#would the women not conform to his expectations? would they fall into the delusion? | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

imuybemovoko · 4 years

Text

Ray Comfort

So I just realized that in that post where I made a parody of a gospel tract booklet, I said I was going to use Ray Comfort’s parachute metaphor and entirely forgot to actually do that. So I’ll go into that here, and possibly go on a bit of a longer rant about the guy as well. Just like with any of my religiously themed posts, trigger warning. If this is going to bring up stuff you’re not ready to deal with, please find something different to read and maybe come back after you’ve done whatever healing you need to. The last thing I want to do is hurt someone like that.

With that, let’s go into this shit.

This is a random shitty blog site, but it explains the metaphor in some depth. You know, in case you want to read this and make sure I’m not ass-pulling what I’m about to say.

Basically, the metaphor likens life to an airline flight which for some unspecified reason you might get yeeted out of without warning and Jesus to a parachute, and it likens dying in a thirty thousand foot fall to burning in hell for all of eternity. A parachute would (in theory, and with some apparent high degree of certainty in this metaphor) make the thirty thousand foot fall something you wouldn’t die from; likewise, Jesus is understood to be the thing that stops someone from roasting in God’s blast furnace forever when they die. On its own, this aspect of the metaphor is manipulative enough because it uses a fearful circumstance that we all no doubt think about at some point in our complex modern lives, in this case splattering on the ground because your plane breaks up in midair or someone yeets you out the door for no reason or whatever, to get you to buy into a narrative. Comfort often uses this as a tool in his evangelism, but he often includes another aspect of it outlined on that random shitty blog site. It goes like this: The “contemporary” gospel message is one where they tell you the parachute makes your life more comfortable, so when the other passengers laugh at you for wearing a damn parachute for whatever reason they contrive to do that and when it sucks to wedge your entire back into the shitty airline seat with the parachute there, you’re liable to take it off and be pissed off with the flight attendant who gave it to you, and then fall and die when the plane blows up and you’re yeeted into the stratosphere. On the other hand, if the attendant informs you that the reason you have this parachute is you might get yeeted into the stratosphere at any moment and it’ll stop you from dying in a fall, you’ll wear this thing gladly and ignore any discomfort or verbal abuse from our weirdly capricious passengers. In the same way, Comfort says, if you’re told to come to Jesus because “your life will get better”, you’re liable to walk away when that doesn’t happen, but if you’re told to come to Jesus because you might otherwise be part of the Great Cosmic Yeet and end up in hell, you’ll come to Jesus gladly and not leave no matter what weird shit the world throws at you both in response to that decision and in terms of random circumstance.

Here, if you’re willing to indulge in some emotional self harm with me, you can watch Ray Comfort ask a bunch of shitty probing questions of a guy and then slap him with this metaphor in its entirety. (Ignore anything after about 4:56 because Comfort is done with his bullshit and the video goes into some shameless plug for Kirk Cameron.) In general, but especially because the guy he’s talking to has a Christian background, this is a sketchy form of gaslighting because Comfort is telling him that if he’s walked away from his Christian background, he must’ve gotten into it for the wrong reasons, without any actual cause to claim he knows that but rather as an assertion that he expects the man to accept as true. In a phrase, he’s dictating his victim’s reality to him. He then goes on to tell this guy, who has said that he has had suicidal thoughts in the past and it seems like even made an attempt or two, is a horrible person because he has premarital attraction to women and occasionally lies. In other words, Comfort goes right from this scary-ass manipulative parachute analogy into pathologizing and shaming this poor guy for a minor flaw that everyone has and his innate, natural attractions that he can’t control, framing both of these as offenses against God worthy of being yeeted into hell. He thus makes an astonishingly negligent attack against this guy’s identity and self worth, an attempt to manipulate his understanding of reality through fear and pressure, and a connection back to the parachute metaphor, which in this case asserts that the guy was wrong if he dares think that he actually used to believe.

