What do you think of Steven Crowder and his “Change my Mind” videos? is a very interesting question right now. Below is the best answer to the What do you think of Steven Crowder and his “Change my Mind” videos? that we assembled. we will definitely make you satisfied!
TL;DR: I liked them at first but grew to hate it. It’s just not what it says on the tin. He uses civil open conversation as a disguise for dominating people without his debate skills, on entrenched beliefs he has prepped, and making them lose their cool on camera, in front of millions of people.
One massive problem is that he’s never actually changed his mind. At the very least it must be astonishingly rare. Sometimes he will come to an agreement with someone with different beliefs, but that is not changing his mind, it’s finding a common ground (which is actually the thing I appreciate most about the show).
Going and talking to people in college campuses and having open conversations with them sounds great in theory. In practice, Steven, being a professional with lots of experience in public speaking and debate, with lots of time to prepare counter arguments and read papers (that he can then misconstrue if he desires), is going to dominate anyone on the street, and even many academics or professionals.
The conversations also aren’t as open as they seem – Steven will often guide the conversation to where it pushes people’s buttons, and swiftly moves on if he stops making ground. And they are always phrased in very controversial terms, about topics which are fragile and triggering to many people; and while people shouldn’t get triggered, when they do they are taken advantage of. Open conversation is a place where emotion and logical flaws are okay, and plenty of lenience is given. Debate isn’t.
I am not a fan of his character, and though I am not in a position of knowledge to critique it, here’s my best attempt: He lets himself be very physically imposing at times, and he will say he doesn’t advocate or intend something as a defence for doing that thing. I also get the feeling that he’s petty, pedantic and generally is looking for trouble, which will then make the other person lose their cool and look bad in front of millions of people.
Overall I just don’t like the fact that he pretends to be civil in this series, but under the surface he’s using debate tactics, looking for trouble and just generally being manipulative, both with the people he’s talking to and his audience.
That’s my hot take, now have a beautiful day 🙂
I am a fan of the “Change my Mind” series. I think it rediscovers the best way to have a conversation – something that perhaps we had forgotten:
I like that Steven Crowder is engaging with college students. I hope someone can take a similar initiative in India too (highly polarized right now).
However, some drawbacks of such discussion are:
Finally, I found some of his arguments unsatisfactory:
Nevertheless, the show opened my mind more to the other side of the debate.
They are kind of cringe worthy. Crowder comes prepared and controls the topic and the rules and has the camera and a lot of experience. So he’s starting at a big advantage over the unprepared inexperienced people he’s chatting with. Making people look ignorant and foolish for the purpose of entertainment can be hard to watch. He calls people out but then commits his own fallacies. So when you have an experienced and prepared skilled speaker debating with an unprepared less experienced person, the views of the former may have a lot more sway. A good debater can do well with either side of the argument, so it’s more about the person’s skills than it is about which party is right. Of course if we’re arguing about opinions then maybe neither party is right or wrong per say, but it seems like an erroneous premise that a random person off the street is going to change the mind of an opinionated right-wing political commentator.
It’s not just Crowder, the “VoxAdpocalypse” is catching thousands of content creators in the crossfire.
The fundamental problem is that they are disallowing insults like “lispy queer” (the insult that sparked the whole thing) as an anti-gay slur.
This ban, of itself, is no grounds for moral outrage. YouTube has every right to set the standard of decorum wherever they like. You could not, for instance, use that insult on Quora. You’d get slapped instantly for BNBR.
The problem is the ban doesn’t apply to the Left. They can call Trump a “Nazi racist” all day long, and ad revenue keeps pouring in.
Any one episode of John Oliver (whom I love!) contains worse insults directed at conservatives.
So YouTube has backed themselves into an impossible corner. They can hold their ground, which is an open declaration of political bias in their rules of engagement. Which makes YouTube a much less interesting place for conservatives and others who dissent from the recent Left, or just wish to hear an unvarnished, dissenting viewpoint.
Or YouTube can apply the same rules equally across the political spectrum, declaring that nobody can insult anybody. Like Quora’s BNBR. Which means John Oliver can’t post there. Which also makes YouTube a lot less interesting.
Or, after days of equivocation, can back down once again and roll back the new policy changes. Which indicates they are so confused and mercurial that their rule of the day is meaningless, as it can change tomorrow.}
However it turns out, YouTube couldn’t have screwed this up worse if they tried.
Steven Crowder seems like a nice and actually pretty funny guy. He genuinely believes in all the conservative positions that he sets out to argue on college campuses, but somehow doesn’t do deep dives into the statistics he quotes, preferring to just say “they are from the FBI.”
