Tongue Splitting

[AMFV]

Question: Can you do this and still be considered mentally competent? In all my training, mutilating a functioning part of your body is one of the biggest red flags for mental illness.

A tattoo is a mutilation of a functional body part. So are earrings, nose rings, any brands. The problem is that you're conflating something that is a "red flag" with being "proof positive" which it is not. A mentally deranged person might be more likely to do something like this. But not all people who do are going to be mentally deranged, that's why it's a red flag, not a case closed, because you need more evidence before jumping to conclusions in that regard.

I mean, 3-5 times a week I go and tear my muscles deliberately for hours. Sometimes until I'm too sore to move properly and I can lose up to 50% of my ROM. But I don't think I'm mentally ill.

The gray area between eccentric and crazy has always been difficult to define; which is one reason mental illness in teens often goes untreated until it's severe.

I think it's more that teens behave pretty erratically anyways because of their hormones, not because of any kind of eccentricity. Because their mental state is changing it can be very difficult to pin down abnormal behavior. Also most teens are away from their parents for the first time for the longest time, which means that it's now the job of random adults to have the attention to notice if they're having problems and that isn't going to be something that they're going to be sufficiently motivated to do.

However, most of society knows appropriate and inappropriate when we see it. A teen may not do alot of damage when they cut themselves, but the fact that they're doing it at all tells you there is a real problem.

A teenager isn't typically deemed to be mentally competent with regards to any kind of body alteration though. Even earrings typically require parental consent. So introducing teenagers isn't very useful since that whole thing changes the dynamic since they are not mentally competent by default.

[2D8HP]

The gray area between eccentric and crazy has always been difficult to define...

I always thought that distinction was clear:

An "eccentric" is someone with enough power or wealth that if you flatter them they can benefit you, while "crazy" is someone begging from you.

Seems simple enough, what's the "grey area"?

[Lvl 2 Expert]

I always thought that distinction was clear:

An "eccentric" is someone with enough power or wealth that if you flatter them they can benefit you, while "crazy" is someone begging from you.

Seems simple enough, what's the "grey area"?

People who don't have a lot of money, but might be willing to spend what they have on a whim.

[snowblizz]

I always thought that distinction was clear:

An "eccentric" is someone with enough power or wealth that if you flatter them they can benefit you, while "crazy" is someone begging from you.

Seems simple enough, what's the "grey area"?

This guy gets it.

People who don't have a lot of money, but might be willing to spend what they have on a whim.

Those are crazy. See it's easy.

[Lvl 2 Expert]

Those are crazy. See it's easy.

Your loss, their magic beans, my cruise.

[halfeye]

I always thought that distinction was clear:

An "eccentric" is someone with enough power or wealth that if you flatter them they can benefit you, while "crazy" is someone begging from you.

Seems simple enough, what's the "grey area"?

That's a joke though, and significant mental illness isn't.

[Lord Joeltion]

I think there are bigger red flags for mental stability than body mutilation. Eating disorders, to name one. The thing with fooling around with your body is that you don't get as many tries with it. When you screw it, you usually screw it once and for good, like Eyeball Girl (I won't sleep well tonight, thank you). Either you do it good (slowly fill yourself with tattoos/piercings all on sensible places) or you slip beyond any possible help (people who literally become more humanoid than human). Self-destructiveness tends to be a lot more subtle than what people into body mods usually do.

From what I gathered in my life, most people into that kind of thing do it to signal something. Cultural identity, status, fashion, show the world how they see themselves, etc. For instance, my GF did her piercing both because of fashion and (more importantly) because she was trying to prove herself a point. Doesn't matter which point really, some people just like daring themselves and taking calculated risks (or what they believe are "calculated"). Some people like to go beyond, because "nobody else" does. I can totally picture Tongue Splitting Person feeling smug about their bravery/wild life/freewill.

In my case, I did it for completely different reasons than the common ones. My tattoo isn't for show. It's just there for me. It's my Wilson in my castaway trip through time and space

[Fyraltari]

I question the concept of fully tattooing your face from a "You realize you're stuck with that" point of view

French revolutionnary turned king of Sweden and Norway, Karl XIV Johan Bernadotte alledgedly refused to take off his shirt when having sex and, contrary to royal etiquette, took all his baths alone.

The legends say that when he died, the undertakers discovered a tatoo on his chest that explained that behaviour. It read:

Spoiler

Show

Death to Kings!

