THE TRUTH ABOUT TRUTH:

All truth passes through three stages.
First, it is ridiculed.
Second, it is violently opposed.
Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.



Sunday, May 11, 2014

OBAMA IN THE WHITE HOUSE: WHO’S RESPONSIBLE? (Or, STEPHEN T. McCARTHY: “ONE OF THE 3 REMAINING KLANNERS [sic] IN AMERICA”?) Part 1 Of 3


[Me hopes you enjoy me final political blog bit... or at least, me final political blog bit for, most likely, a long time.]
.
WHAT IS IT ABOUT LOTSA FAT ‘N’ FACIAL HAIR THAT TURNS A MAN INTO AN IDIOTIC PSEUDO-SOCIAL SCIENTIST?
.
"Since I gave up hope
I feel much better."
~ Congressman Yoey O'Dogherty
.
Before I even wrote my first review for ‘BigBitch.com’ (also known as ‘Amazon.com’) on May 6, 2004, I already had many debates with Liberals under my belt and a winning track record.

Having “cut my teeth” at an Atheistic/Liberal musician’s website (where conservatives were vastly outnumbered by Libs but NOT out-debated), at BigBitch.com I applied the debating techniques that I had acquired via experience. I had never been part of a debate team (although a woman at a spiritual center I used to attend thought I must have been), but I was good at arguing and my debates at the musician’s website prepared me for everything the Libs would throw at me during my time at BigBitch.com. (Eventually, Amazon.com banned me from commenting at their site. Why? Because I was just too damned effective at destroying Liberal arguments. If interested, you can read that whole story by clicking here: Amazon: Just Another Way To Say "Big Bitch" [Part 1 Of 3].)

Being a longtime ultra-avid reader, I learned a lotta stuffs about politics and spirituality. And having fought with so many emotional, empty-headed Liberals, I eventually came to know everything they would write long before they themselves even thought to write it. I was never a Black Boy Scout, but I... “Be Prepared”. [That was jus’ a joke, dudes and dudettes! I ain’t no racist... I hate all races, including my own, equally!]

Because I was such an addict of excellent (primarily nonfiction) books, I acquired a fairly decent vocabulary (which I could use when my opponents least expected it); furthermore, my many years of listening to classic Bob Dylan albums helped to instill in me a facility for wordplay and puns. And my INTJ personality type made me a natural for alliteration, which can be demoralizing and devastating in a debate! ("INTJs are ever perceiving inner pattern-forms and using real-world materials to operationalize them." [...] "INTJs apply [often ruthlessly] the criterion "Does it work?" to everything from their own research efforts to the prevailing social norms. This in turn produces an unusual independence of mind, freeing the INTJ from the constraints of authority, convention, or sentiment for its own sake. ... They may even be considered the most independent of all of the sixteen personality types.")

[My thanks to Sheboyganboy Six who, in 2008, turned me onto the concept of personality types and sent me the test to take. I took it twice, about 1.5 years apart, and got the same results both times. Reading the attributes of my INTJ type, I was pretty much blown away by the accuracy of it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/INTJ and http://typelogic.com/intj.html. You’ll find a link to the same test at the very bottom of THIS POST, if you too are interested in discovering what your personality type is.]
.
WHAT IS IT ABOUT LOTSA FAT ‘N’ FACIAL HAIR THAT TURNS A MAN INTO AN IDIOTIC PSEUDO-SCIENTIST?
.
Don’t tell me, let me guess... Now you’re curious and wanna know how to beat Liberals in a debate. AmIright? Anybody can do it. You don’t need to be particularly intelligent (I’m a not particularly intelligent “C Average” high school graduate, with no other formal schooling). All you really need is a command of the facts (obtained by objectively examining the various sides of the question) and to apply some simple debating tactics, which I discerned and employed over the course of many debates with angel-headed Hipsters empty-headed Liberals.

Below are the 3 most important Rules you need to memorize in order to beat every Liberal in every debate:

1: I’ve had plenty enough debates with Liberals to have learned not to fall for “the ol’ red herring down the rabbit hole” trick (as Maxwell Smart might have put it). In other words, don’t let them lead you down some path that diverts the focus from the original argument into complex absurdities.

2: Liberals figure that if they throw enough bullshit at the ceiling and walls, some of it will stick. The trick is to control the debate so they can’t fling their poo. In other words, #2 is simply a slight variation on #1: Don’t follow the red herring down the rabbit hole but, rather, scrape the bullshit off the ceiling and walls and FORCE the Liberal to stay on the head of the pin!

