Sky Forever
Hi what does the dragon in my garage mean?

thedragoninmygarage:

"A fire-breathing dragon lives in my garage."

Suppose I seriously make such an assertion to you. Surely you’d want to check it out, see for yourself. There have been innumerable stories of dragons over the centuries, but no real evidence. What an opportunity!

"Show me", you say, and I lead you to my garage. You look inside and see a ladder, empty paint cans, an old tricycle - but no dragon

"Where’s the dragon", you ask.

"Oh, she’s right here", I reply, waving vaguely. "I neglected to mention that she’s an invisible dragon".

You propose spreading flour on the floor of the garage to capture the dragon’s footprints. “Good idea”, I say, “but this dragon floats in the air”. Then you’ll use an infrared sensor to detect the invisible fire. “Good idea, but the invisible fire is also heatless”, I say. You’ll spray-paint the dragon and make her visible. “Good idea, except she’s an incorporeal (bodyless) dragon and the paint won’t stick!”

And so on. I counter every physical test you propose with a special explanation of why it won’t work.

Now what is the difference between an invisible, incorporeal, floating dragon who spits heatless fire and no dragon at all? If there’s no way to disprove my contention, no conceivable experiment that would count against it, what does it mean to say that my dragon exists? You’re inability to invalidate my hypothesis is not at all the same thing as proving it true. Claims that cannot be tested, assertions immune to disproof are veridically worthless, whatever value they may have in inspiring us or in exciting our sense of wonder. What I’m asking you to do comes down to believing, in the absence of evidence, on my say-so.

A story from “The Demon Haunted World”, by Carl Sagan

Thank you for the great question :)

asktheconsultants:

sizvideos:

Watch it in video

Follow our Tumblr - Like us on Facebook

Saw this when it came out and I couldn’t stop smiling. If you watch the full video you notice how quickly she spouts off these things, how rapid fire each question is and you can tell each word is like a machine gun bullet to the guy’s head. And you know what?

That’s how we feel. 

puckish-thoughts:

THERE IT IS AGAIN!  THERE IT FUCKING IS!  i’VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT THIS PHOTO FOR YEARS AND NEVER COULD FIND IT!!  THE LAN PARTY WITH THE GUY DUCT-TAPED TO THE CEILING!!  BACK IN ANCIENT TIMES WHEN PEOPLE STILL USED CATHODE MONITORS AND WHEN COUNTERSTRIKE WAS THE NEW THING.  THIS SHIT IS REAL.  THIS IS REAL SHIT.  SHIT THAT HAPPENED.

puckish-thoughts:

THERE IT IS AGAIN!  THERE IT FUCKING IS!  i’VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT THIS PHOTO FOR YEARS AND NEVER COULD FIND IT!!  THE LAN PARTY WITH THE GUY DUCT-TAPED TO THE CEILING!!  BACK IN ANCIENT TIMES WHEN PEOPLE STILL USED CATHODE MONITORS AND WHEN COUNTERSTRIKE WAS THE NEW THING.  THIS SHIT IS REAL.  THIS IS REAL SHIT.  SHIT THAT HAPPENED.

Your follower count is what Pokémon you are. What kind of Pokémon are you?

san-likes-ashitaka:

myworstself:

konpozaa:

ryuredwingsreturn:

silentcartoon:

wyvernsdreams:

If your count is higher than 719, then divide by 2 until you reach the first number to land in the 1 - 719 range and round up!

I’m currently a Treecko.

FEAR ME. THE MIGHTY ENTEI.

RAWR MOTHER FUCKAHS.

….I’m a Shellos.

BRAIXEN!!! Cutie fire fox aw yiss

Gligar huh? …. i don’t know what to do with this information..

so apparently the number of followers I have doesn’t match to a particular pokemon, so either Huntail or Gorebyss

everytime I see this I laugh

everytime I see this I laugh

returntothestars:

by-grace-of-god:

Note the sources of the above quotes.

Contraception is not the answer. We deserve better.

