Personality Cafe banner

1 - 15 of 15 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
2 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
An ISTJ, who I was close to until I was about 25, has now developed some ridiculous beliefs. He believes Jews run the world. Last I know, he believes in pizzagate. I told him I can’t believe he became a right winger. He replied, “Well, I’m against pedophilia, anti Jew and not racist against white people, so if that’s right wing, yeah, it’s a good title to have.” What do you guys think?
 

·
Registered
ENTJ 7w8 sx/so
Joined
·
8,008 Posts
Sounds like he's been brainwashed by conservative conspiracy theorists.
 

·
Premium Member
INTJ 5w6 (Sp/Sx) 593
Joined
·
1,307 Posts
Well, the only to convince someone differently is to challenge those beliefs.
“I can’t believe you’re a right winger” isn’t a very convincing argument.
If anything, that makes people entrench themselves further.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,293 Posts
I would ask what actual policy positions he has.

I have been thinking about this a lot lately. How political campaigns do not even try to target people who have "made up their minds" because those people follow a certain set of principles. They go for the undecided; people that can be appealed to on certain issues that can seem unrelated but are not so to the more principled voter.

Apart from the antisemitism, those are not really positions that differentiate between left and right & making your friend realize that could be the key.
 
  • Like
Reactions: WickerDeer

·
Registered
Joined
·
2 Posts
Discussion Starter #6
I can’t even remember the whole conversation at this point. I basically told him that stuff was irrational, but he just got pissy and called me brainwashed. I told him I could debunk anything he wants to throw at me, which he didn’t feel like doing. But I don’t think I am gonna try to change him unless he makes the effort to contact me. I actually said I have no interest in unscientific claims, and he said he would favor people‘s experiences over science. What? That is so irrational, it’s mind blowing. I guess if he’s not interested in my opinion, so be it. I don’t wanna deal with his idiotic, pissy attitude.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,293 Posts
he just got pissy and called me brainwashed.
Sounds incredibly familiar... I asked the guy who told me this exact same thing who brainwashed me and he did not have an answer for that.

I told him I could debunk anything he wants to throw at me, which he didn’t feel like doing. But I don’t think I am gonna try to change him unless he makes the effort to contact me. I actually said I have no interest in unscientific claims, and he said he would favor people‘s experiences over science. What? That is so irrational, it’s mind blowing. I guess if he’s not interested in my opinion, so be it. I don’t wanna deal with his idiotic, pissy attitude.
One thing you can try with this type is kill them with kindness and keep the interaction going so you have enough time to go through things. Too much pressure would drive anyone to be defensive. But if he is not at all open to hearing you out, it is not going to work no matter what you try. Usually a massive waste of time, though not without its own little life lessons.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
105 Posts
Daniel Kahneman:

“Why do people so rarely change their minds on important matters, and why nevertheless do people think that they are reasonable and think that those who disagree with them are not reasonable? Another way of phrasing the question is: how and why do people think they know things? …

The confidence we have in our beliefs is not a judgment, it’s a feeling, and it's a feeling that comes about when we have managed to produce, or System One has produced for us because it happens automatically, a story that makes sense, and when the story makes sense and there is no ambiguity in it because the ambiguity has been dissolved away or has been resolved in some way then we know things. And the essence of knowing things is that there is no doubt, there is no question, there is no alternative way of interpreting the world.”




Jimj said:
I told him I could debunk anything he wants to throw at me
Since taboos also affect journalists and scientists, it is difficult to become a specialist in taboo subjects, which leads to a lack of reliable information.
 

·
Registered
iNtp sp/sx x84
Joined
·
3,362 Posts
Sounds like he's been brainwashed by conservative conspiracy theorists.
antisemitism is dominated more by the left, openly permissable.. but that is easily dismissed by bringing up the hibernian conspiracy.

however getting back to topic...

those that feel disenfranchised have a greater risk of gravitating towards extreme niches whether they're left or right.

there's hasn't been much balance in the public sphere in the last decade.. it is very much you're with us or against us mentality. . . that has only grown more extreme in recent years and has fully crossed over into the mainstream. discussing a subject abut an istj in the istj subsection also presents this mentality, as if should any defend said individual then the argument and blanket assumption could be made that it is all istjs. . . and we'd have a profile for eliminating such threats from society.