There’s also a cringey false equivalence in Comfort’s parachute analogy that I didn’t think of until I typed the above paragraph. Doubtless Comfort thinks it’s true, but whether he does or not, it makes the analogy all the more manipulative. In ascribing foreknowledge of the coming breakup/forced exit of the plane that our metaphorical passenger will go through to the flight attendants, he ascribes that situation to the will of some kind of agent. If someone knows a plane is going to break up enough in advance to procure parachutes to hand out to willing passengers, that means they either caused the plane to break up or are going to allow it even when they could’ve cancelled the flight, used a different plane, or whatever. In the analogy, in every instance of it I’ve seen, this isn’t framed as a “just in case” kind of thing, it’s framed as a certainty which, given the other circumstances in this image, the relevant staff would clearly be able to prevent or avoid by some means. Thus, either the cause or the allowance of the circumstances which make the parachute necessary are the result of someone’s will, most probably the pilots, flight attendants, or airport personnel. I find this equivalence to be false because, except in the case of murder or willful negligence or something like that, there is no agency that I’m aware of behind the cause of our deaths, it’s just an accident or some weird happenstance in the universe that leads to it. And if there were an agency that could stop our deaths and, say, choose not to yeet us into a hole filled with endless fire afterward, but lets us die and does a lot of cosmic yeeting, that agency would be pretty evil, yeah? In Comfort’s worldview, and in my old one, the exact time and means of our deaths are all pre-ordained or at least known in advance by God, who has the ability to both prevent them entirely and to keep us out of hell without requiring some extreme sacrifice by a third party and yet makes the active choice not to. So this comes down to “God is going to yeet you and it’s your fault so accept what I’m telling you, you horrible sinner you”. Any protests of “but I’m the same” are bullshit. The “set apart” bits in the scripture, which they talk about plenty behind these scenes, are the parts that say “you’re better than everyone else, act like it”. Again, so you know I’m not ass-pulling that, here’s one example. Notice where it says “do not be conformed to the pattern of this world”? The world is seen as evil in Evangelicalism and so not conforming to its pattern is not being evil. The whole sanctification narrative is a similar idea. The whole point is that they think they’re better than the rest of the world. Anytime someone like Ray Comfort says “but I’m a sinner too”, they are gaslighting you. Because it’s obvious that these evangelists feel this way.

So what you have in this analogy, and in Comfort’s conversation with the guy in the video I linked above, is a scary metaphor that basically entirely discounts the experience of anyone else who believes, saying “if you don’t believe the exact way I do you’re going to hell”. Or, in a word...

Alright, I guess I’m going all in and tearing apart this asshole’s shitty grift in the best way I can, because I hate the way he used that parachute analogy on that poor guy. If you plan to keep reading, brace yourselves. I get into a lot of weird rambling about evolution that probably doesn’t make even close to as much sense as people who know more about it than I do would, a bunch of shitty dishonest arguments within one of his documentary film thingies, and stuff like that. It’s messy and weird and can get angry because fuck evangelists and their lies. :^)

Ray and his crowd also believe that the existence and worth of their god is self evident, a position they will defend in part based on this passage from Romans. In the synopsis on his ministry webpage of his shitty film “The Atheist Delusion”, Ray, or whoever wrote this for him in the event that he didn’t write it himself, characterizes “...having to prove the existence of God to an atheist is like having to prove the existence of the sun, at noon on a clear day.” At the time of my posting this, I will have watched this garbage fire so you don’t have to. In the first several minutes, his primary argument is based on a category error that equivocates the processes of abiogenesis and evolution with the process of a machine’s construction or a book’s authorship. At 9:25 in the film, he characterizes this argument of his as “common sense”. He refers to the complexity and apparent design found within DNA and uses that to presuppose that some agency must’ve been behind it. When he presents this to other people, he couches it in leading language such as describing the human genome as “intelligent information” (7:08 or so). Of course the modern scientific understanding is that the appearance of design we see within life on Earth is just an appearance and that the forms best suited to survive are the ones we have. These aren’t the optimum forms, and human bodies are actually kind of janky, having teeth we don’t need that cause a lot of pain, an organ that sometimes explodes for no clear reason, kind of weird joints, screwy perceptions, and that kind of thing. There’s also this thing that pigeons and some other birds do where they have to bob their heads when they walk because they can’t process much information at one time so they have to keep their head perfectly still, then move it to where their bodies are going to be with their next step, so they can see properly while they walk, a problem they apparently lack during flight. This seems like a rather serious design flaw if you assume that it’s the result of intentional design, but if you come at it from the perspective of this just being the best form that’s been mutated into these birds so far, it makes a lot more sense because a process that has forces acting on it that make it not fully random but doesn’t have intelligence behind it would be one that we could and should expect to have what we’d call errors. It is thus clear to me that Ray is falsely equivocating what we see with intelligent design, because just in what I’ve mentioned about humans and birds, I can think of a few ways that, given the means, I’d have designed things better, and I’m kind of an idiot. Not one of the people he interviews in the first part of this shitty film even mentions this, or any other of the myriad valid responses to this argument he makes that I can’t think of or don’t want to take the space to spam in here, at least not after his post-production. I guess that’s the power of leading questions, interviewing people who don’t know a field, and dishonest editing. :^)