Why We Want More than Birth Control

Boy howdy. This response ended up taking many more hours of research than I had expected. I had hoped to be able to google these quotes, show how they had been taken out of context, and be done with it. Turns out that running down the sources of most of these quotes is harder than you would expect it to be, what with online libraries and whathaveyou. Why? Two reasons: The first is that a simple Google search of the quotes will only get you a cornucopia of pro-ignorance articles (and commenters on pro-choice articles) all parroting the exact same list of 18 karat quote-nuggets. The second reason is that these quotes are old.

image

The most recent was made about 18 years ago. The oldest, 61 years ago. Let that sink in. Think about how the demographics of contraceptive users have changed, and how they’ll continue to change (in the US) with the passage of the Affordable Healthcare Act. Think about the advances that have been made in contraceptive technology since the days of computers that look like this:

image

My girlfriend uses her smartphone to remind her to take her pill. How many women could do that in 1996? But, for the benefit of argument, let’s temporarily assume that the quotes in the original post can all be taken at face value and that at various times several doctors, who were respected sex-educators and advocates of contraceptives, stated that contraceptive use led to higher rates of abortion. In this case, my response is…

 THEY WERE WRONG

image

The evidence that increased contraceptive use leads to lower rates of abortion is overwhelming:

“Rising contraceptive use results in reduced abortion incidence in settings where fertility itself is constant. The parallel rise in abortion and contraception in some countries occurred because increased contraceptive use alone was unable to meet the growing need for fertility regulation in situations where fertility was falling rapidly”

- 2003 study  

“The abortion rate declined 8.0% between 2000 and 2008, from 21.3 abortions per 1,000 women aged 15– 44 to 19.6 per 1,000. Decreases in abortion were experienced by most subgroups of women. One notable

exception was poor women; this group accounted for 42.4% of abortions in 2008, and their abortion rate increased 17.5% between 2000 and 2008 from 44.4 to 52.2 abortions per 1,000….

…The economic recession that was occurring in 2008 may have made it harder for poor women to access contraceptive services, resulting in more unintended pregnancies. Alternately, when confronted with an unintended pregnancy, poor women who might have felt equipped to support a child, or another child, when not in the midst of a recession may have decided that they were unable to do so during a time of economic turmoil.”

- 2008 Study

A new study by investigators at Washington University reports that providing birth control to women at no cost substantially reduces unplanned pregnancies and cuts abortion rates by a range of 62 to 78 percent compared to the national rate.”

- 2012 study

“Our simulations are performed using FamilyScape 2.0, a microsimulation model of family formation. We simulate both increases in contraceptive use among non-contraceptors and improvements in the consistency and effectiveness of contraceptive use among existing contraceptors. Our results show that changes in either margin of behavior are likely to produce sizeable effects. For example, we find that, if 25 percent of non-contracepting unmarried women under the age of 30 were to begin using contraception, abortion and nonmarital birth rates among unmarried women in this age group would fall by about 25 percent and about 13 percent, respectively.”

- 2013 Study

There were fewer than 17 abortions for every 1,000 women in 2011, the latest year for which figures were available, according a paper published Monday from the Guttmacher Institute, a pro-abortion-rights think tank. That is down 13 percent from 2008 and a little higher than the rate in 1973, when the Supreme Court handed down its landmark Roe v. Wade decision. The study did not examine the reasons for the drop. But the authors suggested that one factor was greater reliance on new kinds of birth control, including intra-uterine devices such as Mirena, which can last for years and are not susceptible to user error like daily pills or condoms. They also noted the economy as a contributing factor, because people tend to adhere more strictly to their birth control during tough economic times. But they did not credit the recent wave of state laws restricting access to abortion, because most of those took effect in 2011 or later.

- 2014 study

And those are just a few of the sources I found by Googling “abortion rates contraception.” I guess all the pro-ignoramuses reblogging this post couldn’t be bothered.I should be able to stop this post right here. The claim that contraceptives lead to more abortions is demonstrably wrong, regardless of who made it. But, I set out to analyse these quotes one by one. So, returning to the world of reality, in which I am highly skeptical of the original post’s sources, we will delve into decades long-since passed and try to work out why, if at all, these things were said.