3: And, unfortunately for many conservative would-be heroes, this is the single most important rule: There is no substitute for really KNOWING the facts. (And if you’ve got a cutting sense of humor, by all means cut with it; the devil HATES to be mocked!)

Can you beat a Liberal in a debate without #3? Yeah, sure, it’s very possible and it happens every day. After all, the ONLY thing the Liberal believes is what liberal “scientists”, the mainstream media and other Marxists dressed up like Democrats (and ‘Fox News’ Talking Heads) tell him.

However, you might also LOSE a debate to a Liberal without #3 because some of them are pretty sneaky and can buffalo you with B.S. Is it worth the risk and the mark against your reputation? No. That’s why you really need to know the FACTS about your subject matter. And that’s why you’ll need to diligently study, which unfortunately for you means that you’ll need to unhook yourself from the Boob Tube – less watching Reality TV shows like ‘Dancing With The Kardashians’ and ‘America’s Got Duck’ - and more reading of excellent nonfiction books and good websites.

(I have NEVER lost a debate to a Liberal, and believe me, folks, that’s a good feeling and something you should shoot for! But, we should NEVER become conceited, for remember this: “No man can receive anything of his own will, except it is given to him from Heaven.” ~John 3:27; “And what do you have which was not given to you? And if you did receive it, then why do you boast as if you had not received it?” 
~1 Corinthians 4:7)

When you really KNOW the facts, you will never feel threatened by the rude and baseless insults, the false bravado of pseudo-scientific babbling, and pseudo-intellectual bluffing like this...

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 16, 2011 7:21:39 PM PST 
Last edited by the author on Dec 16, 2011 7:49:40 PM PST 
Kent Imig: Permalink
17 of 38 people think this post adds to the discussion.

When you really KNOW the facts, you will be able to instantly respond with The Truth when maroons, whose very questions indicate an absolute absence of knowledge about the topic, challenge you to prove your point, like this...

In reply to an earlier post on May 7, 2014 4:57:03 AM PDT 
Last edited by the author on May 7, 2014 5:03:13 AM PDT 
Dr Walle: Permalink
1 of 3 people think this post adds to the discussion.
.
UP-CHUCK  WAS  HERE.
.
If everything I’ve said so far has seemed too abstract to you, don’t worry. Before this multi-part blog bit is concluded, I am going to give you an ideal illustration of what I mean by Rules 1, 2, and 3; I am going to link you to a “real life” example, where a Lib tried to debate me on this very blog, and where I applied Rules 1, 2, and 3 against him, and he threw in the towel when the bell rang for Round Three. You will get to see EXACTLY how these 3 Rules can defeat even the most cocky Libs in the Marxist-Americonned woild!

However, this multi-part blog bit is only tangentially about debating tactics, and is primarily about explaining to all y’all WHO is most responsible for the fact that we have a Marxist in the White House.

We’ll start delving into THAT topic in the next installment, but I think Part One is long enough already.
.
For Part 2 click HERE.

~ Stephen T. McCarthy
.
OBAMARX
.
YE OLDE COMMENT POLICY: All comments, pro and con, are welcome. However, ad hominem attacks and disrespectful epithets will not be tolerated (read: "posted"). After all, this isn’t Amazon.com, so I don’t have to put up with that kind of bovine excrement.

27 comments:

  1. Stephen-

    I think the only thing I might change about your three rules is, shouldn't one know the facts before debating an issue?

    One of the most frustrating things I find in discussing issues with people is that they do not know much beyond the soundbyte, but only admit to that after an hour of discussion.

    I certainly have opinions on issue I am not versed in, and will even discuss them, but usually lead with the fact that I have not researched the issue.

    One of my favorite debates is global warming.

    There is no debate over the recorded temperatures the wise and powerful Gore and his legion of groupies sling.

    The debate is the cause.

    For every expert who says global warming is the fault of people who drive early model import pickup trucks, there is another expert saying the changes would have happened anyway.

    Yet, when one debates the issue with a liberal, the only experts who "count" are the former-the latter are discounted as "idiotic Christians who believe the world is only 6,000 years old."

    For me, armed with facts is important. I also think being open-minded is important.

    You and I have had many a discussion where, even though we "agreed to disagree," I still took a lot from your position for future examination (for example, while I still straddle the fence on 9/11, you were the one who exposed me to the questions that the 'official' explanations do not even address, let alone answer).