After that, around 9 and a half minutes in, he moves on to the origin of the universe. He asks a bunch of people some dumb questions about something coming from nothing, then shows a clip of Richard Dawkins, a professor of animal biology and evolutionary biology, not having a good answer when it comes to the origins of the universe, which is a field that’s decidedly more in the interest of astrophysicists. Think what you will of Dawkins (from what I’ve seen the guy can be kind of an arrogant dick but he’s clearly intelligent), but it seems a bit dishonest that Comfort doesn’t do this with someone who actually studies the origin of the universe instead of him. You know, maybe a fun trick to help his film make atheists look bad.

He does interview Lawrence Krauss, a theoretical physicist, later, ...asking him the same question he asks his first several victims about whether a magazine could create itself spontaneously. Krauss actually does bring up a response to Comfort’s DNA argument by pointing to the illusion of design within a snowflake and explaining that chemical and physical laws fully explain how DNA can exist in the same way that the properties of polar molecules explain how a snowflake can have its shape. Ray then ...cuts from this to himself spouting bullshit about how “dNa Is DiFfErEnT” and interviewing college students. After he larps a successful debunking of Krauss here, he moves on to asking, “which came first, the chicken or the egg?”, and proceeding to do a bunch of weird dishonest bullshit with the fact that on the surface this question appears to be a paradox. He starts using it as a starting point to make one of those “chain of events” arguments that necessarily leads back to God by misrepresenting evolution and presupposing his answer. A clear example of that can be seen in the spooky Gish gallop of an interview starting at 18:20. He asks this guy whether the chicken or the egg came first, when he says the chicken, he says, “how did the egg get fertilized?” which naturally leads to the existence of a rooster, requiring two more fertilized eggs, and so on. The guy breaks this cycle by saying “They all came from the stars.” Ray might be right in taking this as a reference to Neil deGrasse Tyson’s interview on 60 Minutes where he explains that all the atoms that form us were once formed in stars, which the film smash-cuts to after the victim’s slightly snarky answer. Ray then asks the same question about his victim, his parents, their parents, and so on, starting by shutting down his “I came from the stars” response with the obvious truth that his more immediate origin is in his parents. After this, he walks the process back to the biblical Adam, asserting the Genesis narrative as truth, and segues into evolution, asking questions about how biological processes that are necessary in modern life forms could’ve occurred in life forms that existed before the mechanisms that carry those processes out evolved. This is where Comfort’s misrepresentation of evolution takes place, because he assumes that it doesn’t make sense for early life forms that later diversified into many forms including chickens to exist because they ...hadn’t developed the same biological processes as chickens yet. Then he makes an... astonishingly weird false equivalence at 20:04 or so, asking “why did the air evolve”. The air didn’t fucking “evolve” Ray, that’s a category error. It was changed over millions of years by the impact of how the things breathing it had evolved. After this, he’s right on back into trying to implicitly discount phylogeny by saying “you have to extend that to (insert laundry list of modern life forms here)” and apparently literally ignoring the possibility of the existence of common ancestors that developed systems like eyes and brains before diversifying. Then he goes into this weird “did blood or the heart evolve first” thing, assuming for some godawful reason that it’s impossible to have cells in a fluid matrix meant to transport oxygen without a pump to shove the fluid around and that it’s not possible for, say, photoreceptor cells to exist without the rest of the eye because he’s assuming that a certain system like a circulatory system or an eye cannot possibly increase in complexity over time, but that the whole thing has to be present all at once to even function. This doesn’t work because the main thing that, say, makes blood tick is the fact that it exchanges oxygen and CO2 with tissues and the systems that make it more efficient are secondary characteristics to that which serve to make it work more efficiently. He ignores that basic functions can arise before systems that make them better... much like happened in actual human-designed constructs like cars. We had the wheel and axle first, then a cart a horse could move, then internal combustion engines, and then all the shit that makes them cool and modern. The increase in complexity, though, doesn’t do away with the fact that a simple machine like a wheel and axle serves roughly the same purpose as the more complex, modern system does, just less efficiently and less comfortably. This is literally a process we observe both in evolution by natural selection and our design processes and technological advancement, it’s just driven by different forces in our designs than it is in evolution because we’re an intelligence and mutation and scarcity are not. It’s no wonder Ray likes interviewing college students about this kind of thing, though, because it took me a biology class and a bunch of independent research to understand these concepts and I’m still not that good with them. (In other words, I’m not a fucking expert, please find someone who explains this better than I can lol I’m just pointing out some glaring issues in Ray’s arguments with my ranting and shitty analogies.) After all this, Ray asserts that the student’s uncertainty, his misunderstandings of how it all works, and the Bible disprove evolution. Which is uh... kinda goddamn dishonest.