The Kinsey Quote

This is the oldest of the bunch; spoken in 1955 and published three years later, after Kinsey’s death. This is indeed an accurate quotation from a conference sponsored by Planned Parenthood. This Google Book entry is the closest thing to an online version of the original publication I was able to find, but it only lets you see a few sentences at a time. It does, however, confirm  this longer version of the quote, taken from the pro-ignorance article which seems to have originated this list of quotes:

“At the risk of being repetitious, I would remind the group that we have found the highest frequency of induced abortion in the group which, in general, most frequently uses contraceptives. I don’t think it is entirely carelessness. As I pointed out before, you don’t do anything putting on your clothes, or going to bed, or drinking, or eating with absolute regularity. And I think it is just too much to hope that we can ever have any contraceptive practice, outside of temporary sterilization, which is going to prevent this occasional slip that accounts for a high proportion of undesired pregnancies and abortions, especially among those of the upper socioeconomic levels.”

Note that Kinsey specifically bemoans the “absolute regularity” needed for contraceptives. Remember that 2014 study that attributed the recent drop in abortion rates to improved contraceptive technologies that don’t require a daily pill? (Scroll up if you don’t.) I would love to have access to a full digital version of the conference’s write-up. While more recent data renders one man’s 60-year-old opinion moot, I am still curious to see what the wider context of Kinsey’s statements was. “But it seems so straightforward what he meant; More contraceptives = more abortions,” you object. Well, as you are about see, a lone piece of information can appear to mean something very different when deprived of its context.

The Guttmacher Institute Study

Note that the original post does not quote the Guttmacher Institute study (And hey, this one is only 18 years old!) but merely pulls a single statistic out of it. This one I was able to find in its entirety, and it turned out to be a textbook case of fact-mining. You see, the cited figure is 100% true. Out of a sample of almost ten-thousand women who had abortions, 58% were using contraceptives at the time. Case close. Contraceptives suck 5evar. Right? Wrong. You see, deprived of its context, the lone figure becomes a lie.

image

Lets pretend for a moment that I don’t have access to the full text of this study; I only have the lone fact from it the pro-ignoramus wanted me to see (58% of the women who had abortions were using contraceptives). I can still prove it’s bullshit just with armchair reasoning.

image

Consider that the sample set is made only of women who had abortions, rather than a random sampling of women using contraceptives. Now consider that if I asked you to find a group of women who were likely to be using contraceptives, you’d be damn smart to look for women who recently had abortions, since the obviously don’t want to be having a baby right now. While the quote-miners are likely trying to imply that the 58% overlap is proof of contraceptive failure rates or that contraceptive use leads to abortions, the only real reason for the correlation is the common third factor among the two groups; NOT WANTING TO BE PREGNANT.

If lots of people are using contraceptives, which have a small but present failure rate, it stands to reason that most of the people getting abortions; didn’t want kids, tried using contraceptive, but were the unlikely few that experience contraceptive failure.

Let’s say a birth control method X has a failure rate of 1%. A doctor sees 1,000 women who want abortions. 500 of them say they were using method X when they got pregnant. A pro-ignoramus (correctly) concludes  ”50% of the women who had abortions were on contraceptive X.” What they fail to mention is the 49,500 other women (the 99%) that never got pregnant in the first place because of method X.

Not convinced by my armchair reasoning?

image

Let’s look at some excerpts from the exact same study the original post quoted:

“The patterns of contraceptive use among abortion patients may or may not mirror the use patterns of all women at risk of unintended pregnancy. Each contraceptive method entails a different probability of becoming pregnant, and women’s method choice often differs by their socioeconomic and demographic characteristics. Consequently, users of each method may differ in their likelihood of carrying an unexpected pregnancy to term or of having an abortion.”

“According to the 1988 NSFG, 90% of women at risk of unintended pregnancy are using a contraceptive method and 10% are not. The abortion indices for current users and nonusers are therefore 0.6 and 4.3, respectively, indicating that women using any method are only about 15% as likely to have an abortion as are women using no method. In other words, even though contraceptive use is often imperfect, it reduces the probability of having an abortion by about 85%.

Gee, I wonder why they didn’t quote that last line.