    That is an exchange. That ,should be the benefit of debate.

    I am sure not all of the conclusions drawn by Gore's panel of experts are rubbish. Were the Left to actually discuss rather than spew bile, there might be a productive discussion to be had.

    But that is the reason the other part of your third rule is so compelling-the "debate" landscape in America is not about an exchange of facts and ideas.

    It is about ridicule and intimidation.

    So you better be prepared to cut them down to size.

    I would posit that I have never lost a debate with a Liberal, because I do not think the discussion ever got past the mud slinging.

    I have, however, walked away in disgust from many an exchange because you simply cannot discuss things intelligently with idiots, and I refuse to have a battle of wits with an unarmed person.


    LC.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. LC ~

      >>... I think the only thing I might change about your three rules is, shouldn't one know the facts before debating an issue?

      What in the world (or, what in this post) made you think I believed otherwise?!

      Of course a person ought to know the facts BEFORE debating an issue! Otherwise they should just shut up and listen and perhaps learn a thing or two.

      One reason I have never lost a debate to a Liberal (or even to a Conservative, for that matter) is because I never even enter a debate with ANYONE about ANYTHING, until I KNOW I KNOW the facts about the subject.

      And as far as Global Warming goes, there is NO DEBATE. If some Lib thinks otherwise, let him initiate a debate with me about it and see what happens.

      And regarding 9/11... all these years later you're still not sure about it?

      Well... I guess there's something to be said for "not rushing to judgment".

      Off-topic... I still remember that song 'The World Is Made Of Gold' that Rickie Lee Jones sang at the concert we attended. I've found it's on an album called 'Balm In Gilead'.

      I've been listening to that album at work via Spotify and it's pretty good. I'm thinking about trying to locate a copy at Zia.

      ~ D-FensDogg
      'Loyal American Underground'

      Delete
    2. Oops! Not 'The WORLD Is Made Of Gold'. I meant, 'The MOON...' (Just woke up after sleeping all day and the brain wasn't hitting on all cylinders yet.)

      ~ D-FensDogg
      'L.A.U.'

      Delete
    3. Your item #3 threw me...I thought you were placing knowing the facts last....

      Re: 9/11....a part of me still does not want to believe George W. would have hung several thousand civilians out to dry...although I guess you could argue the military were hung out to dry in the Middle East, and that death toll has to be nearing the 9/11 numbers.

      Re: RLJ-I listened to that one on the drive home that night...it is a good one. Check out "Sermon on Exposition Boulevard" as well.

      LC

      Delete
    4. LC ~

      >>... Your item #3 threw me...I thought you were placing knowing the facts last

      How would anyone expect to win every debate with a Liberal if they entered the debate without first knowing the facts? Debating is NOT an “on-the-job training” endeavor, and I never suggest that a person ought to put the cart before the horse.

      I merely listed it last because I saved the best (or most important rule) for last. I certainly didn’t mean that it was last because it was least.

      >>... that death toll has to be nearing the 9/11 numbers.

      It surpassed it years ago. One site says this:

      As of August 2, 2008, 4,683 brave Americans have died in Iraq and Afghanistan since the launch of Operation Enduring Freedom (Afghanistan) on October 7, 2001 and Operation Iraqi Freedom, which began with the invasion of Iraq on March 19, 2003. Of the total deaths, 3,708 were due to hostile fire...

      I’d have to dig deeper to get the current number, but at any rate, 5 or 6 years ago, more American soldiers had already died in our act of revenge than civilians died in New York on 9/11.

      >>... Re: 9/11....a part of me still does not want to believe George W. would have hung several thousand civilians out to dry

      Well, it’s the “unbelievable” nature of the crime, and the fact that NOBODY would WANT to believe it, that has allowed the perpetrators of 9/11 to get away with it.

      Not long ago I came across two more YouTube videos that packed a lot of info into rather brief running times. In case you’re interested:

      9/11 MASTERMINDS - EXPLOSIVE CONNECTIONS (UPDATED VERSION)

      I admit that I have not done any research to confirm all of these “connections” the narrator states in that 15-minute video. But, if even just HALF of these “coincidences” are true...!

      EXPOSING THE FRAUD OF 9/11 IN 22 MINUTES

      They highlight just some of the really important details in those 22 minutes, and many of them you’re already familiar with, although some you may have forgotten about.