After his weird rant about evolution, he plays a bunch of cute animal gifs set to a French song as a transition. Which uh... bro what the fuck

Then he starts telling people not to trust their perceptions, cementing the point with the existence of that weird shimmering effect you get on hot roads, and asking them if they believe in God. He meets a few skeptics, agnostics, and people I think I’ll describe as “spiritual but not religious”. Then, to the first guy he gives the mirage talk to, he starts tearing apart Richard Dawkins as someone who “only cherry-picks the bad parts of God”, which... I don’t follow Dawkins really at all, but that seems to be a dishonest framing of matters by Comfort even if Dawkins refuses to acknowledge any apparent good within the character of this god because judging the morality of a character like this, who is claimed to be morally perfect, should focus heavily on any immoral actions he commits and there are myriad examples. After this, he shows a clip of some interviewer person asking Dawkins about a laundry list of character flaws he’s mentioned as present in the god of the Old Testament, then ...weirdly, skips straight out of that to a guy saying Comfort shouldn’t equivocate an argument for intelligent design with an argument for Christianity at 24:54, which is a fantastic point. And then he cuts right away from that again to a guy who says that Ray has given him something to think about while claiming plausible deniability and then a bunch of people saying “yeah I think I’m still an atheist.”

And then it takes another in a long line of bad turns into gaslighting and fuckery at 25:33.

He says to the guy there, “You know in your heart that God is real”, first going into personal experience to explain how he can claim he knows this, and second going to a bible verse which he (maybe conveniently?) doesn’t specify. A quick google search tells me that this is likely referring to John 1:9, which I don’t understand why he would reference because the broader context of this verse doesn’t seem to say the first thing about God being self-evident, and in fact says “the world did not recognize him”. Then, Comfort uses an again unspecified reference to Matthew 6:23 to proclaim to the guy that he is in “great darkness”. ...Again, the broader context refers to something else than what Ray is representing it as, speaking apparently of matters of desire rather than anything whatsoever about resisting knowledge of God. Someone ought to tell Ray that he’s taking these verses out of context.

Then he makes another asshole analogy, saying “you’re like someone who takes batteries out of smoke detectors because he doesn’t like the alarm”, claiming that the guy he’s talking to is willfully ignoring a message because he finds the message annoying and ignores what it entails rather than, oh I don’t know, for one of the million reasons someone might ignore claims that aren’t as evident as the person selling them claims that they are or are made by someone who is trying to be manipulative. Then he tells this guy to stir up his conscience and think about his inevitable death. Which uh... is the soft form of the “haha unbeliever x dies in a lightning strike and gets yeeted into Hell” thing that Jack Chick did in his tracts, because he’s just been having a conversation involving stuff this guy probably heard at least some growing up and throughout his life so he knows that Ray is implying with his smoke detector analogy that he’s in danger of hellfire if he doesn’t agree to all this. Lovely.

Comfort goes on to make similar “it’s all self-evident” claims to a bunch of other people. It’s all very wacky. Then he tells them that they’re only denying it because they love sin, which is gross and stupid. Same kind of manipulative bullshit, super reductive, just ...terrible. Then he goes on to be weird and flowery and specific in his explanation of what amounts to an “our environment fits us, therefore we and it were purposefully built for each other” claim. Which uh... doesn’t remotely follow. At 28:50 or so, the interviewee offers a response to Ray’s “either something made everything or nothing made everything” line, saying roughly, “some things made everything, not necessarily just one thing”. After this, Ray uh... accuses him of dodging things to avoid moral responsibility to God. Ew. No, he’s not doing that, he’s just not coming at this from your presupposition that your god is real Ray, please stop.