The Judith Burty Quote

Honestly, I hit a brick wall with this one. The quote is supposedly from a 1981 edition of ‘The Scotsman’ newspaper, but strangely, The Scotsman’s archives don’t have any articles more recent than 1950, and their main website has nothing older than 2000. I couldn’t find much out about Judith Bury either. Googling her just brings up lots of pro-ignoramuses copy-pasting these same quotes. As with the Kinsey quote, more recent research renders the point moot, and (especially given my findings with the previous statement) I would be very interested to see the full context of the quote,

The Malcolm Potts Quote

So what year did Dr. Malcolm Potts predict that there would be a rise in abortion rates as people “turned to contraception”? 1973. Yes, this is really some cutting-edge material here. Again I cannot find the original source for this quote. The pro-life article that seems to be the originator of this list of “quotes” (see what I did there?) gives the following citation:

Malcolm Potts, M.D., Medical Director of the International Planned Parenthood Federation, in 1973.

Quoted in Andrew Scholberg, “The Abortionists and Planned Parenthood: Familiar Bedfellows.” International Review of Natural Family Planning, Winter 1980, page 298.

Yes, their source is literally, “Some 34-year-old anti-choice propaganda said that he said that.

image

Well, since I can’t find the full context of “Dr. Pott’s” quote, lets see what the real Dr. Potts has to say on the matter. Here’s a quote from a paper he co-wrote in 1990:

“If more funds were available to expand counselling services and increase the use of newer, more effective methods such as subdermal implants, abortion rates could be lowered. Thus, all those who are disturbed by the tens of millions of abortions that take place each year must work together to help bring about a significant reduction in that number by advocating a considerable increase in investment in family planning services and in support for contraceptive research. Without such a change, it is possible that more legal and illegal abortions will be induced in the 1990s than in any previous decade. Whatever happens with funding, universal access to safe abortion could undoubtedly save the lives of a million or more women in the 1990s.”

You can check out more of his more recent research into family planning in developing countries here. Regardless of what Dr. Potts said or didn’t say in 1973, or in 1990, abortion rates are now at their lowest since 1973. The authors of the study that found that specifically credit the development of new kinds of birth control. You know, the ones that weren’t around during the decades these quotes seem to be from.

“Sex Education: A Teacher’s Guide” quote

Ok, last quote from the original post. Who wants to guess what decade it’s from? Let’s see, the quote is from a sex education book put out by the Canadian government in….1973! (Why does that year keep coming up?) Unfortunately there aren’t any online copies of this ancient tome floating around, the department that published the book hasn’t even existed for twenty years, and I’m not paying $50 to buy a used copy to debunk some anti-sex douche-canoes on the internet. So, I’ll have to supply some other Canadian (2012) statistics:

“In Canada, the teen birth and abortion rate is 27.0/1,000 women between the ages of 15-19 versus 61.2/1,000 in the United States.The abortion rate among all women of reproductive age (15-44) in Canada is 14.1/1,000 versus 20/1,000 in the United States. Put another way, the teen birth and abortion rate is more than 50% higher in the United States versus Canada and the abortion rate is about 25% higher in the Unites States. Canadian women also have something else. They have access to health care and sex education is widely taught in the schools. Laws, cost, and indignities don’t reduce abortion, knowledge and contraception do.”

Furthermore, the quote’s claim that “abortion is the most widely used birth-control method in the world” is patently absurd, and a well known abortion myth. Contraceptive use is increasing, while rates of both contraceptive failure and abortion are decreasing. Consider:

In 2010, publicly funded contraceptive services helped women prevent 2.2 million unintended pregnancies; 1.1 million of these would have resulted in unplanned births and 760,000 in abortions. Without publicly funded contraceptive services, the rate of unintended pregnancies, unplanned births and abortions in the United States would all be 66% higher; the rates for teens would be 73% higher. The number of unintended pregnancies averted by public funding was 15% higher in 2010 than in 2006, even though the number of clients served fell 5% during that period. This is partially because more family planning clients currently use highly effective contraceptives, such as long-acting reversible methods, than previously. More importantly, women who are unable to obtain public services are more likely now than in 2006 to be using either no contraceptive method or a less effective one, probably because of the recession.”

