Lens of Emotions
Chocolate cake; loaded with chocolate flavor, moist, tender and the perfect amount of sweetness layered with a creamy icing that doesn’t overpower the rest of the desert. You decide to cut into it and you take a bite realizing it’s not all cracked up to what it’s supposed to be. Cake and humans are the same, everyone has a choice they are in control of making.
Souls, the principle of being subjected to moral aspects of happiness and misery. We cross paths with a different soul everyday, some are beautiful, evil, and some are painted to seem more like one than the other. Yet, our souls can be different from our consciousness. Individuals all have a desired self referring to how one wants to be viewed by a group of people leading to group cohesiveness. Group cohesiveness complies with control, priming us for outlooks. Ingroups give individuals a sense of self and proximity.
The group we chose becomes our environment advancing to influence. When choosing the wrong groups we are put into a stressful situation. This gives an option, do you stick in the wrong environment and continue to feel stressed out and not yourself or do you leave, starting over right back at square one.
Point of my argument:
Choosing things that go against our souls to feed our delusions leads to stress and feeling scrambled. Without friends we feel lonely leading us to sadness and stress that we wont find the correct people to spend time with.
Counterintuitive Fall 2024 
I don’t know what to do with this, StoneHarbor.
It doesn’t resemble research paper in any way.
—This is a very bizarre analogy.
—Cakes have no choice in how they’re made.
—Granted, people are not always what they seem; and cakes are often not as delicious as they appear; but, that’s not what you claim to be the similarity.
—You don’t say, “For people, as for chocolate cakes, appearances can be deceiving.” That would at least be a valid analogy.
—You say, instead, “Cakes, like people, make bad choices.”
—I cut you some slack on the Definition draft because you described it as stuff splatted on paper. But this Rewrite should be less splatted. I’m afraid you’re still splatting.
—This is not a sentence and makes no clear claim.
—Souls are a principle?
—Or are souls subjected to moral aspects? What does that mean?
—I get that your THEME is hypocrisy, or something like it.
—But even that isn’t quite clear.
—Would you object to a soul that appeared to be evil but was in fact beautiful?
—This sentence leaves both options open.
—”are painted” is a deliberate act. So, the hypocrisy is not accidental? Souls CHOOSE to be misunderstood? Both types?
—I’m trying very hard here, but that statement SEEMS to give the soul a pass against the charge of hypocrisy. If I’m NOT CONSCIOUS that I appear other than I am, I’m not being hypocritical.
—I’ve seen this before, in your draft.
—You want to claim, CLEARLY AND DIRECTLY, that people ACT KIND AND COMPASSIONATE or at least COMPLIANT and AGREEABLE (or ,maybe, depending on who they’re trying to get along with, they want to appear HATEFUL and DISMISSIVE), not out of genuine expression of their personalities but merely to GET ALONG.
—Could you please just say that and then do some research on “BUILDING CONSENSUS” or “TRANSACTIONAL COMPROMISE” and cite some sources that provide support for your theory? It’s not a radical point of view.
—People shield themselves from pushback to avoid conflict and build rapport.
—You can call it hypocrisy, or you can call it building community.
—But you have to call it something. This is a Definition/Categorical argument.
—Good, or closer to good.
—Cohesiveness REQUIRES compromise, which FEELS LIKE control.
—Peer pressure, if that’s what you’re talking about, compels individuals to SELF-CENSOR or CONFORM or APPEAR TO COHERE.
—That’s a big leap.
—We don’t get to choose our groups. Our groups choose us. The ones that reject us drive us to the ones that will accept us. And we conform to the norms of those groups in proportion to the degree we NEED acceptance. If they only marginally accept us because our apparent loyalty (or compliance) (or conformity) is LESS THAN TOTAL, we can either accept that partial acceptance, or we can try even harder to conform. But the groups, not we, decide whether we belong.
—Even if we completely subordinate our actual personalities to the group’s demands, they can still reject us. Groups scorn wannabes all the time. Right?
—Wrong in what way?
—Groups that don’t align with our actual personalities?
—We might very well WANT to belong to a group of intellectual physicists but simply NOT HAVE the intelligence or talent to be accepted. Is that “the wrong group” for us? Just an example. But you can see, I hope, how widely your vague claim can be interpreted.
—In the case I suggested above, wanting to be included in the group would have nothing to do with my personality . . . everything to do with my capabilities. I might stress about being excluded, but I wouldn’t have to choose to leave the group. It might never have accepted me regardless of my desires.
—This at least makes it clear that you’re trying to single out individuals who try to DENY THEIR OWN ESSENCE to conform with a group that is INCOMPATIBLE with their MORAL PRINCIPLES . . . ? Is that too strong a statement? Your talk of SOULS leads me to this conclusion.
—I hear that.
—At the heart of it, I get the feeling that you want to give voice to the Raspberry Tarts that want to pass themselves off as Chocolate Cakes, StoneHarbor, out of loneliness. They do damage to their own psyches by living a lie.
Does that about cover it?
But just how bad is the hypocrisy? Do they pretend to love Legend of Zelda to fit in? Or do they pretend to support the Westboro Baptist Church’s “Got Hates Fags” agenda to find community?
You really need to bear down and make some specific decisions about this. And fast.
Provisionally graded. Revisions are always encouraged (in fact, required for short arguments in your Portfolio), and Regrades are always possible following significant improvements.