I think OP likely has a few biases of their own that potentially led to the isolation of their friend and likely any one of these issues hit their button pushing them out of the way.. but I also believe there's likely other, underlining issues with said friend. so, I would question why OP focuses on this and not the other?

Is it more permissable to be outraged by political differences and opinions than one is able to gather support in being concerned about someone's mental health and welfare? especially that of a so called friend, ex-friend. how loosely such terms are given.. perhaps they were merely an acquaintance.

I might be cynical to think this is more about timely virtue signaling than not. We don't know much about said friend and OP leads with what they know most people will disagree with to potentially fish for the desired response. .

so far more details are required to form a picture...

and I'd have to ask what exactly is OP seeking because what anyone thinks is largely irrelevant, what is OP's intention in sharing this and here of all places..

 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,293 Posts
antisemitism is dominated more by the left, openly permissable.. but that is easily dismissed by bringing up the hibernian conspiracy.

however getting back to topic...

those that feel disenfranchised have a greater risk of gravitating towards extreme niches whether they're left or right.

there's hasn't been much balance in the public sphere in the last decade.. it is very much you're with us or against us mentality. . . that has only grown more extreme in recent years and has fully crossed over into the mainstream. discussing a subject abut an istj in the istj subsection also presents this mentality, as if should any defend said individual then the argument and blanket assumption could be made that it is all istjs. . . and we'd have a profile for eliminating such threats from society.

I think OP likely has a few biases of their own that potentially led to the isolation of their friend and likely any one of these issues hit their button pushing them out of the way.. but I also believe there's likely other, underlining issues with said friend. so, I would question why OP focuses on this and not the other?

Is it more permissable to be outraged by political differences and opinions than one is able to gather support in being concerned about someone's mental health and welfare? especially that of a so called friend, ex-friend. how loosely such terms are given.. perhaps they were merely an acquaintance.

I might be cynical to think this is more about timely virtue signaling than not. We don't know much about said friend and OP leads with what they know most people will disagree with to potentially fish for the desired response. .

so far more details are required to form a picture...

and I'd have to ask what exactly is OP seeking because what anyone thinks is largely irrelevant, what is OP's intention in sharing this and here of all places..

Everybody be virtue signaling
 

·
Registered
ENTJ 7w8 sx/so
Joined
·
8,008 Posts
antisemitism is dominated more by the left, openly permissable.. but that is easily dismissed by bringing up the hibernian conspiracy.

however getting back to topic...

those that feel disenfranchised have a greater risk of gravitating towards extreme niches whether they're left or right.

there's hasn't been much balance in the public sphere in the last decade.. it is very much you're with us or against us mentality. . . that has only grown more extreme in recent years and has fully crossed over into the mainstream. discussing a subject abut an istj in the istj subsection also presents this mentality, as if should any defend said individual then the argument and blanket assumption could be made that it is all istjs. . . and we'd have a profile for eliminating such threats from society.

I think OP likely has a few biases of their own that potentially led to the isolation of their friend and likely any one of these issues hit their button pushing them out of the way.. but I also believe there's likely other, underlining issues with said friend. so, I would question why OP focuses on this and not the other?

Is it more permissable to be outraged by political differences and opinions than one is able to gather support in being concerned about someone's mental health and welfare? especially that of a so called friend, ex-friend. how loosely such terms are given.. perhaps they were merely an acquaintance.

I might be cynical to think this is more about timely virtue signaling than not. We don't know much about said friend and OP leads with what they know most people will disagree with to potentially fish for the desired response. .

so far more details are required to form a picture...

and I'd have to ask what exactly is OP seeking because what anyone thinks is largely irrelevant, what is OP's intention in sharing this and here of all places..

