My dogma defines my in-group, and my in-group can’t be wrong because then that would mean that I am wrong, which I categorically can’t be. And even if I was wrong, then I would no longer be part of my in-group. Therefore, your science and logic and proof must be wrong if it contradicts my dogma.
If they are needs, then none can be compromised.
A person should always aim for harm reduction. If an unwinnable situation were to arise, harm reduction statistically would favor the many for most scenarios. From a causal perspective, sad as it is to say, the casualties were not going to live past the situation; from this cold but pragmatic perspective, even something as invaluable as a person’s life is unfortunately not “needed” per se.
assuming that others view you as competent
That part does not apply, and I understand it to be part of the definition of Imposter Syndrome.
It is partially stemming from a capitalistic source.
Long personal vent linked here, feel free to ignore if you don’t care. Basically unless you’re a free therapist, you don’t have to read this.
Sure, but don’t even ask about my ligma