- Contraceptive Needs and Services, 2010

In conclusion, (and as we already know) if the pro-ignorance movement had any interest in actually preventing abortions hey would advocate for better sex education (not ‘abstinence only’), better ease-of-access to contraceptives, less restrictive abortion laws, and welfare programs that make it easier for women to afford to keep their children. These things have been proven to reduce abortion rates. Restricting abortions and discouraging contraceptives increase the frequency of abortions. But of course, the pro-ignorance movement actually has very little interest in preventing abortions. “It’s about controlling women. It’s about making sure they have consequences for having unapproved sex.

by-grace-of-god, I’d like to think the studies I’ve linked here will change your mind about contraceptives, but they probably won’t.

What’s going on with Jontron?

I heard something about using the word retarded, something about a gay coming out video about abuse or something? And saying man are also objectified in Vidgames?

best-of-memes:

Stephen fry ladies and gentlemen


“What’s nice for me, having identified myself for years as being rather shy, is now, wherever I am, in public, there tends to be a friendly face who’s pleased to see me, and I like that." - Sir Ian McKellen.

What’s nice for me, having identified myself for years as being rather shy, is now, wherever I am, in public, there tends to be a friendly face who’s pleased to see me, and I like that." - Sir Ian McKellen.

deanwinchestears:

the-moogle-of-your-nightmares:

villains who switch sides due to personal convictions and not because they fell in love with a hero

villains who fall in love with a hero but refuse to switch sides due to personal convictions

villains who have feelings for heroes but aren’t willing to just ditch their life and everything they’ve worked for

sympathetic villains with goals and motivations other than heroic bonkybits

Any tips on how I as an ISFJ can better relate to my INTJ brother? Our functions are so far removed that I struggle to justify his thought processes. He meanwhile seems to consider me his intellectual inferior and has no apparent interest in our understanding or connecting with each other, and I feel like my attempts to do so only offend him. And I really don't want to hurt him. How do you get through to an INTJ?

henrikas-ravings:

funkymbtifiction:

OMG, you’re related to an INTJ?

image

Oooh boy. I’m going to go purely off what the INTJs I know are like, and say that… there’s a raging emotional center underneath all that collective genus that you are likely never to see, because they will not share it easily. It doesn’t emote itself like your Fe does, but it’s there, like the cream center in a hard piece of Christmas chocolate that was left on a moldy shelf in the back of your pantry and forgotten about for six months. The only way you’ll see it is to take a hammer to it, but in the process of hammering it to oblivion and biting your tongue off in the meantime, you will destroy the piece of candy, which was a masterpiece in and of itself.

Frankly, you will never understand him, and he will never understand you, but that doesn’t mean he doesn’t love you in his own way, despite his arrogance which is a natural byproduct of … well, being a genius. Or at least thinking he is a genius. (You are not alone, dear friend. Another INTJ told me recently that feelers are not equal to thinkers, and are not even in the same intellectual league, at which point I wanted to punch him in the face — not for myself, mind you, but all the intelligent feelers I happen to know.)

Ahem, where was I? Oh, yes. Your desire to connect. You will never do so emotionally, at least on an obvious external level. You see, your Fe points outward and seeks external validation of emotion — smiles, conversation, hugs, and encouragement. But Fi forms silent bonds. It speaks through silence. It understands in silence. So, what you may consider to be silence may be a form of loving you that you are not aware of. Fi expresses itself through action. Their “love language” (and we all have one of the five) is service.

My STJ brother isn’t big on hugs or “I love you.” In fact, my hugs generally generate the same response as Clara hugging the Twelfth Doctor in his pilot episode: hands either stiff at sides (of course, it may not help that I am pinning them down, since they are useless in hugging) or flailing in the air, while he wears an expression of wwaaat do I dooo?? on his face. But I know he loves me. How do I know? I just do. I’ve learned to accept the “silent bond.” Plus, he mows my lawn. True, his OCD demands the grass be level and my parents often nag him to do it, but he still does it. I choose to see that as an act of love.