I give props to Crowder to sit down and engage college students and then show unedited video of an interview or two. However, since he’s done this, it’s pretty easy to pick apart how he’s not exactly being the most intellectual honest debater, and how his goal is pretty much to make college students seem like brainwashed useful idiots. I actually made a video where I do a deep dive into one of his “Change My Mind” videos and highlighted every time this happens:
Feel free to comment on that video on YouTube.
Winning an argument doesnt make you right, It might just mean that you are good at debates or arguments…maybe it means that you are more informed and prepared about the subject than just a random person in the street
He is asking people to change his mind…did this ever happened…I dont think so, I would respect him if he was actually having a genuine argument where he can actually listen and not just trying to win
Steven Crowder, like many of the traditionalist conservative commentators who have cropped up on new media does not impress me. Like Ben Shapiro and Dennis Prager, Steven Crowder’s political content is typically very hypocritical, overly reliant on fast, slick talk, and full of circular reasoning, ad hominem and logical fallacy (appeals to authority, tradition). I don’t know how he got so popular, asides from the fact that he makes some thin-skinned people upset (not a huge accomplishment in any way). He is pretty much a dime a dozen, I don’t know what he says that is so special and unique compared to Ben Shapiro or Dennis Prager. All of them pretty much have the same talking points, they are pretty much the same people.
I think the “change my mind” premise and overall execution is kind of stupid. I have never seen Steven Crowder change his mind in any of the videos. He has the right to not change his mind, true. However, the “change my mind” premise is implying at least to me that, if a person is on the left, and they can’t change your mind in one ground-shaking conversation, their brand of politics is bad, ill-researched or ill-advised. I notice that, conveniently, there are no dissenting whacko conservatives that Steven Crowder grapples with intellectually.
Most people don’t change their minds on things just due to one conversation. The brain is very resistant to change; especially when it comes to one’s tribes. Partisan politics often present themselves as tribal communities which people very passionately and strongly identify themselves with. Usually, it takes a series of small bites of information, gentle pushes from friends, family and others, and a few personal awakenings for someone to change their mind. Steven Crowder isn’t an exception to this rule.
Steven Crowder also goes after low-hanging fruit. When he goes to a college campus he basically picks out the uber-idealistic humanities students, who are majoring in Beyoncé studies. He would never go to the offices of the (largely liberal) professors, and ask them to change his mind. He knows very well that he would probably receive much more measured and thoughtful responses from them, and it would blow his image of the “typical liberal” right out of the water.
The one thing I like about the change my mind show is that from the show’s existence, sprung some pretty hilarious memes.
I didnt know who he was so I looked him up.
I think he is a sad clown who desperately wants people to take him seriously, which is a funny thing for a clown to want. Apparently he once went to a protest in Michigan and provoked a fight; he released an edited video to make it seem as if he was the victim of an unprovoked attack but the unedited video showed that he provoked it.
The “Change My Mind” videos are an exercise in smug insincerity; I regret the brief time I wasted watching them. That time could have been better spent doing literally nothing more than sitting and breathing; at least then I’d have a chance at attaining enlightenment.
I think it’s an interesting way to start a conversation I think it’s an interesting way to start a conversation on a topic
I’ve just come across him and the “Change My Mind” videos so have only watched a few.
At face value he is to be commended for promoting rational dialogue on some very emotionally charged subjects.
He’s a likeable character, with charisma and an entertaining delivery but the “Change My Mind” “concept” does appear to be disingenuous. He will invite people off of the street, or campus, or wherever, who will not have had any preparation time for a structured debate, and then blindside them with fast talking, prepared arguments and very questionable stats in an effort to “show up” the interviewee as having opinions that don’t correlate with his cherry picked “truth”, in what seems to be a concerted effort to score points for his conservative agenda.
He will very obviously direct the conversation away from areas that he himself was not prepared for. In the last one I watched, he dismissed the interviewee’s own very relevant experiences as “anecdotal”, used figures that when examined actually proved him wrong, but presented them as supporting his argument, and then held aloft “stats” that were basically lifted from a Rudy Giuliani speech, about which the Washington Post said “”Each of these claims is wildly misleading, explicitly false or both.” as being the ultimate truth! A small amount of research confirmed this assessment.
That said, I cannot fault the fact that he doesn’t edit the segments or only broadcast the ridiculous interviews.
I think he’s entitled to his opinions, but that doesn’t mean he has to be rude. And get paid for it.
TLDR:I’m a fan of them. (End of TLDR).