Wow, basically a long winded advertisement. Nice one, hahah. 😛
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
14,964 Posts
The only thing I've noticed helping is if you talk to them before they've listened to the ideological figureheads they repeat.

Then sometimes they can form an independent opinion before they parrot what whatever conservative media says. The more they listen to conservative media, the more they tend to parrot the same opinions on the same topics.

I honestly would rather they have that moment of independent opinion while ignorant of whatever their conservative authority's stance is, because even if they later reevaluate and form a more conservative stance, at least they had that brief moment of thinking for themselves.

I've found a lot of conservatives have less conservative thoughts when they're ignorant about what their conservative authorities think about certain issues...but they tend to align (even if it violates their values--they dismiss it as inconsequential or "a misunderstanding") with the authority and repeat whatever it is they've heard.

But if they haven't been exposed to that, you can get some more interesting independent thoughts. Or if they don't really connect how one belief relates the the others they espouse.

Most of the time it's a waste of time though and you can only hope they lay off the kool-aide.

I know that this sounds like saying they are all brainwashed, and that is often the same talking point they use to refer to people who believe opposing views. But it's just something I've noticed--I think some people who are attracted to conservative media just like it for emotional reasons, even though they always project that (as virtue signaling etc.)

But conservative media is ridiculously emotional--whether it's trying to strum up fear, anger, or feeling of superiority, or celebrating the "crying libs." Perhaps these people have a low emotional intelligence--and so tend to have lower empathy, and perhaps they even tend to be unaware of how sentimental and emotional their "real news" is (like Fox or other political personalities--and later the more obscure and alt-right ones).

I honestly do not know how to deal with people anymore though. It used to be easier to find common ground with them.
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
14,964 Posts
I also want to say I'm sorry and I have been having similar issues with trying to navigate when others adopt more extreme (imo idiotic sounding) conservative views.

I feel like conservativism has changed a lot--I think a lot of the people I grew up with, being able to find common ground even though they were conservative, have moved away from conservativism. It just goes against their values at the extreme it's become.

I can still respect some of those old-fashioned conservatives...but they weren't fundamentalists like many current conservatives seem to be.

And I realize our values weren't that different then, and now that's also why they are distancing themselves from the alt-right and the movement of the conservative party into extremism.

I guess the extremist views are more mainstream now for conservatives though, so I also end up navigating these topics that never would have come up ten years ago in public discourse.

I really do not know.

I mean, maybe if they could even understand the seriousness, value-wise, of their positions. And acknowledge that the opposition is legitimately deep value shit, but they seem unable to engage on that level. They have to try to dismiss the difference in values as a misunderstanding or inconsequential...I guess maybe it's like they operate in a different reality now. So like...antisemitism and ethnic cleansing doesn't lead to death in their world, and the people against those things are just being dramatic. Or global warming is just a bad dream that you're supposed to wake a silly child of.

It's frustrating and I don't know how to deal with it. I think I'm going to give up on that soon.
 

·
Moderator
INFP 5w6
Joined
·
5,668 Posts
Not all, but quite a lot of rightwing people seem to prefer not to, or not be very good at, thinking in societal structures. That it is more than the pieces, and there isn't always an agent to blame, mainly, and that the way to change it is by changing the structure. But some see part of the pattern, and make it into conspiracy theories about groups to blame, or blame it on the weaker, like allowance takers or immigrants. I am sure lots of people on the left also struggle with grasping societal structures (I mean, no-one gets it all, it is supercomplicated, but at least trying to and thinking in those terms), but I think it is more a problem on the right.