      Having watched quite a few 9/11 documentaries, as well as having also read several in-depth books on the subject, I probably am aware of more information than the average skeptic. The bottom line is: “Inside Job” is the only conclusion that makes sense of all the evidence and the inconsistencies. There’s simply no question about it.

      >>... Re: RLJ-I listened to that one on the drive home that night...it is a good one. Check out "Sermon on Exposition Boulevard" as well.

      That’s the one I was trying to describe to you that night before the concert. I had checked it out of the library and listened to it a few years ago.

      Zia is getting a used copy of ‘Balm In Gilead’ for me from one of their other stores.

      ~ D-FensDogg
      ‘Loyal American Underground’

      Delete
    5. I remembered the 9/11 numbers wrong-I just looked, and it was just shy of 3,000-I had it in my head that it was just shy of 5,000, hence my statement that the Middle East death toll was still number two with a bullet...(it ain't over yet)

      Delete
  2. This is much like my "How to debate like a liberal" post a while back, just from the other side. Fits very nicely.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. BROTHER MARTIN ~
      I'm not sure if I saw that blog bit or not.

      If you don't mind, please post a URL to it here, as I'd like to check it out - if not for the first time, then for the second. Thanks!

      ~ D-FensDogg
      'Loyal American Underground'

      Delete
    2. http://humbleauthorbsp.blogspot.com/2014/03/you-argue-like-liberal.html

      Delete
    3. Thanks! I'll check it out later today, after my dental appointment.

      ~ D-FensDogg
      'L.A.U.'

      Delete
  3. Good start to the topic and I like that you are breaking it down into blog-sized easily digestible bites.

    One suggestion if you know what I'm talking about: Can you make the links open in another window so that when we click on them the new site doesn't replace your page. When your page get replaced like that then people like me with slower computers or internet or whatever it is don't have to wait for your page to reload, we can just go back to the old tab where the page has already been loaded. I hope that makes some kind of sense.

    Lee
    Tossing It Out

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. BROTHER BOIDLEE ~
      Thanks for the comment, my Friend!

      Actually, I am following your (many) suggestions in more ways than one: I HAVE occasionally broken big blog bits down into multiple segments. But in the past, I have usually waited until ALL of the Parts were written, so that I could post them on my blog in reverse order (i.e., Part 1 would be followed by Part 2, which would be followed by Part 3, as one scrolled DOWN my blog page).

      In this case, I decided to post Part One even though Two and Three aren't fully written yet. It will require me to go back after publication and add LINKS to the other parts, so that a person encountering Part 3 near the top of my blog's Main Page won't be required to read the ending first, but will be able to click a link that will take him to the beginning of the series.

      I do know EXACTLY what you mean about Links and Tabs. I come across the same situations on a daily basis (some Links send you to an entirely NEW site, while some Links merely open a new TAB, that you can later "X"-out and find yourself looking at the original website page that led you to the second.)

      Unfortunately, I have no idea how to alter that. If you know (or someone else knows [6-B?]) please try to 'splain it to me.

      But remember... I iz a Dino-Sour, the sort of creature who still prefers to read highly-detailed, time-consuming paper books, rather than website overviews. (Another reason Liberals get their asses handed to them by me.)

      ~ D-FensDogg
      'Loyal American Underground'

      Delete
  4. Well, I've not much to say on this, as this is an introduction, but I did find out I'm an ENTP.

    Jung Test Results

    Extroverted (E) 50% Introverted (I) 50%
    Intuitive (N) 89% Sensing (S) 11%
    Thinking (T) 50% Feeling (F) 50%
    Perceiving (P) 68% Judging (J) 32%

    Your type is: ENTP

    ENTP - "Inventor". Enthusiastic interest in everything and always sensitive to possibilities. Non-conformist and innovative. 3.2% of the total population.

    An innovative non-conformist? That might be the nicest thing a website's ever said about me!

    Regarding your comment to Arlee above, this in particular...

    But remember... I iz a Dino-Sour, the sort of creature who still prefers to read highly-detailed, time-consuming paper books, rather than website overviews. (Another reason Liberals get their asses handed to them by me.)

    I think the number one thing I hate in an argument/debate is seeing someone reference a snippet from a website. "Well, it's true because I saw it on a website." In this age, the word of Wikipedia is law. Or the article posted on CNN.com is 100% true because it's CNN, and why would the news lie? It kills me.

