Hypothetical Scenarios
Theoretical Questions and Answers
(we don't want to offend anyone else do we?)

Exercising My Right to Think, Hypothesize and Theorize which the (as yet) Non Psychiatrized  'Others' Now Take for Granted

I have stated that I get treated 'as if' my life, as defined by third parties, were reality. Let's try doing just the opposite here and treat the reality I 'claim' to experience 'as if' it were true as defined by me...Just for fun.

Two Sides of the Same Experience

By Patricia Lefave

(Not Two DIFFERENT Experiences)


There she is. (the others turn to look)

Sometimes she speaks to people and sometimes she doesn't.


Thinks to Self: (as not allowed to confront anyone)

There is the duplicitous wonder behind the service desk again. Sometimes she talks about me in the third person like I am not really here. Sometimes she doesn't. I wonder is she thinks I can see her and hear her from five feet away THIS time or is this is one of the times she thinks she is "hidden."

Never, of course, does the duplicitous actress behind the service desk make the connection between how SHE behaves and how the one she is observing and assessing reacts, for she would have to become self aware to see that ans Splitters don't do that because Reality Splitters can never be blamed for anything they say or do by those to whom they say it and do it.

Real Understanding and facing reality is not the goal. Avoiding it is the goal.

An Exercise in Self Awareness

by Patricia Lefave

Those of you who consider yourselves to be "social" types try this one.

For two days pay strict attention to the conversations you have with those with whom you socialize. How much of what you talk about is actually about third parties, who are not there, and about whom you tell 'stories' which are focused on assessing and evaluating THEIR personality and character flaws as perceived by you?

Do you look for, or expect, support and validation in your third party judgements from those with whom you are socializing?

Do you mock and ridicule the third parties together?

Do you excuse or justify it?

Does this give you a feeling of bonding?

Do you talk TO those third parties the same way you talk ABOUT them?

Are you consistent in your opinions and actions?

Do you believe that the third parties you talk about don't really KNOW you do this?

Do you ever think that the third parties you talk ABOUT don't socialize with you and those like you because they actually KNOW exactly what you do?

REAL socializing or getting along is mutually respectful, even if you disagree with the other's point of view on things. It is an I-thou relationship.

If most of your socializing is focused on topics and events that start with "he/she" or "they", then you aren't really socializing. You're gossiping.

Gossiping, no matter how well you convince yourself is not really known by those you gossip about, solves nothing even as it harms both self and others.

Here is a little self directed test to see where you stand on this issue.

Spend the next 48 hours preventing yourself from starting or engaging in any conversations using the words, he, she, or they as part of the conversation.

You can talk all you like about ideas, apart from personalities, about principles for living, about things or events, provided you do not use third person discussions about "him, her or them." You can also talk personally though about your own experiences, but using only the "I" word and/or the directly related "you" word. The other person also has the same right as you to do the same thing.

Take note of how often your conversation must be stopped or rerouted. Pay very close attention to this as it will start to give you an indicator of how much time you spend externalizing, avoiding introspection, and using gossiping as the dysfunctional substitute for "socializing."


Perception/Reaction/Outcome  Problem 1

Here is one of those hypothetical realities about which I am proposing we use as a means of opening ourselves up to possibilities. (I like to use the game boy's jargon now to make my points...now ain't this 'fun'?)

Let's keep this first one short so we can all focus on it and come up with some possible (or probable) outcomes. based on what may, or may not, be reality as we all understand it.

Just suppose that all the people I told you about being involved in this were, in fact, really involved in this going all the way back to 93. Imagine that what I told you all about the nurse 'setting me up' for an attack by a group of his co-workers  was in fact TRUE, (come on...humour me) and that those people you decided were really just a manifestation of my paranoid delusional mental illness, were those same people, who got caught psychologically abusing a worker. So they then decided to conceal the truth about what they did to take care of their own interests. Suppose the hospital administration then told them they were not to admit to anything. 

In theory now, do you think that group of people would be quite happy to go along with that instruction?

Do you think they would tend to go along with what the original protagonist had done because of their “participation” in it?

Do you think they would have any sense of guilt at all, or would they perhaps look for ways to blame their victim for it?

Is blaming the victim for being a victim a fairly common phenomenon?

Do you think that may have something to do with such participants wanting to delude themselves that such things could not happen to THEM because they won't CHOOSE to be a victim?

Does that idea give them a false sense of security?

Does it also help them to excuse themselves in what they do when they help to victimize someone by handing the responsibility for their thinking and behaviour,  to their victim?

Do you suppose that is what that line in the psychiatric nurse's so called 'training' (in my own hypothetical case) means when it states“what you do with problems is hand them to someone else?

Do you think they notice that when they do that, they simultaneously support and enable the aggressor who can then 'hide' in plain sight within the group?

Now if such a hospital administration were to focus on politics and appearances as their first priority, would that end up eventually affecting them negatively as a direct result of such a focus? Could they be blindsided about what was to come?

What if they pulled in a whole lot more people to actually observe the targeted victim? Could that end up being a real problem for them in the end, if all those people were, in fact, the 'strangers' the targeted victim 'claimed' were talking about her, right in front of her, like she was not there?

Would such an administration regret that they had not listened to the victim when she had come to them offering them resolution, with discretion, long before this all went public?

Even if no one took any legal action at all against the aggressor who started it all, would everyone else believe that their own reputations were not harmed by their failure to deal with the problem with all the ethics and integrity they CLAIM is what they are all about?

Is it even possible to keep such an event 'secret' when all these people are involved in it even if you continued indefinitely to tell the victim there were no 'people' in it and that nothing had happened in reality at all?

Do you think that the destruction of the victim’s concrete life as a result would matter to them at all? Or would the victim be considered to be expendable?

Is it possible that the people in control of everyone and everything (or who want to be anyway) could end up destroying their own reputations BECAUSE of the desire to control everything and everyone?

It sounds almost like self destructive, self fulfilling, prophecy doesn't it? Or is that just me reading too much into things again?

I am speaking hypothetically of course but, is it not a good mental exercise for all of us to theorize about possible ultimate outcomes, preferably before they get so bad that any salvaging of the reputations of those involved becomes pretty much impossible?