After he’s done using things he considers immoral like premarital sex, porn, and weirdly little else (god damn this guy is obsessed with sex) as gaslighting tools, he launches into this weird rant about how people used things found in nature as inspiration for some advancements in machines, says some drivel about how we did it all with material that already existed as if that proves anything, talks a hell of a lot about how awfully convenient it is that intelligent beings learned to use cow skin for purposes other than being skin on a cow and things like that, and shows this montage of the universe being beautiful and people enjoying things as a several minute long transition to his next interview. It’s wacky. After that, he’s back to an interview and claims that everyone worships something, then uses that claim as a springboard to assert that God is self-evident. Then uh... smash cut to a different interview, where he browbeats a woman with her morality, another interview where he recites some tenuous claims of scientific facts in the bible, to another section of an interview where he gaslights a person who seems to deal with suicidal thoughts yet again (god DAMN this is so predatory), and then gets into trying to convince a guy that hell exists.

In this interview, he claims that humanity’s desire for justice is proof that hell exists. Which is stupid. Desiring justice isn’t proof that some god uses a flaming yeet hole to pervert it.

Then he’s back to a series of “are you a good person” “mostly” “yeah no you’re a shitbean worthy of eternal fire” and shit like that which is interspersed between ideas he’s already covered throughout the rest of the video. It’s like he’s cutting the interviews so that his words transition smoothly and he has a cohesive message for a lot of this section, and frankly that’s a pretty generous read of the way he’s stitched this together because it could also be a voiceover with a bunch of clips of people making faces that look kinda like they agree. It swells in happy music. At around 53 minutes, he does something ...gross. That old guy who said something earlier that suggests he deals with suicidal thoughts is back, and Ray tells him about how amazing heaven is going to be if he just trusts God before he dies. Which is the kind of mindset that led to me fantasizing about dying in the Middle East for getting too annoying about Jesus when I believed. He is doing the opposite of anything helpful for this guy in saying that the next life will be better. And then he does this shitty thing at 53:45 or so, where he says, “I love you, I’m a Christian. I’m not filled with hate like some religions.”

Holy fuck you’re skilled at projecting your faults onto others, Ray Comfort you homophobic cunt. (Yes, he has a “gay bad” version of this film.)

After this he gets into a bunch of weird shit about how death could arrive at any moment, then back into asking people if they’re still atheists. This is a “happy” ending for his intended audience this time because a lot of them are like “yeah I’m going to ask some tough questions” and a couple of them even seem like they might be about to believe.

There’s another deeply gross moment in there at 56:40 when Ray says “please don’t feel pressured by me” right after saying “this is more serious than a heart attack” to the same person. In other words, “I’m going to pressure you, but this isn’t pressure, it’s all your choice.” Which uh... there’s a term for what he’s doing. I’ve been throwing this word around a lot, but it’s not inaccurate. He’s making people question their reality and their sanity. He’s telling people he’s not doing exactly what he just got done doing. Here’s the definition given in that article: “ Gaslighting is a form of psychological manipulation in which a person or a group covertly sows seeds of doubt in a targeted individual or group, making them question their own memory, perception, or judgment, often evoking in them cognitive dissonance and other changes, including low self-esteem. Using denial, misdirection, contradiction, and misinformation, gaslighting involves attempts to destabilize the victim and delegitimize the victim's beliefs. Instances can range from the denial by an abuser that previous abusive incidents occurred, to belittling the victim's emotions and feelings, to the staging of bizarre events by the abuser with the intention of disorienting the victim. “

After this there’s a bunch of people agreeing to try Christianity because of course Ray wants a happy ending for his people, and then there’s a guy telling you to buy resources, look at his website, and shit like that.

Alright. That’s enough of Ray’s propaganda to draw a good picture of who he is and what he does, I think. He lives and breathes by being able to get away with dishonest arguments and screwy manipulation tactics, partially because he’s a practiced evangelist and it comes with the territory and partially because he can fuck around in post-production. You can tell that from the fact that dishonest arguments, screwy manipulation tactics, and shady editing are so common in his bag of tricks. He might do some honest and sane things but I’m too pissed off after watching him be predatory and dishonest for an hour to mention those here. I guess if you take issue with that or otherwise want to enlighten me about his stopped clock moments, let me know.