    I know you listed your three rules, but I'm also curious how you handle mockery. Not just with liberals, but I notice it a lot in any internet debate/argument. It's easy to make your opponent appear inferior when you berate them and dumb things down to make them appear stupid before the debate even starts. I.E. the infamous atheist mockery of, "This guy says we should all believe in a little invisible man who floats on a cloud in the sky" or that wonderful feminist argument of "I don't even know why I'd expect a man to understand any of this."

    Oh, and let's not forget the mockery that once was, "This guy believes the government is spying on every little word you say and they hacked into your phone just to hear a 3 minute conversation you had with your mother."

    (Remember how that last one turned out?)

    ~6B

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 6-B ~

      >>... Extroverted (E) 50% Introverted (I) 50%

      Hmmm... I wonder why they say you fall into the “Extroverted” category when your results are 50/50.

      >>... ENTP - "Inventor". Enthusiastic interest in everything and always sensitive to possibilities. Non-conformist and innovative. 3.2% of the total population. [...] An innovative non-conformist? That might be the nicest thing a website's ever said about me!

      That “enthusiastic interest in everything” bit DOES seem like the Bryan I’ve been getting to know!

      >>... I think the number one thing I hate in an argument/debate is seeing someone reference a snippet from a website. "Well, it's true because I saw it on a website." In this age, the word of Wikipedia is law. Or the article posted on CNN.com is 100% true because it's CNN, and why would the news lie?

      Oh yeah, reference Wikipedia in a debate against me and I’m sure you’ll completely change my mind about the subject! Or, CNN and any other lamestream media source. But, oh, if you can’t change my mind with Wikipedia and CNN, then by all means send me to YouTube for confirmation of the truth, because I NEVER question anything I see in a YouTube video put together by someone I’ve never heard of before!

      >>... I know you listed your three rules, but I'm also curious how you handle mockery.

      For the record, I prefer debates to remain in the realm of verifiable facts. I would prefer to keep it civil and informative because, most of all, I want to convince others of The Truth.

      The moment a debate degenerates into mockery, slurs, and ad hominem attacks, the chance that anyone is going to convince their opponent to change their view is reduced to exactly zero.

      And, of course, with most Liberals (and Pseudo-Atheists), they usually BEGIN their debates with insults and slurs – one doesn’t have to wait for a civilized discourse to degenerate. (And, incidentally, their method of arguing via personal attacks is also a deep-seated sign of fear. They fear they might not be able to win on facts so they start right in slinging slurs.)

      It’s never really bothered me though because – although it’s not my personal preference – I can fight dirty really, really well! I’ve occasionally said that a Lib would have a better chance of beating me in a debate with facts than with insults, because once they take it to the gutter, they find that not only am I willing to go there with them, but I have a knack for coming up with A-list insults.

      Libs aren’t used to that. Most “conservative” types aren’t comfortable fighting dirty, they usually try to remain “nice” and “respectable” even when the Lib is slandering their intelligence and everything else about them. So, when some Libs have decided to “roll around in the mud” with me, they have been surprised and caught off guard to find that not only am I a willing combatant, but there’s this junkyard dog inside of me (got it from my dear departed Ma – whose birthday this is), and that animal not only barks loud but bites hard too!

      So... a Lib is better off keeping a debate with me at a civilized, fact-based level, because once it becomes a battle of facts AND insults, they lose even worse.

      ~ Al B. Biteunem
      [:-)}

      Delete
    2. Hmmm... I wonder why they say you fall into the “Extroverted” category when your results are 50/50.

      I'd say the same with thinking and feeling. Maybe I'm such a hard person to categorize that I practically broke the system. :)

      Also, I find it kind of weird that it categorized me as extrovert to begin with, simply because I wouldn't call myself an extrovert. I'm far from shy, but I'm more of a homebody than a party animal these days and I'd rather listen than speak. I answered everything honestly so I'm curious why extrovert was so high in the first place.

      Oh, and great answer. I'm pretty sure the Internet sites I frequent are more of the dive bars of the Internet world, so I don't think I've ever actually seen a calm, rational, fact based debate take place online.

      You ever want to lose 10 IQ points? Read a really politically charged mainstream article and then scour the comment section. My brain hurts just thinking about it.

      ~6B

      Delete
    3. >>... I'd say the same with thinking and feeling.

      Yeah, I noticed that one also but not until after I had already posted my last comment to you.

      Well, with 16 different personality types, a lot of it is based upon the percentages of each category.