I disagree with a lot of what he says including within the Change My Mind videos but I think that seeking out people with whom he disagrees and inviting them to engage in civil dialogue in an effort to rationalize their opinions and seek out intellectual consistency is a noble endeavour. I know people sometimes seem to think he just seeks out easily triggered snowflakes so that he can have them explode on him and film their unhinged reactions but that’s not really the case. Most of the time, his Change My Mind videos are entirely civil exchanges between Crowder and people with whom he disagrees, even vehemently, and things normally end well even when they can’t find common ground.
If I were to criticize something about them, then I would say that given that his political opinions are based on his core moral beliefs, he’s not going to change his mind about them and as such that aspect of the format feels somewhat forced. Greg Guevara actually made a video parodying it called, “It is Impossible to Change Someone Else’s Mind:Change My Mind” whose joke is base on the idea that his mind isn’t actually going to change.
And that’s a legitimate point but Change My Mind still provides an opportunity for rational people to engage in civil dialogue and have it be productive.
What do you think of Steven Crowder’s video “There Are Only 2 Genders | Change My Mind”?
Probably semantics. If you define gender biologically, there are only two except in extremely rare circumstances. If you define gender mentally, there are many. I think as a society we are shifting our definition from biological to mental and that causing all the confusion and disagreement.
Like racism and other ism’s, I think 99% of the population does not care at all about any of this as long as people are productive and kind. The press and our politicians benefit from making us angry and dividing us.
Why has Steven Crowder been kicked off YouTube?
Repeated violations of the terms of service. He’s only been “kicked off” for a week, though he seems to have been permanently booted from their partner program, meaning he won’t get paid for views or be able to sell advertising on his channel.
I’m sure he’ll paint the refusal of a private company to allow him to make money using their property as some sort of dreadful tyranny, but frankly that’s just one more bit of fecal material in the sewage pipe he fills regularly.
I think that the “change my mind” videos are a wonderful way of demonstrating that nearly all leftist positions are based solely on emotion, and fall apart in the face of logic, reason, math, and science.
Laura Thomas Boren
Well, keep in mind that Crowder is, first and foremost, an entertainer. But he is also a surprisingly well informed and polite person in these videos.
I have seen a few of them where nobody had much discourse, but mostly that was because crowds gathered and tried to throw him out, even though he was always given permission to be there. And in those cases, Crowder kept his cool as the mob got angrier.
In a few others, though, ones where people could actually have a conversation with him, there did seem to be quality discourse happening, an exchange of ideas. Usually at the end of those ones, they shook hands and even if the person hadn’t budged Crowder much from his position, you could tell they both enjoyed the exchange. A fairly long conversation with a trans woman is one of those.
I think when they work, one of the reasons is that Crowder is polite and listens fairly well.
But I never forget that he is primarily an entertainer, and calm discourse, while interesting, may not be terribly entertaining. I guess I can always watch a video of him wandering the streets in his underwear if I want to laugh.
Why was Steven Crowder demonitized by YouTube?
That’s the best explanation I can come up with for acting as though his need to be noticed is more important than anything else, including following the rules he agreed to when he signed up for the service.
1. He is not interested in his career, still, he pretends to be enthusiastic to work just for an appraisal!2. She loved someone deeply but married someone else. Now, she splits her legs apart for her new husband with zero emotions.3. They hate each other a lot, but when they come in front of each other, they give a fake smile.4. She lost her V!rginity when she was at final year engineering, but on her first wedding night, she was moan!ng like as it’s the first time for her.5. He is thinking about suicide every day, but whenever someone asks how was he, he used to reply that he was fine.6. She loves non-veg alot, but in front of her parents, she was pretending to be orthodox vegetarian.7. He jerks every night thinking about her, but in the morning he greets her “Good morning Ma’am” with due respect.8. She…
Well… that was disturbing.
I’ll say this, I wasn’t actually surprised by what they found the Antifa members were planning. Handing out knives, guns in the trunks of their cars. Weaponized violence directed at Conservative speakers and their audience isn’t anything new from these people, we’ve been seeing it for months now. It was a bit disturbing that people had the notion to actually lure those in attendance to their cars, where they had more weapons waiting. That was just sinister, but it doesn’t actually surprise me.
What does bother me greatly is the later point in the video. Crowder specifically makes a point asking why it was so easy to get that level of access for two comedians, late night talk show hosts. It’s the equivalent of Steve Carson infiltrating the Weathermen Underground and nobody at CBS News could have pulled it off. Why was it that easy? Or, to ask the question more clearly, why is that no one else is doing this sort of deep undercover infiltration of Antifa if the resources required to do so were so, so small? Why is it that professional journalists aren’t touching anything that shows the extreme violence specifically planned by these organized groups? Why was it that actual film of acts of terrorism being planned gift wrapped with a bow on top were rejected by major media outlets?
