- but also the physical placement of people and things.

With this definition in mind, what then does it mean to blame the arrangement, and what benefit does so doing provide?
First, let us consider the standard Western approach. When we blame the entity, we are accomplishing three fundamental ends:

1. declaring a point of causal significance;
2. downgrading social status;
3. offloading correction;

On the first point, blaming the entity cuts off past influences, including deficiencies and inequalities in access to essential resources like health, respect, education, and experience. One might wonder why respect is included here. But remember the types of issue that arise from internalised shame, guilt, and feelings of inadequacy. These live on subconsciously, causing non-obvious impairments in judgement and performance. Plus they harm health and performance through elevated stress hormones.
On the second point, blaming the entity lowers its public appraisal, thus cutting off access to the types of resources just mentioned.
On the third point, blaming the entity places the burden of correction squarely on the already broken component. For simple matters like enforcing social norms or decency, this type of blame is probably effective in most cases. But when we start looking at bigger matters, like health, education, intelligence, self-restraint, and general performance, the idea of forcing the suboptimal party to fix itself starts to break down. All these matters are heavily influenced by external circumstance through time. So telling the person to fix the resulting dysfunction is like telling them to rewrite their past environment, including their upbringing. Moreover, those from broken pasts are much more often the least supplied -- in both resource and knowhow -- to make things better.
And this brings us to blaming the arrangement. If instead of burdening and downgrading the unfortunate entity, we recognise the conditions of success and failure, we can apply legitimate effort toward enacting a better future. Obviously society as a whole is far better equipped to improve not only the outcome of tomorrow, but the conditions of today. Some of us, by chance, receive the winning hand. This may be in genetics, family configuration, area of schooling, or maybe just missing detrimental accidents and injuries. What sense does it make to hoard the helpings of fate, thus preventing the wealth of shared development and growth? In a world literally brimming with technological advancement, is it really better for the majority to live polarised as minority winners and majority losers?

Arguments

One might argue that blame and praise are natural and effective tools for motivation and modification of behaviour. Natural though they may be, these tools are premised on the limited knowledge and resources of tribal past. Like using a hammer to insert a screw, messy tools ought to be reserved for desperate times only. Modern medicine, psychology, and sociology offer a new toolbox, today readily available, for resolving problems with minimal collateral damage. True, not everyone has fair access to these modern amenities, and that is exactly why we need to stop blaming the victim. The technology is here. We simply need to open the gates.
Another common argument is that absent of pointing fingers, people would lose motivation, or stop caring. There may be some truth here. If we remove the whip from their backs, the slaves may begin to relax. But is that really a bad thing? Per-capita material output is already worlds higher due to automation and tooling. But artificial scarcity is brought in to "keep up the morale". This scarcity is largely in the form of wealth and income inequality, which ensure the true producers of wealth -- the workers -- are kept chasing their imagined carrot. The effect, in practice, is burnout and learned helplessness. The secondary effect is thus decreased performance, which is then "solved" with ever greater artificial scarcity, perpetuating the cycle of lies and suffering. Instead of entertaining a system of slavery with extra steps, why not more equally distribute the tools and technology of efficiency and success?
A darker argument that occasionally gets said out loud is that excessive competition and suffering help to weed out the less desirable traits. Often, it is proclaimed, nature wanted it that way. Ignoring the obvious lack of compassion, is this argument sound? The simple answer is no. The longer answer is not even a little. There are two main reasons. Firstly, the dirty game of filtering by social hierarchy was not only sloppy for its original environment of small tribes, but is completely unfit for modern, complex, abstract society. As explained previously, the legitimacy of individual merit is no longer known by fellow tribespeople. Wealth generation and extraction are too far removed and abstracted for proper outside judgement. And complex systems of power and propaganda further prevent equitable distribution of the fruits of labour. Secondly, the amount of time needed for such mechanisms of trait filtering to make an appreciable difference are substantially longer than the time from now before technology will allow superior selection of traits. There will be no need to compete in the sloppy ways of the past; nor any need to compete at all. The problem of selection is soon resolved. AI is entering the exponential phase. Petty and primitive worry about traits is irrelevant, for multiple reasons. If anything, those unable to understand this are unfit to be making policy decisions.
An argument which comes up enough to mention is that without blaming the entity, criminals would have free reign, able to do whatever they wanted without repercussions. This argument is missing something quite substantial about what is entailed by blaming the arrangement. Simply, if a certain person is believed to lack the self-control for certain situations or positions, that person will be kept away from those circumstances. A common example is driver's licensing, where one must earn the privilege by proving competence. And similarly to that, if someone is blatantly acting out and causing trouble, obviously they would be put somewhere safer. The key is rearranging circumstances as needed for best outcome while maintaining reasonable maximum personal autonomy -- without unnecessary harm, restraint, or loss of dignity. Yes, this is more involved in terms of resources and labour, but that is what technology is for. Naturally people prefer to have more privilege, and that alone is motivation enough to care.
And before someone accuses this approach of being or supporting a social credit system, we must make clear the difference. In social credit systems, blame is placed on the individual ! Sure, the factors used may involve family and acquaintance, but the burden of correction still goes to the person or small group. This is completely different from what is being proposed here.
A final argument relates to expense. On the surface -- especially from within the perspective of a system based on artificial scarcity and excessive wealth inequality -- the idea of having surplus means available for long-term planning may seem unfathomable. People's reluctance in this regard can be understood. But as mentioned above, we are presently, for presumably the first time in our recorded history, entering the age of exponential growth toward advanced artificial intelligence. Things are moving fast already, and both hardware and software are showing no slowing. If computational capacity continues to double regularly like it has for a long time now, we are probably looking at readily accessible post-human intelligence within five to ten years. Short of disaster or tyrannical interference, existing worries about labour and intellect shortage should soon evaporate. Yes, this time things are different. There is no known precedent.

Summary

Our natural instinct may tell us to blame the person. And Western culture may polarise this tendency to the extreme. But with a little understanding of why we feel the need to downsize others, we may be able to mend the splitting within us. Society may be designed around a game of hierarchy, but one need not partake. By knowing the factors that promote or inhibit wellbeing, and by using the knowledge and tools of modern, we can cast off the shallow assumptions behind us, to build something worth keeping. The first step is looking inside, to see the feeling that fears connection. Then we may look outside, to see that most are facing similar struggle. Situations are what make or break the person. If one should blame, blame the arrangement. The past may not be one for changing, but greater compassion today can find greater love tomorrow.