Complexity

I agree; however, I don't feel sorry for Chester. He had an idea what she was like when he married her. She was wild when she was English when younger and even had a child (out of wedlock, right?). Surely, Chester could not have expected her to be a perfect Amish angel with what he saw. But even if he did, then that's his fault. Mary is not Amish in my opinion. She simply hangs onto the things she likes from the Amish community. I think it's disrespectful to them, but I suspect she's more than happy to give them the middle finger that way. I think Mary's behavior while wearing Amish clothing in public is her saying "FU" to all the Amish who shunned her and prevented her from being at her father's funeral (which is truly horrible that anyone would do that to another human being). She is being passive-aggressive. It may be childish, but it may be the only way she has found to retaliate against what she believes was unfair treatment.

I also think Sabrina never learned to develop good judgment. She didn't have to decide anything while growing up. Suddenly, she has to decide everything. This can be overwhelming to someone who's on a developmental level of a small child. So not only does she make bad choices that gets her into trouble, but she then makes more bad choices which exasperates that trouble. She just keeps going deeper and deeper. And she has no idea how to get herself out. However, she has to have a true desire to learn and grow: listen to the judge, read the papers she's given and ask if she doesn't understand, and call whomever is handling Oakley's case before assuming things (like who can and cannot be a supervisor for visits between Oakley and her dad). If all she will do is avoid learning how to be responsible and make good decisions, then that will be sad for her, but she should not be allowed to put her child(ren)'s health and safety in jeopardy. It's a cold truth no matter the reason for Sabrina's reason for not taking proper care of her child(ren).

I think Rachel is just super friendly by nature. I think she could chat like that with anyone, including someone she does not like or respect. She has an incredible ability to separate the person from their views. I believe it's part of her success in general and is something I admire in her. So I don't think she wants anyone to lose their show, including Lawrence. Having said that, I do think she personally likes Lawrence so she may wish him the best even more than she may wish on others.

Take a look at the donors. His biggest donor, who gave $304, is Panchero's Mexican Grill! Why am I not surprised! ?

Good point! I saw one episode of that show. At the time, I couldn't find another episode (and the show wasn't new). I can't wait to see if there are more. I really liked it. ?

I think she was talking about Jeremiah on the Return to Amish show (which is also on TLC).

No, they don't. They will exploit anything they think will make them a buck. I used to think TLC — as The Learning Channel — was an upstanding channel to enjoy. But that apparently didn't get them enough viewership (which means less money from advertisers). Somewhere along the way, they discovered that the public devoured sideshows, and away they went. They've sold their souls to the devil. No learning at all. Just exploitation. If there is a group of people with any obvious difference, they are targeted. So now their combining fat people with little people to come up with fat little people. I hate to think of what will come next.

Oh, wow, I will definitely watch The Good Doctor. I just saw the promo. It is exactly the type of show I enjoy (psych and medical), and I think Freedie is excellent. Thanks @BoffoDaWonderSheep for posting about the show! ?

I get Chris at 7 and Rachel at 8. Brian comes on at 10. I wouldn't mind it so much if they repeated Chris in his normal cycle placement, but they don't. His first repeat is at 2am. By then, they've already repeated all the other shows (Rachel, Lawrence, and Brian). I don't know why they wait to repeat Chris' show until so late. So my choices to watch Chris are 7pm or 2am.

Because people's nonverbal response to lying is too complicated to put into anything so simple.