He leaves the audience with the question of whether or not the media is complicit in protecting Antifa in spite of overwhelming evidence of their openness to commit violence against anyone they view as a fascist. Given that, by their nebulous definition of what makes someone a fascist, that makes it incredibly dangerous for all of us… especially if the news won’t report that our deaths were anything other than a random act of violence at an otherwise peaceful protest.
We are deep in a time period where no one trusts the mainstream media. Conservatives haven’t for a long time, but others are seeing regularly events like this that place cracks in people’s belief in the media to report the truth. This is throwing a lot of doubt in the minds of many people who are beginning to question many of the beliefs they had because of the sources they gained them from. Frankly, if two comedians could do news that digs this deep and produces such actional evidence of crimes being perpetrated by an organization regularly praised by the media, then maybe it’s time people did start questioning their sources.
***Thank you for reading. If you liked this answer, please upvote and follow The War Elephant. If you want to help me make more content like this, please visit my Patreon Support Page to learn how. All donations greatly appreciated!
I’ve watched several of these in full. I believe he really doesn’t want his mind changed. Instead, he probably wants to change the minds of those he talks to. If true, that’s a little manipulative. With that in mind, let’s take a look at his behavior during these events.
First, he always sets up where there’s a decent amount of foot traffic. Generally speaking, a small group of passersby will gather. He puts out a table with a Change My Mind banner on it along with some chairs. Even so, he sits on the front side of the table with nothing in between him and the person he is speaking with eye to eye.
During each conversation, he is always respectful, not only of his guest but of the heckling he sometimes gets from the crowd. If the crowd grows restless, he will sometimes interject humor to calm things down. The conversations usually run 5-10 minutes, a reasonable time for some depth. He always allows his guests to speak their piece. Instead of simply disagreeing, he tries to find common ground asking for clarification if needed.
The results are a mixed bag. Sometimes the guest’s opinion doesn’t change. Sometimes it completely flips. But more often than not they agree on some things and not on others.
In the end, I think it’s the common ground found in these conversations that is the most telling. While the rhetoric of the left and right seems so divisive, the points of agreement derived in these conversations may indicate the sides are not as far apart as people think. If efforts like this continue, maybe someday we’ll all come to this realization. I wish Mr Crowder much success in these efforts.
Relaxed. Researched. Respectful. – War Elephant
I can speak of my own experience with this and tell you what I’ve heard and how I’ve interpreted it.
I have been interested in Jung’s ideas since I was 11 years old (I’m 60) when I had the good fortune to encounter a pair of essays by Marie Louise von Franz on fairy tales and myth. Even at 11, I knew that this way of understanding human experience spoke powerfully to my own deepest knowing of my own psycho-spiritual processes.
When I finally hit college I considered studying psychology but was surprised to be told that Jung was not taught in psychology departments anymore. Perhaps, I was told, Jung was taught in literature or anthropology departments but not psychology. In America, clinical psychology had been subsumed under cognitive-behavioral and chemistry-based approaches, which were seen as more evidence-based than psychoanalysis and analytic psychology.
I turned to anthropology, where I found traces of Jung’s ideas in the study of religion, though by the time I was working on my MA, the dominant focus in my department was on post modern theory, feminism, and deconstruction. Deconstructionism arose as a response to structuralism, which saw human consciousness as formed out of innate structures within the psyche. Jung’s psychology could easily be seen as a variety of structuralism, although he never claimed that. Perhaps this was because structuralism would have meant to him a specific school of psychology that preceded his own analytic psychology (that of Wundt and Titchener) and not the later structuralism of anthropologists such as Levi-Strauss.
All forms of structuralism, which posited innate underlying structures within the human psyche, came under attack from postmodern theorists who claimed it was too deterministic—a billiard-ball approach to reality. Post-structuralist thinkers claimed the there was no way to reduce experience to universals. In a way too complex to go into here, Jung’s theories came to be seen as a form of mysticism that posited an underlying structure to existence—such as found in religious teachings promoting the idea of hierarchical levels of being. The fact is that Jung’s ideas were largely misunderstood and often criticized from the point of view of secondary source literature rather than careful reading of his works. This is unfortunate because his ideas are much more nuanced than he is given credit for. It is my personal opinion that many of his critics have read him neither carefully nor thoroughly—a problem endemic in many fields.