I suspect your INTJ knows you love him. I also suspect that he would be there for you if you ever needed him to avenge a wrong done to you. INTJs, from my experience, generally want respect. Show him you respect him by respecting his boundaries, and he’ll love you for it.

INTJs: if you have something to add, please reblog and comment. Not living inside your head, I don’t know what you would want from a sibling in this situation. Just… BE NICE.

INTJ with ESFJ mother here. I can tell you this much, from personal experience: we sometimes feel suffocated by excessive Fe. INTJ is perhaps the most independent type that exists, and this “lemme luuvvvv yooouuuu!” attitude from Fe-users can easily become overbearing and make us irritable. We appreciate that you care and want to help, but an INTJ (or any introvert, really) that is engaged when trying to “reload” might not want to be asked if there’s something we need at the moment.

I don’t know if this applies to the ISFJ who sent in the question, but Fe-users tend to want to talk a lot. About… everything, really. Some INTJs will just nod and smile at intervals until the Fe user is done, but if the INTJ is stressed out or short-tempered, they might say something hurtful.

That being said, I really think the ISFJ with the INTJ sibling should let the sibling “set the pace” of the relationship. An INTJ pressured about emotional issues might decide to withdraw completely and become even more inaccessible. Show him that you care and love him, but don’t suffocate.

I can understand that a haughty and elitist INTJ that perceives himself as a superior being is difficult to deal with. Good news is that if he’s young (like in his early 20’s) he’ll likely mellow out in time as his Fi develops. He’ll never become as warm and affirming as you, but he will hopefully come to realize that you’re not inferior to him but simply have different strengths.

itscauseyoureafuckinelf:

likewolfandcat:

lemony-socks:

rabidchild:

ponywithafez:

This video is titled “SNAPE REALISES THE FUCKING CANDLES ARE FLOATING”

I cannot unsee this.

“SNAPE REALISES THE FUCKING CANDLES ARE FLOATING”

“SNAPE REALISES THE FUCKING CANDLES ARE FLOATING”

ohmygod

Any tips on how I as an ISFJ can better relate to my INTJ brother? Our functions are so far removed that I struggle to justify his thought processes. He meanwhile seems to consider me his intellectual inferior and has no apparent interest in our understanding or connecting with each other, and I feel like my attempts to do so only offend him. And I really don't want to hurt him. How do you get through to an INTJ?

funkymbtifiction:

OMG, you’re related to an INTJ?

image

Oooh boy. I’m going to go purely off what the INTJs I know are like, and say that… there’s a raging emotional center underneath all that collective genus that you are likely never to see, because they will not share it easily. It doesn’t emote itself like your Fe does, but it’s there, like the cream center in a hard piece of Christmas chocolate that was left on a moldy shelf in the back of your pantry and forgotten about for six months. The only way you’ll see it is to take a hammer to it, but in the process of hammering it to oblivion and biting your tongue off in the meantime, you will destroy the piece of candy, which was a masterpiece in and of itself.

Frankly, you will never understand him, and he will never understand you, but that doesn’t mean he doesn’t love you in his own way, despite his arrogance which is a natural byproduct of … well, being a genius. Or at least thinking he is a genius. (You are not alone, dear friend. Another INTJ told me recently that feelers are not equal to thinkers, and are not even in the same intellectual league, at which point I wanted to punch him in the face — not for myself, mind you, but all the intelligent feelers I happen to know.)

Ahem, where was I? Oh, yes. Your desire to connect. You will never do so emotionally, at least on an obvious external level. You see, your Fe points outward and seeks external validation of emotion — smiles, conversation, hugs, and encouragement. But Fi forms silent bonds. It speaks through silence. It understands in silence. So, what you may consider to be silence may be a form of loving you that you are not aware of. Fi expresses itself through action. Their “love language” (and we all have one of the five) is service.

My STJ brother isn’t big on hugs or “I love you.” In fact, my hugs generally generate the same response as Clara hugging the Twelfth Doctor in his pilot episode: hands either stiff at sides (of course, it may not help that I am pinning them down, since they are useless in hugging) or flailing in the air, while he wears an expression of wwaaat do I dooo?? on his face. But I know he loves me. How do I know? I just do. I’ve learned to accept the “silent bond.” Plus, he mows my lawn. True, his OCD demands the grass be level and my parents often nag him to do it, but he still does it. I choose to see that as an act of love.