The key word here is: if. A person often does not know in advance how they will feel in a situation until they are in it and then have the feelings. So while I do not condone Jeremiah's overall behavior, I'll give him a pass on this instance. His behavior was consistent with having an anxiety attack, triggered from visiting a place with a high emotional content for him. When people are emotionally triggered like that, they often become very snappy and highly self-centered. Their autonomic nervous system takes over and they react without thinking. This is how our bodies are designed (fight or flight mode). This behavior is often surprising to people when it happens. That's because it is an unconscious autonomic response which, by definition, is not thought out when it happens. That alone can be scary for some people. Unfortunately, when a person is known for acting in a self-centered manner without apparent thought for how it affects others, it can be very difficult to determine when that person is acting as their normal ass self or is acting out of a true emotional trigger. I ask myself that question with every episode! ? I try to rationalize it by telling myself I'm studying human nature, but I know that's BS. I think it's that fascination we have with seeing things that are out of the ordinary, similar to why we must see a car accident while driving by. We are naturally programmed to pay attention to things that are new and different. True or not, it's a rationalization I allow myself to accept. ?

What does TH mean? Googling it came up with a huge number of possible meanings. ETA: Here's what just one site suggested for the meaning of TH in texting: T helper, Table Header, Table Heading, Table Heads, Targeting High, Tax House, Taylor Hanson, Team Handsome, Tech Haven, Technische Handleiding, Technische Hochschule, Teddy Hoosevelt, Temperance House, Templum Hierosolymae, Territory of Hawaii, terroir hunter, Texas Hold, Thai, Thailand, The Hated, The Hulk, The Husband, Theim, Theoretical Hypothesis, Theratechnologies, Inc., Thermal Hopper, Think Hardware, Thiokol, Thomas Hedison, Thomas Helmut, Thoracic, Thorium, Threshold, Through Hole, Thursday, Thyroid Hormone, Tilman Henry, Tim Horton, Time History, Timestream Horrorsphere, Tiny House, Today's Headline, Tokio Hotel, Tom Hanks, Tomlinson Holman, Top Hat, Torii Hunter, Tournament Hours, Tow Howth, Town Highway, Training Helicopter, Transmission Header, Transmittal Header, Travel and Hospitality, Trefil And Hazen, Trinity House, Trinity Hymnal, Truly Hierarchical, Truth Hurts, Try Hard, Trying hard, Tuesday And Huwebes, Turbo Hydramatic, Turbo Hydromatic, Turner Hooch, Tyrolean Haflingers, tyrosine hydroxylase ?

Which is why I mentioned that it was a myth in the first place. So many myths get passed down over the years, taken to be the truth, even after they've been debunked. If anyone wants to see an example of someone lying while making direct eye contact, there are plenty of examples on youtube of children telling their parents they didn't do it while their faces are covered in (cookies, markers, etc) that give away their lies! ? Wow, that was a really bad blog entry! Psychology Today is frowned upon in the academic world, and that blog is one reason why. I sometimes quote them in public forums because some of their articles explain things in very simple language which works well for people unfamiliar with the tedious nature of research articles, but I'd be reprimanded if I ever used them as a resource in a research paper. LEO = Law Enforcement Officer? You are dead on with this. People's nonverbal behavior while lying largely depends on the person's psychological makeup. Someone with anti-social personality disorder would find it very easy to lie with the proverbial straight face. They can easily pass a polygraph test because of their lack of a conscious and empathy. They just don't have the emotional response to lying that is required for the physiological changes that are measured on a polygraph machine. And that doesn't even begin to consider the type of lie involved. People will respond differently when telling a "white lie" than lying about something important. Plus behavior can change, depending on the expected consequences or person being told the lie. Telling a lie to your best friend (who will empathize with you) may be different than telling the same lie to your boss (who may fire you). It's so much more complicated than whether they make eye contact or not. You mean we have a subject to talk about? LOL!! ? I think Sabrina is either putting on a huge act (possibly at the request of TLC to stir up drama) or she's in complete denial or she's just slow. Or maybe a combination of all three. She does have a huge problem with external locus of control (blaming others and not taking responsibility). Her drinking and drug use would suggest self-medicating behavior which indicates a desire to avoid her situation or her emotions or both. That would fit in with trying to avoid reality. And it would also explain how a person with an average intelligence can make such incredibly dumb choices—she cannot think clearly while intoxicated and/or high. Whatever the reason, it is heartbreaking to watch her behavior, knowing the life-changing effects it has on her children. I hope Sabrina gets help, but if she doesn't, I strongly hope she doesn't have any more children. They absolutely do not deserve to be conceived and then born into her hot mess.