Jung believed he had established proofs of his ideas and pointed to these in his voluminous writings. Post-structuralists believed that they had successfully refuted all forms of structuralism and so had refuted Jung. On the other hand, in the so-called hard sciences, positivists saw Jung’s ideas as a form of non-evidence-based pseudo-science. The existence of such things as archetypes, for example, could in no way be established through recognized avenues of experimentation.
I want to share a passage from a paper I wrote, which was published in the International Journal of Transpersonal Studies (“An Alchemy of Heaven on Nature’s Base”: Intimations of the Universal Opus in the Integral Yoga and the Divine Life in Man in the Work of C. G. Jung), and which speaks to this point, specifically in relation to psychology. I’ve left the citations in and have included the references at the end of my full comment.
“’Psychology’ (n.d.) is defined as ‘the scientific study of mental processes and behavior.’ The Online Etymological Dictionary (Psychology, 2001–2015, n.p.) entry for the word shows that its meaning has evolved over time. While earlier usage pointed to ‘spirit’ and ‘soul’ as its domain, later usage pointed to ‘mind.’ Western psychology has, over time, become more concerned with neuroscience while more personality-based approaches have been subsumed into cognitive and behavioral theories. The discipline of psychology has increasingly conformed to the methodological requirements of the natural sciences.
“Changes to the definition and practice of psychology reflect the evolution of the collective understanding of human consciousness and the natural universe. For good or ill, concepts such as soul and spirit have been dropped from the purview—and so definition—of psychology as a scientific discipline. Psychodynamic psychologies such as analytic, humanistic, transpersonal, and integral, are often less experimental than relational, but it is just this that causes those working within the hard sciences to dismiss them (Berezow, 2012). Jung (1989) wrote that due to its subjective character, psychodynamic psychology was seen as pseudo-scientific ‘nonsense’ even in the late 1800s (p. 109), and that he was warned by colleagues and teachers in medical school about throwing away his career by not adhering to a more positivist discipline such as laboratory research. Even he admitted that psychiatry was primarily ‘a dialogue between the sick psyche and the psyche of the doctor . . . both in principle equally subjective’ (p. 110).
“Although psychology was criticized for lacking the ‘five basic requirements’ of all science: ‘clearly defined terminology, quantifiability, highly controlled experimental conditions, reproducibility and, finally, predictability and testability’ (Berezow, 2012), Jung spent the first ten years of his professional career working to develop laboratory methods for observing psychological phenomena through the use of a galvanometer and word-association experiments. His hope was that psychological states were capable of being classified through scientific methods, but he felt it would be a long time before the discipline had matured enough for this to take place. Although he was praised early on for his more experimental researches, as he adopted a more psychoanalytic approach he came under increased attack for his abandonment of them (See Ellenberger, 1970, for a study of this period of Western psychology).”
The criticisms of Jung from post-structuralists, post modernists, and deconstructionists on the one hand and the hard sciences on the other, have cast a long shadow over his work. When I was studying for my PhD, I had a teacher who told me bluntly that I would never get a job in mainstream academia if I was a Jungian since his ideas had come to be seen as bordering on occultism. He cautioned me, if I was intent on studying Jung, to hide the fact by not citing him in my works. I took the opposite approach because I would rather be true to my inclinations. I have read Jung’s collected works three times through and have read most of his seminars and letters (new stuff keeps getting published and it’s difficult to keep up). I’ve read The Red Book four times and I can say that I am more convinced than ever of the efficacy and accuracy of his observations.
Jung was first and foremost a scientist who took as his field of study the infinite expanse of the human mind. The first rule of any science is that in order to be able to justifiably refute the findings of an experiment (and Jung saw his work as experimental), one must be able to replicate it. Few have even attempted to follow Jung in this regard, choosing instead the lazy way of dismissing him out of hand because his findings are at odds with orthodox materialist views of the world.
Thinkers such as Jorden Peterson have taken Jung seriously enough to actually grapple with his ideas as Jung expressed them and found that they pay off tenfold for the effort. I was fortunate enough to find a school (The California Institute of Integral Studies) where Jung was not only taken seriously but was seen as a pioneer of consciousness studies. In my estimation, he was a hundred years ahead of his time. I am so thankful that someone of Jordan Peterson’s stature has been able to break through the noise machine to get the word out about the seminal importance of Jung’s thought.
I would add that through the efforts of Sonu Shamdasani and the Philemon Foundation, Jung is finally getting the scholarly attention and affirmation he so rightly deserves. Shamdasani is a world-class scholar who has worked tirelessly to accurately portray Jung’s seminal place in the intellectual culture of the 20th century.