#ex christian #i probably need therapy #ray comfort

0 notes

trumpsupportersunited · 7 years

Link

First of all, I hope that everyone had a Merry Christmas and is safe and well. This will be a rather long post but have a LOT to get off my chest and it feels great to finally be able to share it and among so many like minded people.As a 20 something Black man AKA a milleninal that lives in a liberal hell hole like Boston, Massachusetts, I was raised my entire life with an anti-White mindset and to be as liberal as possible. Fortunately, my core as a person never truly lined up with those ideals and as such I grew up "weird" and "acting White" for showing any form of intelligence and work ethic by the majority of Blacks and White libs AKA cucks and betas.Long story short, despite that I conformed to a lot of liberal and "Black policies" just because I thought I had to despite being annoyed at much of it and not truly agreeing with it. Thanks to Trump's presidency run and the nonsense the liberals were spouting, I had finally had enough of them and completely embraced that I was team MAGA. I had seen enough of the lack of logic and double standards that were being used and just never sat right with me even as a child.I've never felt freer, happier and prouder to be an American than ever before after no longer allowing myself to conform to the self-destructive ways of liberals. I can't believe that liberals and most Blacks tried to get me to believe that it was okay to blame Whites for being White, that I was oppressed and a victim, that loving your country and showing patriotism is bad, that Women being women is bad while men lying to themselves about being women was good and just being as anti-American for the country and everyone as it gets.They whine about everything, are self-righteous and are as hypocritical as it gets. Many turned on me just because I disagreed with them on principle even when I didn't attack them or force my views on them. Then they made things about race and tried to dictate how I should feel and see, threw out endless personal attacks despite me doing nothing to them and then saying they couldn't be my friend or associate anymore. Funny how they're supposed to be the tolerant, open minded, non-racist, respecting people types they preach about being and why they're better than conservatives yet it goes out the window when people don't conform.Due to this, I absolutely despise liberals with their delusional emotionally based reasoning (which is phony) and them being the opposite of logic, facts and reality. It's this mindset that they have used to brainwash Blacks for their own ends and are the ACTUAL people oppressing them and that thinks lowly of them. The Democrats were pro slavery and founded the KKK after all. As I see it, Blacks are no longer physically enslaved but they're mentally enslaved by the liberals sick and twisted game as nothing more than mere pawns.Meanwhile, conservatives welcome me with open arms despite me not going out of my way to appeal to them. I just simply shared we had similar views and immediately they were some of the kindest people ever despite Libs claiming they're opposite of that and hate me just because I'm Black. It's great to be among people with the shared mindset of hard work, proper values, success, being America first and WINNING. The opposite of what Libs are.After that, it hit me that Libs don't deserve respect as they have none and are also an easy group to troll. Seeing all that I'm GLAD this reddit exists since there's NOTHING better than Americans actually caring about their country that at the same time triggers Libs and cucks. It's hilarious how there's so many libs coming to a sub just to pointlessly hurt their own feelings and be ultimately powerless to stop or change anything. Love how the mods here have a field day blasting the cucks with facts and reality as well lol.I will say that, I wish that I had gone to a Trump rally but I was not as confident and comfortable about being out there with my pro MAGA views back then. It didn't completely hit until half way of this year that I was 100% on the MAGA train and not getting off as well as already losing a number of so called friends over it. Hopefully Trump runs again in 2020 because if he does I will most certainly be at as many as I can. Did anyone here go to any of them? I would love to hear people's experiences going to rallies to help me realize what I missed out on since I know I would have made a lot of great friends going to one.Some news that is very comforting to me is that I've noticed that a lot of libs have been on edge as they do their own research and get tired of the extremism that the left indulges in. They're exposing themselves, falling apart and losing their influence which is a glorious thing to witness. I've also realized how conservative gen Z seems to be. I want that wall built, ALL of the illegals deported and to continue standing strong against out of control third world immigration and Islamic practices that do NOT line up with civilized societies. That's what happens when you push too much as people start to push back. The best part about it is all the whining the powerless libs and cucks will be doing to our amusement over it all.MAGA for life.EDIT:Wow, I did not expect to have the ENORMOUS response that I have gotten from this post. I figured no more than maybe 20 people would chime in and that this post would get buried within minutes never to be seen again. I have one of the most upvoted and active posts here and that's been the case not long after I made it, and it's been an absolutely mind blowing experience. Hundreds of you have chimed in to say nothing but positive and encouraging things save ONE individual that I dealt with and I'm moved beyond words at your overwhelming kindness.To me, I'm just some random guy sharing his life experiences and POV that should mean nothing to most but you've made me feel like my voice actually matters. I've tried to respond to every comment I could despite how many comments there are because it's the LEAST I can do to show my appreciation for the love you all have given me. Continue to comment or even private message me if you prefer and I will get to them as soon as I can.I can't thank you all enough for how amazing you've been and you all feel like family to me. A family I never knew I had until now and couldn't be happier to be apart of. Something I NEVER would have knew I had if not for Trump yet Libs say he creates division and brings out hatred in people. Not that Lib delusions will get them to acknowledge it, but the fine people of this thread are yet another nail in the coffin for such ridiculous claims having any merit. Next year if possible, I'll see if I can collect actual Liberal tears in a bottle and send them to Trump hahaha.I'm glad to hear so many of you had a Merry Christmas (a term Libs hate but I will NOT stop using) and I hope that you all have a VERY happy new year and am excited for yet another year of Trump being our president and making America great.Team MAGA always! via /r/The_Donald