      I guess in the case of something aggressive / passive, if it's equal, you'd lean it slightly toward the former. ("Tie goes to the runner". The runner is aggressive compared to the first baseman who is simply standing there to receive the throw. There ain't much you can't find an analogy for in baseball.)

      I have seen and even participated in a few Internet debates that were civil, but they are definitely few and far between. People tend to get nasty when they aren't within arm's reach of their debate opponent. And many Libs and nearly all pseudo-atheists (the most prevalent kind) are pretty nasty characters to begin with.

      I have no Facebook account, so I've never really been there, but I've heard it's quite bad. It's hard for me to believe that anything could be worse than YouTube though.

      YouTube astounds me. You could go pull up a John Denver song like, say, 'Sunshine On My Shoulders', and you'll find people in the Comment Section arguing and calling each other names over it. How can ANYONE get into a verbal fight over a John Denver song? And yet they will.

      The Internet has really done a lot to bring out the worst in some people.

      I never go lookin' for Internet fights. If someone wants to fight, they can bring it to me. The ONLY thing I might butt in on and start a debate over is the subject of Senator Joe McCarthy. Otherwise, I don't bother. Marxists, God-haters, and other maroons... I let 'em be as uninformed and ridiculous as they wanna be.

      In fact, within the last 5 or 6 years, I have even walked away from a few debates - something that would have been unthinkable back "in the day". I'm older and more tired now, and just don't have the time to waste on idjits.

      ~ D-FensDogg
      'Loyal American Underground'

      Delete
    4. 6-B ~
      ADDENDUM:
      For the sake of clarity I probably ought to add that I would NEVER walk away from a debate on my own blog!

      If some Lib initiated a debate with me IN MY HOUSE, (s)he is going to get both barrels, and I would continue to reload and fire until the devil be dead.

      But on someone else's blog or website? Eh... whatever. Maybe I'd fight to the death, or just walk away. I guess it would depend upon the subject matter and just how pissed off I happened to be at the time.

      ~ D-FensDogg
      'Loyal American Underground'

      Delete
  5. Although she may not need them anymore; Happy Birthday Mrs. McCarthy(sp???).

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. FAE ~
      Thanks! Very sweet of you.

      Incidentally... Bryan and I are ready to TRT 'Giant'. So let me know when you have your copy of it, please.

      ~ D-FensDogg
      'Loyal American Underground'

      Delete
  6. I went ahead and took the test. Here are my results:

    Jung Test Results

    Extroverted (E) 61% Introverted (I) 39%
    Sensing (S) 62% Intuitive (N) 38%
    Thinking (T) 52% Feeling (F) 48%
    Judging (J) 57% Perceiving (P) 43%

    Your type is: ESTJ

    ESTJ - "Administrator". Much in touch with the external environment. Very responsible. Pillar of strength. 8.7% of total population.


    I don't know about this, but in some ways I guess it explains why in my work life I've usually ended up in management positions. I don't know that I see myself this way necessarily. I don't feel much like an extrovert, but several people have told me I am.

    Interesting test.

    Lee
    Tossing It Out

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. BoidLEE ~
      Ha! Very cool that you took the test. Thanks!

      Pert near EVERYONE I've ever convinced to take the test has felt the results nailed them pretty dern well.

      Mine was positively uncanny! I only found one thing I disagreed strongly with, but even then, it said that it applied to only SOME INTJs.

      If you haven't done it yet, check out your analysis with the Wikipedia page for ESTJs, because I found my Wikipedia page included some info not found on the Test Results Page from the Jung site, and what I found there was spot-on!

      Of course, you and I have never actually met "in person" so it's hard to really know for sure, but... my impression of you is that you are indeed an "Extrovert". I don't find that analysis surprising in the least.

      My results said I am an Introvert, and that is EXACTLY right! You might not think so, judging by my writing "voice", and considering that I was working on an acting career, but... while the vast majority of actors are xtreme-extroverts, I was in the great minority of "introvert actors". Performing ALWAYS required an act of will on my part because it wasn't my natural self.

      My senior year in high school, my fellow thespians in the Theatre Arts department voted me two awards: 'Best Body' (I was a wrestler) and 'Shyest'. Since when is the guy with the best body also the shyest? Ha!

      Yeah, the test absolutely nailed me down to a (Stephen) T., and at least in the Extrovert/Introvert category, I suspect it nailed you, too.

      Glad you took the time to take the test. I believe it's generally pretty accurate.