Berezow, A. B. (2012, July 13). Why psychology isn’t a science. The Los Angeles Times. Retrieved from Featured Articles From The latimes
Ellenberger, H. F. (1970). The discovery of the unconscious: The history and evolution of dynamic psychiatry. New York, NY: Basic Books.
Jung, C. G. (1989).Memories, dreams, reflections. New York: Vintage Books.
psychology. (n.d.).The American heritage science dictionary. Retrieved from http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/psychology
How is it outdated, disproven, or debunked? Modern psychology has chosen to simply ignore his work not because it wasn’t right (IMO it’s more right than most anything today) but because it isn’t measurable. They need measurements for research to obtain funding, their only real concern. In order to ignore the genius work of Jung, Freud, and Alder they simply claim them “debunked”.
Need more proof? Jung, Freud, and Alder were “depth psychologists”, meaning their primary focus was on the unconscious and how it manifests in the conscious mind. Do we know anything now more than they did then about the unconscious? No. Not at all. You could argue that we actually know less than they did.
In my personal experience:
Most: ISTJ, ESTJ
High: ISFJ, ESFJ
Average: INFJ, ENFJ, ESFP, ENTJ
Low: ENFP, INFP, ESTP, ISTP, ISFP
Least: INTJ, INTP, ENTP
*casually slides in with some random graphs*
*silently slides back out*
Describe my emotions? Easy. Sadly, most people can’t handle the depth at which we express them.
Our emotions are so deep, so raw, so pure that most people Upon taking a glimpse at the real depth of our souls, run in fear because not only will they have to face the real us, but we will open them into such a deep realm of self actualization that they eventually will have to face themselves, and this scares the living shit out of them.
They either accept themselves totally and completely or they will need to be picked up by the local psychiatric hospital.
Either way is fine with us because we just show people the path, the steps they choose are not our responsibility.
If you wish to know our emotions, most authentic INTJs will gladly tell you. We will share that depth of ourselves to:
In the event we’re hurt or disappointed, we need a logical reason why and need to know how to prevent the negative emotions from ever resurfacing. (Our conclusions are usually, but acceptably not always, correct.)
Our emotions are very confusing and offten paradoxically difficult because of the nature of reality. (Even to us) Sharing them with someone whom we know couldn’t handle the depth, let alone understand that this exudes a persona of ubiquity. (Everyone is always spilling their emotions all over the place) We are not ubiquitous in the least, yet we like to appear to be. (If you don’t understand that, think about how many people are loose with their emotions, then think about those that are reserved with them, both exist and are equally important, but in their minds, they are always seeking validations of their emotions. The INTJ has the same problem, but puts a HUGE WALL in front of it to make it appear that he/she doesn’t need those validations)
See, it’s complicated as all hell and even we can’t understand us. And INTJs are supposed to be emotionally stable and mellow. INTJs are far from that internally.
Sometimes it’s best to let sleeping dragons lay.
Seriously ask yourself, do I want to understand a dragon and face fear and life and death or maybe just stay the fuck outta that cave and wait for him to come out with the full understanding that he may never come all the way out.
At the end of the day, The dragon can’t just change into a butterfly because you want him to. He was born a dragon and must live the life of a dragon.
What would be the “seven deadly sins” for each MBTI type morally?
INTJ – Greed, Pride, Wrath
INTP – Pride, Sloth
ENTJ – Greed, Pride, Wrath, Envy, Lust
ENTP – Sloth, Pride, Lust
INFJ – Pride, Envy
INFP – Sloth, Envy
ENFJ – Pride, Envy,
ENFP – Sloth, Pride, Lust, Envy
ISTJ – Pride,
ISFJ – Probably none of them
ESTJ – Greed, Pride
ESFJ – Greed, Envy, Gluttony
ISTP – Pride, Sloth, Gluttony, Greed, Lust
ISFP – Pride, Sloth, Gluttony, Envy, Lust
ESTP – Lust, Pride, Sloth, Envy, Greed
ESFP – Lust, Pride, Sloth, Gluttony, Envy,
Kim Jung Gi
So – very detailed oriented. A bit of social commentary.
Religious themes. Lots of religious themes
Somewhat mechanically minded.
ISFP – there are a ton of ISFP artists. Matisse, Gaugin, Kahlo.
ESTPs: bit contentious. Especially Sebastian Bieniek.
ESFPs: full of personality. Toulouse-Lautrec, Larry da Leopard, Mr. Brainwash, Picasso
Tamara de Lempicka
Officially, I don’t think that INTJs care if you like their art. They want you to think about their art.