[Scarlet Knight]

I always thought that distinction was clear:

An "eccentric" is someone with enough power or wealth that if you flatter them they can benefit you, while "crazy" is someone begging from you.

Seems simple enough, what's the "grey area"?

Drat! I always forget to add variables! *scribbles exceptions to include: the wealthy, moody artists, colorful athletes, etc...*

A tattoo is a mutilation of a functional body part. So are earrings, nose rings, any brands. The problem is that you're conflating something that is a "red flag" with being "proof positive" which it is not. A mentally deranged person might be more likely to do something like this. But not all people who do are going to be mentally deranged, that's why it's a red flag, not a case closed, because you need more evidence before jumping to conclusions in that regard.

I mean, 3-5 times a week I go and tear my muscles deliberately for hours. Sometimes until I'm too sore to move properly and I can lose up to 50% of my ROM. But I don't think I'm mentally ill.

Don't equate minimal damage with severe. An ear pierced closes itself with time, a split tongue doesn't. I assume you mean you weightlift, which reverses itself in a few weeks. Stop lifting and you get flabby again. If you were truly tearing your muscles so that you couldn't move your arms again even after rest, you would be deranged. But as I said, it's a "red flag", which means: call in a professional.

I think it's more that teens behave pretty erratically anyways because of their hormones, not because of any kind of eccentricity. Because their mental state is changing it can be very difficult to pin down abnormal behavior. Also most teens are away from their parents for the first time for the longest time, which means that it's now the job of random adults to have the attention to notice if they're having problems and that isn't going to be something that they're going to be sufficiently motivated to do.

Hormones can explain abnormal behaviour, but they don't make it less abnormal. I agree it takes the random adult, usually a boss who fires them, that identifies that the mentally ill youngster is in trouble because his behaviour has continued past his teens.

A teenager isn't typically deemed to be mentally competent with regards to any kind of body alteration though. Even earrings typically require parental consent. So introducing teenagers isn't very useful since that whole thing changes the dynamic since they are not mentally competent by default.

I use teens as an example because everyone is aware of them behaving in a crazy manner ( mood swings, depression, anger), but having the behaviour dismissed "as a phase" or with a "he's just an excitable boy" to quote Warren Zevon. Suicide in young men is often under-reported because many deaths get lumped in as accidents that befall boys taking stupid risks ( driving too fast, falling off high spots, etc.).

[Jay R]

What somebody else chooses to do is none of my business.

But it's not for me. In the words of a great 20th century philosopher, "I yam what I yam, and that's all what I yam."

[dps]

What signal does putting a grommet in one’s earlobe send? Everday I see folks who have done so, and just can not fathom why.

Extreme body modification signals that you're stupid enough to be obsessed with your appearance to the point of not caring about how you're limiting your employment prospects. Or rich enough that you never have to worry about working for a living.

[Knaight]

Extreme body modification signals that you're stupid enough to be obsessed with your appearance to the point of not caring about how you're limiting your employment prospects. Or rich enough that you never have to worry about working for a living.

A gauge isn't that extreme, and largely limits prospects that were likely never realistic in the first place.

[dps]

A gauge isn't that extreme, and largely limits prospects that were likely never realistic in the first place.

Some employers won't even consider applicants with visible tattoos. Not even for entry-level or menial jobs like janitor.

[Knaight]

Some employers won't even consider applicants with visible tattoos. Not even for entry-level or menial jobs like janitor.

This is fairly rare, and likely to be a sign of incompatible company cultures anyways. Meanwhile other employers are more likely to take applicants with visible tattoos, again under that squishy company culture metric.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

Some employers won't even consider applicants with visible tattoos. Not even for entry-level or menial jobs like janitor.

This is fairly rare, and likely to be a sign of incompatible company cultures anyways. Meanwhile other employers are more likely to take applicants with visible tattoos, again under that squishy company culture metric.

I would hope that neither situation would actually happen, since the ability to pay for ink to be quasi-permanently inserted under your skin should not be the basis by which to judge someone's employable ability.

But I'm a cynic, so I am sure both are absolutely true, although I would not hazard a guess as to which is more common.

(I also wonder if you could game it with non-permanent skin art)

Grey Wolf

[tomandtish]

I would hope that neither situation would actually happen, since the ability to pay for ink to be quasi-permanently inserted under your skin should not be the basis by which to judge someone's employable ability.

But I'm a cynic, so I am sure both are absolutely true, although I would not hazard a guess as to which is more common.