Another difference I think, generalizing, and it is just based on my own observation over the years, is more a tendency to focus on one's group (I think this used to be more on the left too, "we the workers" for example), and think about the question "what is the best thing to do for me and mine?" (mine being family, neighbourhood, nation or some other group-belonging), while the left seem to ask more about ethical principles like "what rights should people have?". I think both ways of thinking goes on on both sides, but I think there is a difference in focus, and that that leads to more we and them-rethoric on the right, or competition over cooperation/mutual aid in international economics etc. The left has a lot of we and them, but them is almost always the people with power over you, the boss, the capitalist, the politician, the police.

I think it is really difficult to get someone with very different understanding of what is going on, and different values, to change their minds. I think it is possible to find some common ground sometimes though, that might open a door of sorts, that there might be something to the other side, and so perhaps in time more information can be accepted and ideas might change. I don't think people change fundamentally after a single dialogue very often. Possibly when very young. But it might be possible to soften the wall blocking opposing information, so that ideas can change over time.

I don't have the energy to try very often. I think it requires to humble oneself first, try to understand the opposing view, open up to the possibility that there is something to it (and that is often not very nice), and then try to find some little piece of common ground. Quite often I think there is a lot of common ground in the main problem. It might be that one think it is horrible that there is so much crime and violence and that we want to be safe in our city, or that it is terrible that a small group of people have so much of the economic power. I think most people agree on that, both on the left and right. First articulating the common ground can give a good basis for the dialogue, and then focus on what one think is the best solution, where we want to get to. Because that is where all the disagreements are. So beginning in the opposite end, with the common problem, and discuss together towards a solution, rather than begin with the methods we disagree on and discuss how they are wrong.

Sometimes the best thing seems to be diversion though, a change of focus.
 

·
Registered
iNtp sp/sx x84
Joined
·
3,362 Posts
Wow, basically a long winded advertisement. Nice one, hahah. 😛
yes, most likely.

or opening to a chanel where critical thought exists. one of the most popular and hated figures featured on there is



imagine had you explored the content or was there a fear of contamination to provoke the dismissal of?

depending on one's jursidctions many things can be done.. with the way things are now he can be flagged as a potential domestic terrorist, though the mere mention of such activities and beliefs has always existed in creating a moral initative to ban such people from education and employment. Is that avenue OP would like to explore? It has plusses and minuses, one could argue that it promtoes hitting rock bottom spurring the the initative towards change while others suggest it may only further his delusions and make him a pariah.

though in general, if one is concerned there are several options for doing a welfare and mental health check. . . especially if this is seemingly an abrupt change. if we are to take OP seriously, then I'd lean more towards mental health issues as one would reason most people wouldn't out such beliefs if they weren't seeking confrontation or potential harm.

although, each issue is complex even if it is frequently exhibited in the most simplistic ways.

those that gravitate towards jewish conspiracies, frequently have suffered the effects of economic turns leading to financial problems and/or religion persecution. . . so their scapegoat often becomes a successful minority instead.

pro-white is another complex issue, I'd argue against pro-white sentiments in the same way I'd argue against anti-white sentiments but the concept widely differs from nation to nation, culture to culture. it isn't inherently bad in itself but we are familiar with the extent it quickly turns to beliefs of supremacy and becoming anti-minorities.

anti-paedophilia is yet another, those governed to conspiracy theories frequently feel powerless in combating it and every day presents a new headline. but many often have personal experience whether themselves, a family member or close friend. for it is one of the subject areas that is the most prone to conspiracy theories and blanketed assumptions about other groups, creating multiple scapegoats to target beyond paedophiles. male victims are one of the more likely to find support within conspiracy groups than say in the public sphere where they're looked upon with suspicion of becoming a perp themselves, in some nations excuted, their sense of sexuality, gender, masculinity questioned and public therapeutic options remain inadequate. this is followed by sociopolitical groups such as the more radical wings of feminism and those of traditional religious backgrounds. it presents a literal boogyman that can appear anywhere, at anytime, even within the most sheltered of communities, so of course, people desire to have a way to identify them or believe it's part of a larger movement than an aberration of society. it's still a relatively new concept of even protecting children in this way in many forms.

so, what is hope?
 
1 - 15 of 15 Posts
Top