Marcel Duchamp, M.C. Escher. Yes, ENTPs want to mess with you and social expectations.
Duchamp – famous for his urinal
INFP – Andy Warhol, deGoya
ENFP – Dali. Yep some more personalities.
I am not sure if this gives you a definitive idea of their art styles, but it’s definitely interesting.
ESTP – Disguise themselves as ENTJ, then sneak back in after getting voted off the island.
ISTP – Go kick three guys’ asses all by himself. [And this is not a movie or video game.]
ESFJ – Bakes pomegranate fritters for all his guy friends. …Okay, they’d also do a barbeque for a day of playoff football, with a tub of iced-down beer. And the guys would devour the fritters.
ESFP – Take vids of him cheating with the wife of the man that cheated with his wife, then plasters the vids across the interwebs. [ESFP is in the background doing the Icky Shuffle.]
ESTJ – Try to enforce the rules with his tenured coworkers, then when they laugh at him, go tell the boss what they did. ESTJ then gets promoted from their menial job, and becomes the manager’s confidential informant. ESTJ last seen ingratiating themselves to the manager’s boss.
ISTJ – Work 30 years without taking a vacation, and never complains about it.
ISFP – Runs away crying after the guy she has been wanting to date finally asks her out.
ISFJ – Bring her newborn to work because she didn’t trust the daycare center. Yes, she nurses at her desk, then gets sent home for creating a stampede around her cubicle.
ENTJ – Buys the network after the producers failed to keep ESTP off the island. Fires everyone, then graciously gives ESTP a free airline ticket home, but actually drops them out of the plane into the Congo in the middle of night. It backfires because ESTP loves the challenge, succeeds, and ends up with their own show which ENTJ offered them.
ENTP – Fill in for the entire debate team after they all came down with Covid. Is left feeling unfulfilled because it wasn’t enough of a challenge to debate five high schools alone.
ENFJ – Starts a business to privatize happiness, bringing everlasting joy to the entire world…except for ENFJs.
INTP – Creates a Trojan Horse that infiltrates the world banking network, opening million dollar retirement accounts for seven billion people, which is the real reason why ENFJ’s subjects are so damn happy.
ENFP – Invents a cute little machine that butterflies its way around the world snapping selfies and delivering billions of enthusiastic hugs. The butterfly bot becomes a social media giant, the first sentient machine, and just really wants to kiss everyone.
INFP – Create a mountain-sized portrait of all the unique art in their mind that hasn’t been painted yet. It’s chaos in art. When a black light is cast upon it, the painting becomes a beautiful tropical paradise under a moonlit night.
INFJ – Build a computer program that kicks out random ideas every 15 seconds. Twenty seven in the last hour alone were great ideas, but it wasn’t recording. Engendered in its creator’s image, bright, sweet, and forgetful.
INTJ – Plan revenge so perfect that everyone thinks it was a natural disaster. A volcano erupts under the sole victim, launching said target into the Sun. INTJ laughs heartily for the first time in two years watching their con trail enter the Sun’s corona.
Hey, what are the odds?
Do you spend time “living” in a fictional world in your mind?
When I’m writing, I do. Right now, for example, as I’m preparing the last draft of Black Iron to go to the editor, I feel like I have one foot in a world that doesn’t exist. It’s a bit jarring sometimes.
When I ran a pen and paper role-playing game some years ago, I had that same feeling of living three-quarters in this world and one-quarter in a fictional world.
 Which needs to happen in just a few weeks. Eek!
Susanna ViljanenMelody Brooke
What MBTI personality type is most likely to be the dark triad type?
This has been studied. Not through MBTI, but through the Big Five – and Big Five and MBTI have a strong correlation. See All the Dark Triad and some of the Big Five traits are visible in the face.
The Dark Triad consist of machiavellianism, narcissism and psychopathy.
It can be de
“There are only 2 types of people on this world. Winners and losers.” Is that true?
Watch out, unpopular opinion here!
Personally, I believe that if you boil it down to the key elements, there are only winners and losers in this world.
Now before you go all crazy on me, I’d like to note that the winners and losers conundrum is based more on an individual’s mindset (rather than in materialistic values).
For example, if me and a popular quoran go head-to-head, trying to find out who’s got more popular answers, then he’d obviously win… right?
Yet if I enjoyed writing the answers and felt that it made me better, then I also won something.
Just because it eventually boils down into win
Do you believe in the Myers Briggs? Why or why not?
Originally Answered: Do you believe in the Myers Briggs? Why or why not?
People will tell you that MBTI is not something to believe in, that its results are facts.