#Trump #President Trump #Politics

4 notes · View notes

kendrixtermina · 8 years

Text

Oldham Personality Styles/Traits Test Results

(Clicky Clicky)

For comparision, here’s my results from other typology systems: INTP (LII-Ne), 5w4 sp/sx (548), RULAI, Chaotic Neutral, Lunar, Melancholic, Ravenclaw, Horned Serpent

Idiosyncratic types are tuned in to and sustained by their own feelings and belief systems, whether or not others accept or understand their particular worldview or approach to life. They are self-directed and independent, requiring few close relationships. Though they are inner-directed and follow their own hearts and minds, Idiosyncratic men and women are keen observers of others and particularly sensitive to how other people react to them. They tend to question common beliefs and expectations. They are highly spiritual and do not close their minds to any possibility, always asking what if?' They tend to have a deep inner life, act eccentrically, and live in their own world. They may be interested in the occult or the supernatural and are drawn to abstract and speculative thinking. Fitting into everyday, conventional life can be difficult for Idiosyncratic people. Others may view them as strange, which can be a problem in jobs and relationships. They must live life their own way and sometimes regret they cannot do things in the orthodox fashion. The pressure to conform presents intolerable stress for them. Two key factors affect the quality of Idiosyncratic lives: whether they can find an accepting environment and how well they adapt to others' expectations. Few work settings tolerate eccentricities of behavior, unless the individual has a great deal to offer by way of intelligence or talent. Some Idiosyncratics do well with one ear tuned in to their own personal worlds and one outward to what the boss expects of them. Others, however, have a hard time understanding or accepting authority. Idiosyncratic people do not need other people to give their lives direction or meaning. If they can't find partners who accept their unconventionality, they usually do well on their own. Some are content to experience several relationships in their lives without necessarily finding their one and only.

Everything except the superstitions bit (I’m actually an atheist), though I did have an esoteric phase in my teens and enjoy mythology and random speculation (as just that, stories)

Solitary types have little need of companionship and are most comfortable alone. They do not need interaction with others to enjoy life. Self-possessed and self-controlled, these individuals are alone because they want to be alone, not because they feel left out. Free of the passionate need for others, they can be quite content standing back and watching others. Indeed, they are often gifted observers of nature and of other people. Emotionally, highly Solitary people are even-tempered, calm, dispassionate, unsentimental, and unflappable. They display an apparent indifference to pain and pleasure and are not driven by sexual needs. They are not greatly influenced by either praise or criticism. They function well at work. They get down to work quickly and don't spend much time fraternizing at the water cooler. While they usually do not do well within the political framework of larger companies, when left alone to do their work, they can put their mind to it with unusual concentration. Solitary individuals can be content within relationships as long as their partner accepts their need for solitude. However, even moderately Solitary people may not intuitively comprehend others' feelings or respond to their emotional cues. 'You don't love me!' is a common lament of partners of Solitary people. The more the partner pushes for emotional reactions and a depth of intimate feeling, the greater the stress on the Solitary person. To cope, he or she will retreat. The partner would be better off recognizing signs of caring that are different from the usual I-want-you, I-need-you, l-love-you's.

Ugh that last paragraph, that exact same relationship problem. I don’t often hear the concept of “So introverted even your loved ones sometimes stress you out” in a way that doesn’t conflate it with misanthropy. Like I don’t want to make anyone feel bad or ignored (thats a horrible thing to do) but im not good at this.

I wouldn’t describe myself as self-controlled or good-at-work (probably due to other traits in the mix) though I can concentrate when the time & subject are right. (otherwise im more on the distractable side tho. or it depends on what it is.) I distinctly remember taking some test/assesment and getting a high score specifically for concentration, i think it was the highest overall (the lowest was motor function. 11 year old me could not catch a ball to save her life.)

As a child or teen I would often start reading at noon and be so concentrated on the book I’d fail to notice the passage of time until my mom came in to get me for supper and asked why I hadn’t turned the light on.

I don’t think I’m unflappable at all but again it depends on what and the situation and i dont really know what others see, like, I obviously know I have feels but its my own head.