(I also wonder if you could game it with non-permanent skin art)

Grey Wolf

It's not employable ability that gets judged, but employable appearance. Right or wrong, many companies want all their employees (even those in menial positions) to look clean and respectable. Visible tattoos/piercings are often not seen that way (unfortunately).

[dps]

It's not employable ability that gets judged, but employable appearance. Right or wrong, many companies want all their employees (even those in menial positions) to look clean and respectable. Visible tattoos/piercings are often not seen that way (unfortunately).

It's not just that--some old-fashioned business owners see getting a tattoo as a sign of rebelliousness, and figure they wouldn't get along with you, so why would they hire you?

Also, what a lot of people don't realize, in a lot of smaller workplaces where the hiring decision is being made by someone who will actually be working with you on a regular basis, the main question on their minds when interviewing an applicant is, "Do I want to have to actually work with this person?". If the person doing that interview has a negative view of tattoos, and you have visible tats, you're probably not getting hired, even if there is no formal policy against them.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

It's not employable ability that gets judged, but employable appearance. Right or wrong, many companies want all their employees (even those in menial positions) to look clean and respectable. Visible tattoos/piercings are often not seen that way (unfortunately).

Yes, but, again, employee appearance should not be the basis by which to judge someone's employable ability.

GW

[Scarlet Knight]

I respectfully disagree. While employee appearance should not be the ONLY basis by which to judge someone's employable ability, appearance is a message a person sends to the world, & therefore you can get alot of accurate information about a person by their appearance.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

I respectfully disagree. While employee appearance should not be the ONLY basis by which to judge someone's employable ability, appearance is a message a person sends to the world, & therefore you can get alot of accurate information about a person by their appearance.

You can get very inaccurate information about a person from their appearance - mostly based on prejudice - but you cannot get any information about their employable abilities, which is what an employment offer should be based on. Even for customer-facing positions, such judgements are irrelevant, if the individual to be hired is to be given explicit instructions post-hire of appearance expectations and one of the actual employable abilities is their ability to accept and follow such instructions.

Grey Wolf

[halfeye]

I very strongly feel that employees should be rated on their ability to do the job, and not a lot else. Unfortunately, there are no tests for that at this time, for almost all jobs. There are many mostly suitable applicants for almost all jobs, so employers pick the ones that most appeal to them, in whichever ways they choose.

[2D8HP]

I very strongly feel that employees should be rated on their ability to do the job, and not a lot else. Unfortunately, there are no tests for that at this time, for almost all jobs. There are many mostly suitable applicants for almost all jobs, so employers pick the ones that most appeal to them, in whichever ways they choose.

I don't.

I don't feel that those with lousy jobs should be cursed and those with good jobs rewarded just because they're good at them.

If I was King of California I'd like time spent doing both good and lousy jobs be more equitably distributed.

I'd rather more who have spent time in their lives as Alaskan fishermen and California tomato pickers (the two lousiest jobs I can think of) get to be tenured professors (the best job that I can think of).

Or in other words, I'd like every minute that I've spent doing heavy lifting or pulling hair out of the drains in the autopsy room be compensated with time in a classroom or library.

I'm decidedly underwhelmed by the "skilled" who have the gravy jobs (chiefly because their parents had gravy jobs), and "ability" just doesn't matter that much to me.

I'd rather a lottery and periodic rotations.

As to those who say "But efficiency"?

Bah!

Increasingly time spent at work by many people is just on flattering someone, enduring abuse, or on meetings and reports the results of which are hardly noticed (see

....Bull[censored] Jobs: A Theory by David Graeber

Which is about the proliferation of jobs that those doing them don't see any purpose of the work done.

I've found it engaging reading, that reminds me a bit of

Shop Class as Soulcraft: An Inquiry into the Value of Work by Matthew Crawford,

and along with

How to Tell When You're Tired: A Brief Examination of Work by Reg Theriault,

I'd recommend all three, especially to those who are about to leave school.

). so there's enough "slack in the system" to handle people doing different tasks then the "same-old-same-old".

I don't like it that some go their lives without having to get dirty (real dirt) earning a living and I don't like it that it's often hard to earn a living without feeling dirty (metaphorically) i.e. the soul destroying nature of working for employers who insist that you lie.

Pretty much I'd abolish almost every job that had "market", "marketing", and "sales" in the title, I really don't care how good people are at them (yes, I'm totally fantasizing, I don't expect any of this)!

Instead (in my fantasies) time spent working would go towards things that would do people good other than flattering managers or enriching owners, so instead of desperate for income people having to "cold-call" me to buy something they'd be fixing leaks with me and then we'd both chill at a bookstore, classroom, library, or tavern.