      ~ D-FensDogg
      'Loyal American Underground'

      Delete
  7. Sheboyganboy SixMay 15, 2014 at 2:00 AM

    Stephen -

    I've never lost an argument with a liberal either, but look forward to tips from the master. The only arguments I HAVE lost have been when I have thoughtlessly stumbled into liberalism myself and had my clock cleaned by a conservative. A true conservative... not a neocon or moderate or rebuttlican.

    As for the Myers-Briggs type sorter: I have found it to be essential and infallible. I find myself able to figure out someone's personality type within a few minutes of conversation, and that helps me express myself using terms that appeal to them. With feelers, I translate terms that I would use such as "I think," to "I feel..." WIth SJ's (such as Arlee) I might use an argument emphasizing rules or tradition, whereas with YOU it would have to be pure logic or you'd blow me out of the water.

    I believe that some personality types are naturally more drawn to even the concept of types. NT's and NF's are particularly fascinated: NT's because it explains intricate and otherwise inexplicable relationships, and NF's because they feel it helps the world understand just how truly wonderful they are.

    I am the same temperament type as Beer Boy, although I think I am more extreme in my percentages than Bryan. The ENTP description fits me exactly. Small details in the explanation like "Generally informative rather than directive in their social exchanges, Inventors are often able to explain their own complicated ideas well, and to comprehend the complex ideas of others. In arguments they may use debating skills, often to the significant disadvantage of their opponent. The ENTP regards a comment like 'it can't be done' as a personal challenge, and, if properly motivated, will spare no effort to discover a solution."

    I spare no effort to avoid being directive; if told I cannot do something I most certainly figure out a way to do it; and my ex-wife will attest that she never won a debate with me. (I will say that my lovely second wife wins debates with me all the time. She is not a liberal, BTW)

    I totally get you being an introvert, though you don't seem it from your blogging. A good friend in radio (remember "the Eagle has landed" story?) SEEMS the biggest extrovert of all time, but interactions with groups or on stage totally drain rather than energize him.

    Looking forward to hearing your further tips. One I use that was not yet mentioned is to have an actual "philosophy," one that you have coldly analyzed yourself and not found hypocritical. Almost everyone says one thing yet does another. To be correct, honorable, and avoid hypocrisy, you have to be willing to support outcomes that go against your own personal interests.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Sheboyganboy SixMay 15, 2014 at 2:06 AM

    One thing I forgot to add: some of the Myer-Briggs sorters drop you into extrovert if it is a tie, and this one apparently does the same with thinking/feeling. Usually the ties are represented by an X.

    Some people truly are fence-straddlers, such as my mother. She is an IXXX, the X being tied in the N-S, T-F, and J-P categories.

    But one other suggestion that is appropriate is that if you are tied or close on two types (say the INTP vs. ENTP types,) read the description of both and it will become clear which you are. One will most certainly seem really close to describing how you operate, and the other will seem off-base.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. SHEBOYGANBOY SIX ~

      To bedroom, to bedroom
      To buy a "Big Sleep"
      Home again, home again
      With the head of a Sheep

      Just woke up in the middle of the night (morn? porn?) and clicked 'Publish' on my 'BOTB' post. Saw yer comments and clicked 'Publish' on them too. Will be back in some hours to replyboy.

      ~ D-FensDogg
      'Loyal American Sleep-Deprived'

      Delete
    2. Part 1 Of 2:

      SHEBOYGANBROTHER SIX ~

      It took me longer to get back here than I anticipated, what with this being 'BOTB' day (songs to hear and vote on) and a necessary trip to a couple of stores.

      >>... I've never lost an argument with a liberal either, but look forward to tips from the master.

      Well, I am no master debater...

      (uhm... those two words don't work well together, especially if you say 'em too quickly)
      [;-)}

      ...but I'll tell you who IS a master debater! The guy who blocks the door, pulls a knife and won't let the Lib leave until he sees the issue the correct way. Now THAT guy is a master debater and someone I MUST respect and nearly worship! Ha!-Ha! (I will never forget that story and will love it until the day I die!)

      >>... The only arguments I HAVE lost have been when I have thoughtlessly stumbled into liberalism myself and had my clock cleaned by a conservative. A true conservative... not a neocon or moderate or rebuttlican.

      Damn, SixBro, that's hard to imagine. I can't even begin to wrap my fairly impressive imagination around THAT! ...YOU have occasionally temporarily adopted a "Liberal" viewpoint? ...I guess ANYTHING really is possible in this world then.