Serious types are solemn and not given to emotional expression. They are realistically aware of their own capabilities but they are also aware of their limitations. They are not tempted by vanity or self-importance. They hold themselves responsible for their actions. They=re thinkers, analyzers, evaluators, ruminators and will always play things over in their minds before they acting. Serious individuals anticipate problems and when the worst happens, they=re prepared to deal with it. Serious individuals are realists. They see the hard, harsh nature of life clearly. They have no illusions and are incapable of imagining a silver lining. They are no-nonsense people particularly suited to hard times, when their ability to push on can help everyone to survive. They always work hard and provide for others without any sense of heroism or pride in their efforts. Even though they can seem joyless, Serious types are not necessarily unhappy. They take great satisfaction in their view of the universe. They are interested in serious subjects, which they find reassuring, and they find no need to escape into pleasure. Serious people are intensely hard workers, dependable, and trustworthy. They persevere whether or not they are enthusiastic or well rewarded. This can make it all too easy for employers to take advantage of them. They do not expect encouragement or to be treated well by others. Although they are not socially outgoing, once they do connect with others they form very stable, long-term attachments. They tolerate the rough spots in relationships well. They are as critical of others as they are of themselves, but their fault-finding gives them no pleasure. They deeply regret causing any pain . Others who continually insist that they change into optimistic outgoing, happy-go-lucky people cause them great stress but their characteristic cynicism helps them to cope.

ARGH that “I’d rather see the world as it is than sugercoat it for feelgoodsyness” thing can be so hard to explain to people. I try to be realistic about my abilities & place in the world and aspire toward realism. (and when I’m already stressed out optimism will only serve to make me feel pissed or misunderstood. Unfortunately my mom is the exact opposite, leading to a few regrettable outbursts and isunderstandings, though not major ones. )

The work ethics part doesn’t really apply tho.

Conclusion: Ugh I am such an INTP 5.

I also scored somewhat high for ‘Leisurely’ (Fuck authority sweetheart ~ ) and ‘Vigilant’ (Yay self-sufficiency, though it’s more a horizon to strive for than something I’ve fully realized yet)

That was the 14 trait model tho, the 16 trait one also has this:

Artistic

· Mood swings. Shifts from a moderately upbeat, outgoing, creative character to a withdrawn and sullen depressive one. When in a high state, they can be highly productive, original, humorous, and engaging. During a low state they become self-absorbed, pessimistic, apathetic, and may resort to substance abuse. The mood swings happen regularly in cycles, are similar to bipolar (manic-depression) disorder, but not as extreme in the polarity, and also the mood changes in the Artistic personality are usually more so the result of within the person and not triggered by external circumstances.

· Artistic inclinations. People of this style often involve themselves in some sort of creative output. They may go into a state of inspiration where artistic production is strong then fall into an apathetic daze, where it becomes difficult, almost unbearable to create art. Since they have a grasp on many corners of the human personality, they have an advantage at expressing the nuances of a particular viewpoint. Many of the world's great artists have had this character style.

· Unpredictability. They may take up new plans, jobs, residences, etc. out of impulse. They despise routine and love improvising, stimulation, and new experiences.

· Feeling-oriented. Their impulses and feelings control their lives and dictate their appearance and decisions. They rarely make decisions through a systematic, logical follow-through approach but instead base it on their current mood.

· Relationship difficulties. Relationships can be trying for these people. They may become promiscuous, unfaithful, or difficult to handle.

· Low self-control. They have a difficulty saying "no" to themselves with their appetite. They may go on shopping sprees, binge on food or drink, give into sexual compulsions, etc. Afterwards, they may feel guilty about it and restrict themselves from pleasure.

· Shaky self-confidence. Can swing from delusions of grandeur and superiority, and feeling very confident in oneself, to a loss of self-esteem and hopeless despair.

Aaah now here’s a place for my inner emo child and inner gushy nerd fangirl to find a home. I’d wedge it in lower than ‘Idiosyncratic’ but higher than serious. It actually coexists with the above stuff surprisingly well (It’s called “TiNe” or “5w4″)

On the positive, this personality test is the first (except maybe Divergent, but the tests do give me Erudite nearly as often as Candor depending on how absolute the questions are worded. ) to refrain from outright calling me a NEEERD.

So, thanks oldham?

Also, now I know the precise kind mad I might end up as if I happened across severe trauma, brain chemistry goof-ups or lovecraftian abominations (Please let it be the latter). That is one interesting tidbit of information.

#typology #oldham personality styles #oldham personality #5w4 #intp #enneagram #mbti

4 notes · View notes