Though I suppose "ability" is a (slightly) better meter than just whom the employer likes to look at being hired, but I'm still think "ability" has more to do with luck than anything else, and as the old saying goes "What's the reward for hard work? More work.", so as well the reward for being lucky is more good luck.

[halfeye]

I don't.

I don't feel that those with lousy jobs should be cursed and those with good jobs rewarded just because they're good at them.

If I was King of California I'd like time spent doing both good and lousy jobs be more equitably distributed.

I'd rather more who have spent time in their lives as Alaskan fishermen and California tomato pickers (the two lousiest jobs I can think of) get to be tenured professors (the best job that I can think of).

Or in other words, I'd like every minute that I've spent doing heavy lifting or pulling hair out of the drains in the autopsy room be compensated with time in a classroom or library.

I'm decidedly underwhelmed by the "skilled" who have the gravy jobs (chiefly because their parents had gravy jobs), and "ability" just doesn't matter that much to me.

I'd rather a lottery and periodic rotations.

As to those who say "But efficiency"?

Bah!

Increasingly time spent at work by many people is just on flattering someone, enduring abuse, or on meetings and reports the results of which are hardly noticed (see). so there's enough "slack in the system" to handle people doing different tasks then the "same-old-same-old".

I don't like it that some go their lives without having to get dirty (real dirt) earning a living and I don't like it that it's often hard to earn a living without feeling dirty (metaphorically) i.e. the soul destroying nature of working for employers who insist that you lie.

Pretty much I'd abolish almost every job that had "market", "marketing", and "sales" in the title, I really don't care how good people are at them (yes, I'm totally fantasizing, I don't expect any of this)!

Instead (in my fantasies) time spent working would go towards things that would do people good other than flattering managers or enriching owners, so instead of desperate for income people having to "cold-call" me to buy something they'd be fixing leaks with me and then we'd both chill at a bookstore, classroom, library, or tavern.

Though I suppose "ability" is a (slightly) better meter than just whom the employer likes to look at being hired, but I'm still think "ability" has more to do with luck than anything else, and as the old saying goes "What's the reward for hard work? More work.", so as well the reward for being lucky is more good luck.

I think I sort of probably agree with most of that (haven't looked at the links).

Being unemployed was very bad, and not being accepted for or at interviews was no fun at all.

I'm not saying being stuck in a rubbish job is good or necessary, but being stuck on none because there is no relevant aptitude test is probably marginally worse. Not having any aptitude might be worse still, I'm not denying that.

[2D8HP]

I think I sort of probably agree with most of that (haven't looked at the links).

Being unemployed was v. ery bad, and not being accepted for or at interviews was no fun at all.

I'm not saying being stuck in a rubbish job is good or necessary, but being stuck on none because there is no relevant aptitude test is probably marginally worse. Not having any aptitude might be worse still, I'm not denying that.

The links are just book reviews, and I well remember being unemployed, and the indignity of the application and interview process.

My grandparents gave me a motor scooter for my 18th birthday, and my job of 1993 to 2000 (motorcycle shop) basically happened because I had hair that pleased the lady who was the parts department manager (ironically the owner hated it and I had to cut it after getting hired) and because I got the microfiche that listed parts numbers (which I would read using the machines at the library), so I ordered parts by number as their customer, so I demonstrated that ability despite knowing very little about mechanics (I was a fast learner back then), my jobs of 2000 to 20011 was because I did well on the test to apply to be an apprentice plumber, and for my current job I did well on the test the City made up to work for them, so more luck than anything else.

My brother got his job because his father-in-law, who worked for the State of Maryland, along with me, my mother and my grandparents all chipped in so he could go to college, and with his diploma he got a job...
....with the State of Maryland.

School admittance, hiring, et cetera could be done by lottery, saving a lot of wasted time.

[Anonymouswizard]

The links are just book reviews, and I well remember being unemployed, and the indignity of the application and interview process.

My grandparents gave me a motor scooter for my 18th birthday, and my job of 1993 to 2000 (motorcycle shop) basically happened because I had hair that pleased the lady who was the parts department manager (ironically the owner hated it and I had to cut it after getting hired) and because I got the microfiche that listed parts numbers (which I would read using the machines at the library), so I ordered parts by number as their customer, so I demonstrated that ability despite knowing very little about mechanics (I was a fast learner back then), my jobs of 2000 to 20011 was because I did well on the test to apply to be an apprentice plumber, and for my current job I did well on the test the City made up to work for them, so more luck than anything else.