I suspect your INTJ knows you love him. I also suspect that he would be there for you if you ever needed him to avenge a wrong done to you. INTJs, from my experience, generally want respect. Show him you respect him by respecting his boundaries, and he’ll love you for it.

INTJs: if you have something to add, please reblog and comment. Not living inside your head, I don’t know what you would want from a sibling in this situation. Just… BE NICE.

Never, ever trick them into doing anything. I suggest not pranking them (unless they say it is ok expressly). Don’t move their stuff unless you have some sort of permission. And even if you do have permission, try to leave things unbroken and if something did break or get used up, just tell them. They’re an adult (maybe? I dunno if u are how old r u guys) so they can deal with it. You did your part (informing about what you did is your part)

I find that smaller acts of communication can be far warmer (then again I’m a stone-cold INTJ robot lmao). If you see them, acknowledge them being there with a ”hey”, if you’re leaving the area they are say ”bye”, if you’re going to the kitchen ”do u want something I’m going to the kitchen”. Being pushy is just…really uncomfortable. Unless you’ve had a routine of hugging them, don’t. Being loud, or speaking down to them (baby talking) doesn’t help, at all.

Unless what you want is a confrontation! I recommend confrontations with an INTJ when we are being dicks. Eg. you say he’s treating u inferior? Well act as ‘inferior’ and annoying as you can to bring the subject out. Be careful tho, this could backfire if you don’t have some sort of strategy planned out.

I suggest that if you guys do fight out (intellectually, or taters forbid physically) you should just try and calm down and just sit there, near him. It’s nice to feel someone close by, and not nagging you. Maybe a ”u ok?” and a nod is good. That’s a whole conversation, right there. Not some mumbo jumbo bs about feelings. If he wants a feelings convo, he’ll have one with you.

BTW, my dad is an ISFJ! We get along very well, even if we don’t understand each fully. I’m usually there for him when he’s offended or needs to rant, and we like watching shows together in silence, unless cars come up (he has a straight-out PASSION for cars, and I admit I have been converted to the religion of loving cars lmao) or something about some trivia I know comes up. We’re both good with trivia, though we focus on different things. I don’t think he’s ‘dumber’ than me, but his thought process is just gibberish to me, and I know mine is the same to him. We both look down on eachother because we are assholes, but we have a system of ”if you speak down to me, I will remind you how much I understand the thing so stop being a twat”. Maybe that’s just us though, we’ve had to learn to live with eachother.

As a thing though, if you can’t understand ur bros thought process…don’t try. It’ll only give you headache, really, if you try. I’m usually thinking in a spiderweb 15 countries away away and an INTJ friend I have is always thinking in a sort of hurricane-motion circling whatever she’s supposed to be thinking about but not actually doing it. When we’re together, we sort of semi-synch and we sound like people spouting nonsense, that makes sense in context.

In general, all the other INTJ I’ve found are just more relaxed in their areas of expertise, but the good thing is that whatever area is usally appliable to everything. For example, my dad loves cars, and I’m an artsy person. Cars can have vynils, then can have designs. To design a car you have to draw it. Or another example, I have a friend who loves italy, so we usually talk about places I find captivating aesthetically. You have to really be on a bad slide with your bro if he doesn’t even try to be part of the conversation, because conversations are fun as hell, unless there are preachy/nagging people around.

Oh! And check the eyes before anything. I know this sounds weird, but in my experience and a person who is INTj and a person who had dealt with other INTJs, if you can check their eyes before doing whatever it is you were going to do, you can pretty much gauge them and guess what they’ll do. Intense staring in a way that makes your spine shiver is just a no; please reconsider what you will do. If they’re looking attentively at something, with a conused expression, just sort of go near the thing and be like ”what up with the thing” and maybe you can help out with their confusion, just try not to get exasperated and exasperate them. If they look like they are on an idea roll, you can help by saying pointless crap that can give them ideas, just try not to put them down, because feeling inspired for anything is THE BEST FEELING. If you ask for their opinion, and don’t agree with it, but don’t want a debate, just be like ”I accept your opinion but I will do the thing anyway” and just ignore their protests because they are just being childish- UNLESS it involves them! If it involves them please please don’t not ask them for input and please take them seriously.