The truth is different however. I have touched upon this in many of my previous answers because the internet seems preoccupied with MBTI.
Reasons why you shouldn’t believe in MBTI for anything serious:
What MBTI types rarely put effort in keeping up to date with real world information and events to do with their community, the world, and society because they stay in their own world most of the time?
IN-Ps actually fit the bill better than IN-Js. You have to understand, even though IN-Js have inferior Se, it is still extroverted sensing. Even though IN-Ps have tertiary Si, it’s still introverted sensing. Consider how many politically and socially engaged IN-Js there are who talk about current events and their implications, directly as they exist in the here and now of today’s world. Whereas IN-Ps tend to be more focused on problems which are timeless, and which may come in any form at any time.
EN-Ps have inferior Si, but dominant Ne tends to take them out of their own worlds and into the p
What Hogwarts Houses are the NCT members in?
Let’s see where the Sorting Hat shall sort these boys…
“You might belong in Gryffindor, where dwell the brave at heart, their daring, nerve, and chivalry set Gryffindors apart.”
“You might belong in Hufflepuff, where they are just and loyal , those patient Hufflepuffs are true and unafraid of toil.”
“Or yet in wise old Ravenclaw, if you’ve a ready mind, where those of wit and learning, will always find their kind.”
“Or perhaps in Slytherin, you’ll make your real friends, those c
What is your MBTI type and what is the type of your biggest confidant and go to for emotional support?
I am an INTP and I prefer other logical, rational and intelligent (emotionally and IQ) people to go to for emotional support. I trust the judgment of those who can see every side of a situation when deciding a course of action. As an INTP, I also enjoy when my confidant will entertain my various hypothesis on scenarios because I know that I have a unique way of thinking sometimes. I prefer people who communicate directly and are not afraid to challenge me, if they feel that I am wrong or being ridiculous. You get bonus points, if you have started to understand my thought processes and use my u
What would be the virtues for each MBTI type morally?
INTJ – Chastity – Rational control is Te parent’s wheelhouse. This is why you don’t know they are all balls of barely contained rage.
ENTJ – Diligence – Te at its finest. Working tirelessly to their goal
ISTJ – Contentment (Kindness) an ISTJ in their space
ESTJ – Chasitity – Their loyalty and commitment
INFJ – Compassion, kindness; Fe parent
ENFJ – Charity Fe hero cannot help but be generous and lobing.
ISFJ – Humility – my big brothers hit all of the key points: bravery, modesty, and reverence.
ESFJ – Charity, Fe hero is generous to a fault and loves everyone.
INTP – Chastity. Get your head out of th
Why do people not like Steven Crowder?
Because he isnt for all the people. Color race religion creed, it don’t matter. And hes political, pointing that finger constantly. And he’s Canadian. There’s no comedy woth that. Just a loud obnoxious mouth with legs. The man is nothing unless he learns all live is love
Sheila Marie Cena
Which MBTI is the most frugal?
I think it’s the INTJ. Here’s how an INTJ’s buying impulses work:
Okay, this is partly a joke, but I think my I
Chris B. Stephen
What are some news/politics YouTube channels that you would recommend?
I’ve learned a lot of things from serching different keyworks on Youtube side by side with the name “ Thom Hartmann Program” or “Kyle Kulinski/Seculaar talk” Kyle tend to get really angry or funny sometimes on the show which is entertaining. Thom is more professional in the way that he is well reserved and collective but I like both. They do disagree in a lot of things but it’s good to get information from various perspectives. I don’t really have time to research every single political show out there, you have to start from somewhere sometime and finally get involved into politics. Of course
How are actors and actresses able to take on a completely different MBTI personality on screen to the point where as the audience watching it, even the cognitive functions of the personality they are emulating on stage seems to line up?
Credit at least half to the writers who created the characters and wrote their lines, basing all of this on people they have personally known. Actors can also observe similar types to get ideas of how to portray them.
In addition, casting practices often try to get actors who are of the same or similar types to those being portrayed.
What are some faults to the Myers Briggs personality test?
I think the major fault of all personality inventories is how the results are viewed and used. Everyone has all the traits described by the MBTI or by the Enneagram or any other such “test.” A personality designation has to do with which traits are the strongest in any individual.
What I see in many of the questions about the MBTI is a tendency to use a small amount of knowledge, i.e., MBTI results, to like or question or shun or criticize others. I don’t get this. Every personality is a part of a whole and contributes to it. Personalities, interests, preferences differ from one person to the n
The overhead is the best answer to What do you think of Steven Crowder and his “Change my Mind” videos? that we researched. Follow us for more interesting answers!