My brother got his job because his father-in-law, who worked for the State of Maryland, along with me, my mother and my grandparents all chipped in so he could go to college, and with his diploma he got a job...
....with the State of Maryland.

School admittance, hiring, et cetera could be done by lottery, saving a lot of wasted time.

Yeah, I can't get a job in my degree field by the luck of having a heavily exam based degree, and really sucking at them. Seriously, I got solid Bs in my coursework easily, but Ds and Es on my exams. I'm currently trying to work out some form of project that'll make me look better, because I've got one more year before I've lost my chance at the graduate schemes Maybe two, it all depends on if the fact I technically graduated this year despite my degree finishing nearly a year ago counts for everything.

EDIT: I got the current job I have essentially because I talk posh enough to empress people and work quickly enough that I'd already picked it up by the end of the trial shift. Oh, and because I have amazing curly hair.

[Random Sanity]

Yes, but, again, employee appearance should not be the basis by which to judge someone's employable ability.

GW

Employers really don't give two flips about what their standards should be. They want obedient corporate drones, not human beings.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

Employers really don't give two flips about what their standards should be. They want obedient corporate drones, not human beings.

I have worked for at least 20 different companies, and I can assure you that employers do want competent people. Working with, for or in close proximity to incompetents (whether due to ability or attitude) is not desirable.

But hey, you want to build strawman about how everyone working at any company is evil, you do you. But on the other hand, "if you don't fit at one job, maybe the problem is them. But if you don't fit in any job, maybe the problem is you".

Grey Wolf

[Scarlet Knight]

I have worked for at least 20 different companies, and I can assure you that employers do want competent people. Working with, for or in close proximity to incompetents (whether due to ability or attitude) is not desirable.

I agree with Grey Wolf here; every job wants workers who know what they're doing. It makes worklife better for everyone.

I find the problems with appearance fall with the phrase "Working with, for, or in close proximity to..." & I believe where we disagree is the quality of information gathered from appearance. When I was young I fought to be judged on my skills and not the length of my hair or my apache tie.

As the years have passed I realized when someone tells you something about themself, you should listen.

No one wants to hire a worker who's appearance declares "I am a rebel & I stick it to 'the Man!'" (unless you're looking for a teen idol) because you would not expect him to follow instructions if he disagreed with them.

Martha Graham said " Each of us tells our own story even without speaking." Appearance is a message we send to the world about ourselves. So in the end, do you think your potential hire is a person who will get along well with you, your patrons , and other employees?

[Red Fel]

Everyone wants competent workers with whom they get along, true. But sometimes they want more than that, and frankly it's a bit unreasonable to call that unreasonable.

I work in a field where there is a surplus. A lot of people go to school for this kind of work, a lot of people enter the job market, and as a result, the bosses have their pick.

Yes, they want someone qualified. That's obvious. And yes, they want someone competent and with whom they'll get along. 90% of the interview process is just that - does this person know one hand from the other, and can I walk into the office and see this person without wanting to vomit? That's the bulk of it.

But a premium is placed on good judgment and good presentation. This is an industry built around the appearance of professionalism and sound decisionmaking. And part of that is how you show.

If you show up to an interview in a t-shirt and jeans, no matter how glowing your resume, charming your personality, and brilliant your skills, you will not get the job. You are not showing off your good judgment and professionalism.

Similarly, if you have tattoos, you cover them up. If they're on your arms, wear sleeves; on your forearms, wear thick bracelets. (On your face, you're out of luck.) Employers won't necessarily kick you out simply for having them, but having them in a prominent, unavoidable place, or refusing to cover them up, shows that you either make bad decisions or aren't professional about it.

You can say, "But bosses shouldn't do that." You're not entirely wrong. You can say, "Your competence and personality should matter more than your appearance," and that's generally true. But, particularly in some industries, those things do matter. And if you can't - or won't - pay attention to these details, you're sending a signal to a potential employer about what matters to you.

And in a densely-packed industry where a dozen people are waiting right outside to take your spot, that's lethal.

[Knaight]

No one wants to hire a worker who's appearance declares "I am a rebel & I stick it to 'the Man!'" (unless you're looking for a teen idol) because you would not expect him to follow instructions if he disagreed with them.

It's not 1950. Tattoos fundamentally don't say that anymore, at least not by just being tattoos (specific things absolutely can) - and long hair certainly doesn't.