If you’re having an argument try not to repeat yourself, though rephrasing is good because it explores different side-meanings.

Oh! And try not to break your own rules, if you want him to follow them. I just notices now that my dad basically herded me into following a certain set of ‘house rules’ that really in retrospect I never agreed too and honestly I would not have imposed myself, but I did follow through and it’s fair that they follow them and I do. Though rule bending is ok. I love rulebending. But I am sort of a lazy ass, so there is that. I try not to hunt anyone with my rule bending.

I’m sorry is any of this sounds condescending/rude etc etc. I want to help, and I wish more people got along with my fellow INTJs, from what I’ve been told I can be a good friend and I know the INTJs I know are pretty rad, even if they do go on and on about the things they like (luckily for me I like those things haha I am such a dork).

Oh and remember that family =/= automatic love/respect! So many family members dislike the way I treat them because it does not fit the ‘social conventions’, despite the fact they know they deserve it because of their actions (e.g. family member dislikes me and pretends to like me in public and I refuse to be two faced that way). I don’t forgive people who pretend, backstab or follow rules ‘just because’. Everything should have a reason, and nothing needs to have a meaning. I’m ok with my ISFJ dad because we have an understanding, a sort of friendship, not because ”he’s my dad”. The same with the rest of the relatives. The good thing is your relationship with ur INTJ bro should only be affected by what both of you have actually done, and not pre-conceived stuff. If you show any sort of change, they will notice, and probably try and figure it out (and FAIL. People mind reading skills = 0).

Just…they’ll respect you, if you respect them. Unless they are an asshole. I won’t pretend like there are no INTJ’s who have gone sour. I have my ups and downs, I can reject things and people. There are people out there who will never speak to me again, but none of them want me to respect them, and they don’t respect me, so there is no loss.

Honestly if you want to connect with him, don’t do it ”just becasue”, do it because you want to connect with him -wait. I phrased that wrong. Don’t do it just because you feel it should be that way, since you are brothers. Do it because you are genuinely interested in being friends. I can’t speak for him, but I shut down when approached directly, though finding things in common between me and whoever is a way to start a bond. There has to be something you guys are both interested in somehow, that you can try and work together with, though don’t try and overwhelm them because they may be ”intellectually superior” in their minds but that all goes fffffffpfpffpptptpfptpttt when they aren’t dominating the situation.

Oh, and don’t let them dominate the situation, keep levelling the playing field. You’re equal, in every way, don’t let them forget. Back and forth discussions work well. Even if they dominate the conversation, listen and be critical of the BS they say, maybe try and see where their thought process is going, and beat them to it. You might not be able to figure out a person of a different type than you in general, but when you’re both having a convo, chances are, you’ll start syncing thought lines, even if you both think differently.

Oh and don’t try and covert them to anything. Religion, liking flavours, political systems…just steer clear of those. Everything else is p much fair game. I mean, you can talk about those things, as long as when you do you are clear that they are not comparting your stance on whatever subject. My dad and I have many philosophical convos when we watch tv, despite the fact we do not share beliefs (he’s theist, I’m nihilist; he believes time travel is an impossibility and I think it is possible via mutiverse timelines, he thinks robots will inevitably kill all humans because we are horrible and I think there is a chance we might live in harmony as equals [strangely enough we both agree that robots in the future is p much certain lmao])

I DUNNO. I don’t know what to say I just. I sound condescending, don’t I? I really do, fuck. Well, I know this all sounds like useless BS but I assure you I thought it was good while I was writing it and I hope it can help? I’m not the best at writing linear things, I jump around alot, and ramble.

I don’t even know how to end this message, I’ve been trying for like 4 paragraphs now

heliosdayspring:

me: *looks at ocs i made 4 years ago*

me: we can rebuild them. we have the technology

ikazed:

lnfamy:

dude is a gender neutral term if you think differently you are wrong

image

image

image