Oh, but don't forget when Rebecca said Chester would be mad about Mary becoming a multi-millionaire by selling Tupperware! ? I almost fell out of my chair laughing so hard when she said that!

I understand. I'm merely repeating what I learned while getting my masters in psych. There are always exceptions, but the old idea that people cannot look a person in the eye while lying is just an old myth. People can and regularly do look people in the eye while lying. Psych research has found that we cannot tell when someone is lying by looking at their facial expression or whether they are or are not making eye contact.

This is an old myth that is not true. Given the context of when she looks down, she may have been feeling too much shame to maintain eye contact.

Yup! She thought the druggy friend who OD'd was somehow okay as a supervisor. He was another person, no matter that he was actively high on drugs at the time. Sabrina's lack of judgement is really hard to swallow. Surely, no one can be that dumb. She must have really fried her brain with the alcohol and drugs.

Oops! Now that was a big typo! ? Thanks for catching it. ?

So the flashback episodes say someone other than Abe is the father? Was it her first husband or someone else?

Thank you!! ?

Where did this information come from? What does surface tension mean (in this context)? I figured it out; it's S23E11. My brain wasn't thinking of specific episodes outside of their episode threads.

I don't care for his character that much. He's kind of blah. Monotone. Just nothing there. Boring.

Here's a screen capture of the envelope. It has three pieces of information: (1) Alex's real last name, (2) Alex's hospital which gives his location, and (3) the private eye's company name "Korcek Investigations LLC." So the envelope was from the private eye, Korcek Investigations LLC, which explains how Alex got the info on the husband. I originally expected the envelope to have come from the conference which would make it easy for the husband to track down Alex, but that's not the case. So if the envelope is used to track down Alex in some way, then the husband would have had to have read Alex's name and hospital just in passing (which is far-fetched, but this is Grey's Anatomy so nothing is impossible).I do hope Alex's scenes lead to something more than just us seeing Alex thinking through the consequences of his possible actions. That's a good thing for Alex, but a boring way to show it. ETA: I think I may have figured out one of the reasons for the big envelope. When Alex has it, the action that happens is real. But when he doesn't have it, he's only thinking in his mind what could happen. It's a way of indicating what's real and what's imaginary.

I was curious as to what grounds could be used to involuntarily remove Sabrina's parental rights. Losing parental rights is huge and not to be taken lightly (which I don't think the courts did). So what could Sabrina have done to lose her rights as a parent? Here's what I found (State of PA, SUBCHAPTER B. INVOLUNTARY TERMINATION): § 2511. Grounds for involuntary termination. (a) General rule. (5) The child has been removed from the care of the parent by the court or under a voluntary agreement with an agency for a period of at least six months, the conditions which led to the removal or placement of the child continue to exist, the parent cannot or will not remedy those conditions within a reasonable period of time, the services or assistance reasonably available to the parent are not likely to remedy the conditions which led to the removal or placement of the child within a reasonable period of time and termination of the parental rights would best serve the needs and welfare of the child. So, basically, Sabrina continued to do whatever she did to lose custody of Oakley which then caused the court to take the next step and terminate her parental rights. The two things I can think of to cause this is Sabrina continued taking drugs and/or Sabrina continued to allow Oakley to be with her father without court supervision (I suspect both). The sad thing about all this is that it was very easy to remedy the problem. All Sabrina had to do was get away from her druggy friends and lover and stop the drugs herself. But she made a choice: she chose drugs over her children. So extremely sad for the children and so extremely thoughtless, uncaring, and irresponsible for Sabrina. I do not feel empathy or sympathy for Sabrina. What she did to her children was inexcusable, and it is her children who have been left to suffer the consequences.

Umm... no. ?