      >>... I believe that some personality types are naturally more drawn to even the concept of types.

      Oh, WOW! That makes total sense, but it had never even occurred to me. What an intelligent observation.

      It reminds me of the time my brother Nappy and I took a little trip to Tombstone, Airheadzona. That night in our motel room, we got into this really deep conversation about how astounding it is to realize that an individual's own mind is able to analyze itself, to sort of evaluate what makes it work and why. I mean, you can explore your own brain's thinking (psychoanalyze yourself) and figure out what makes it tick in certain ways. (I'll bet Doc Holliday, Wyatt Earp, and Ike Clanton never thought about that in all the years they were living in the Tombstone area.)

      In other words, you can use your own brain to figure out how your own brain works. It's fascinating when you really consider it.

      >>... and NF's because they feel it helps the world understand just how truly wonderful they are.

      HA!

      Continued Below...

      Delete
    3. Part 2 Of 2:

      >>... I totally get you being an introvert, though you don't seem it from your blogging.

      All the way through high school I was PAINFULLY SHY! Today, you could put me in a room with people I don't know well and I can be the quietest or most talkative person in the room, depending upon my mood at the time.

      However... my "natural" inclination is still, generally, to keep to myself and listen rather than speak. (You can't exactly spend more time listening than speaking on a blog though, because that would leave a lot of white space on the blog.)

      I have credited my massive reading habit for bringing me out of my shell. Well, that and all the booze I consumed in my early twenties.

      But seriously, the more nonfiction I read the more I was able to open up and participate in face-to-face discussions. After awhile I realized that I was actually more informed on a number of topics (because of all the reading) than were some of the other more talkative folks. And when I realized I could enter a discussion as a truly knowledgeable person on the subject, I became much more willing to do that.

      To this day though, I will stand or sit quietly and just listen to others yak if the subject is something I don't consider myself truly informed about. I mean, I would never interject an opinion of mine into a conversation about car engines or electrical wiring or refrigeration, etc. But if the conversation turns to painters or actors or musicians or sports figures or politics or spiritual / religious beliefs, NOW I can and likely will enter the conversation.

      >>... One I use that was not yet mentioned is to have an actual "philosophy," one that you have coldly analyzed yourself and not found hypocritical.

      Parts 2 and 3 will not really include any more debating tactics. But in Part 3 I will show I used those 3 "rules" (or guidelines) mentioned above to defeat a Liberal in a debate.

      But I appreciate your point about having a valid "philosophy".

      That's one thing that has caught many of my debate opponents off guard after they have challenged me about something. I might make some really derogatory remark about Liberals or a particular Liberal in government. They automatically tend to assume that must mean I'm a supporter of, say, George Bush or Ronald Reagan or Glenn Beck or Rush Limbaugh, etc., etc.

      Then, in the middle of the debate, they find out I'm coming from an entirely DIFFERENT philosophical viewpoint, one they had never even imagined, and in some cases, one they didn't even know existed. At that point, I can almost hear them choking and see them quickly glancing around, looking for a way out of what they had started.

      >>... To be correct, honorable, and avoid hypocrisy, you have to be willing to support outcomes that go against your own personal interests.

      RIGHT ON!

      GREAT comment, SBB-6! And I will make sure to alert Brother Beer Boy Bryan about it.

      ~ D-FensDogg
      'Loyal American Underground'

      Delete
  9. Thanks Sheboyganboy! That tip actually helped a LOT. Regarding Thinking/Feeling, thinking definitely wins over feeling. I read over ENFP and INFP and those were not even close to what I am. However, after reading between ENTP and INTP I can say that while ENTP is close, INTP hits the nail on the head.

    It essentially describes me as a type of absent minded professor, living in my head a lot because I'm always "the thinker." I'm constantly trying to learn new things and rather than follow along and do things the way I "should," I'd rather come up with my own solution to do it better/faster.

    Also, this...

    INTPs do not like to lead or control people. They're very tolerant and flexible in most situations, unless one of their firmly held beliefs has been violated or challenged, in which case they may take a very rigid stance.

    That's me to a T. Introverted enough to be more of a listener, but challenge me and I will definitely make myself heard.

    That's me alright. Glad I was able to figure it out.

    ~6B

    ReplyDelete

NOTE: Comment Moderation is activated. All submitted comments that do not transgress "Ye Olde Comment Policy" will be posted and responded to as soon as possible. Thanks for taking the time to comment.