IPOC

An acronym I started using to cut down on the profanity in my autobiography (it was either the acronym or this). It stands for:

insert pejorative of choice

(incidentally, see also lalochezia - here, here, and here)

Spoons of courage

See https://gnwmythr.blogspot.com/2020/05/post-no-1552-spoons-of-courage.html 

FBU - flummoxed by (the) unfamiliar

PS - see also here, on fear of complexity, which is also a major driver in problem thinking/reactions.

PPS - I have recently come across the concept of "the left brain interpreter" in Grant Cameron's book "Contact Modalities". This is a possibly plausible explanation for the mental rigidity of both bigots and pseudo-sceptics - for more on that, see here, here, here, here, and here.

PPPS - see also: 

• http://www.victorzammit.com/book/4thedition/chapter27.html; 
• "The Conscious Universe: The Scientific Truth of Psychic Phenomena", by Dean  I.  Radin.

PPPPS - another example of this is the anger some people show when they discover that some people can drink coffee and then go to sleep straight away. A friend with a degree in genetics told me there is a specific gene which means some people are not affected by caffeine, but are at an elevated risk of cancer if they are carnist and eat overcooked meat. Another possible explanation is the dopamine hit on ADHD brains that enables sleep - as jokingly portrayed at https://www.youtube.com/shorts/cXqCdWoiYk0. The "explanation" of the ridiculous over-reaction is discussed below.

There’s a phrase which sums up a lot of the problem behaviour (especially uncomprehending bewilderment) I’ve experienced from others: flummoxed by the unfamiliar, or FBU for short.

When people have found, for instance, a set of values, a religion, or a worldview that is different to theirs, rather than saying “Oh that’s interesting”, or “that’s different to mine”, and then looking at the matter, they react blindly, bitterly and with vitriol - more along the lines of “how dare you differ”, or “your difference threatens and undermines me, my existence and the fabric of my reality”.

Especially if its about supporting a different footy team.

(Just kidding, on that last one, in case anyone needs it pointed out.)

People who get set on what is comfortable for them - especially preconceived notions about sexuality, gender, religion, how to achieve something, notions that families (or companies) are always good and one should give them unquestioning loyalty, etc - find anything that is different to the concept that they have enshrined in their heart (it is an emotional reaction - thinking has nothing to do with it) a threat to their personal reality: when that happens, how they react is like any stress situation - fight, flight, or network and nurture.

• Fight - an angry, unthinking, emotional attack on the source of their discomfort. If they are particularly disconnected from their emotions they may make accusations of the person they blame for their discomfort being emotional or irrational - so yes, this reaction plagues a lot of reactions in patriarchal professions (like engineering) and societies (which is many cultures in this world);

• Flight - denial, and attempts to warn other from having anything to do with the view they find uncomfortable. The small or weak minded often want others to support or reinforce their views - which is why organisations (cults, religions, particular political/economic ways of thinking, etc) with group minds (also called egregores) aren’t only fed by the egregore, which leads us to  . . .  

• Network - where the discomforted person seeks to build a group or network (such as old boys clubs, private schools, irrelevant admission criteria in any organisation, groups against LGBTIQ+ people [or some thereof], etc) against the idea they find discomforting; and

• Nurture - where the discomforted person seeks solace from others who also cling to the idea that is threatened (such as friends, families [especially if the family has a powerful group mind [“egregore”], priests of that religion, etc).

Now, the thing about this, is that sometimes the concept that is threatening is genuinely bad - for example, someone may advocate for pederasty, violence or violent overthrow, militarism, neoliberalism, etc.

In those cases, being FBU is actually a good thing, as can be the types of reactions I outlined above. 

A little more from my forthcoming autobiography:

Basically, this refers to someone who is so out-of-sorts by something that they’re not used to, that they are incapable of thinking about anything other than the fact that “this” is outside their experience - not their comfort zone, their life experience / world view. The mind completely freezes up in the light of the car coming from out of the brick wall they have built around their concept of reality.

Maybe a better analogy is that they have  brain freeze as the rest of the iceberg that is reality emerges from below the surface.

No - here’s a better example yet: in the film “Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl”, Captain Jack Sparrow is utterly FBU when Elizabeth Swann burns the rum to make a smoke signal after they’ve been marooned.

If his mind wasn’t experiencing a brain freeze from experiencing something completely outside his conception of reality (Captain Jack would probably accept walking on water more easily than destroying rum), he could have talked rationally about the pros and cons of creating smoke signals and so forth - all of which the film deals with shortly thereafter.