Michael Moore

[Edgar]

Michael Moore is a piece of shit attention whore, who manupilates the truth for his own gain.

Just because he happens to be on the righteous side of the issue from time to time, that doesn't make him honorable or reasonable.

Edit: I'm guessing he's a self righteous/self centered ENFJ.

 

[Litvyak]

Aren't effective manipulators honorable, especially if they happen to be "on the righteous side from time to time"?

He's not a documentarist, but a walking propaganda machine - and a damn good one, I have to admit. He can't convince the elite, but laymen love him. I'm watching his movies for the lulz (usually skipping emo parts), so I'm looking forward to his next film.

That's not evidence that he's an intuitive. I think he's an SJ on a mission...logic be damned.

'N' doesn't necessarily equal 'logical thinker'. He could be an idealist.

 

[Edgar]

Aren't effective manipulators honorable, especially if they happen to be "on the righteous side from time to time"?

Using manipulation and misinformation for the sake of good is dubiously honorable concept in itself, plus there there is an added element of trust and competence. You have to trust him that he has people's interest in mind (unclouded by his own), and on top of that he has to be competent enough to always know which side is righteous.

I, for one, neither trust him, nor think that he has an infallible competence.

 

[Lauren Ashley]

Edit: I'm guessing he's a self righteous/self centered ENFJ.

My guess too.

P.S. Rep

 

[Gewitter27]

He's chock-filled with Logical Fallacies, and with truckloads of Cum Hoc Ergo Proptor Hocs.

And I will not repeal my typing him FATBASTARD, because it is common knowledge.

 

[avolkiteshvara]

I like Moore.

What he says isn't always correct. But he jump-starts discourse between complacent view points. Conservatives, liberals, and independents should engage in more discussion.

 

[Nonsensical]

I like what he represents.

He represents change and sticking up for his beliefs. As far as I can tell, he sticks up to Corruption, injustice, and thins that are unethical all in spite of the people. The People. He seems to have his set around getting the consent of the people through fairness and liberty.

And you know? Top an ENFP, these things can really earn you some respect. Criticize him all you want, I do sometimes...but know you're criticizing one person who is standing up while the rest of us just sitting around. You know?

 

[Katsuni]

He's chock-filled with Logical Fallacies, and with truckloads of Cum Hoc Ergo Proptor Hocs.

And I will not repeal my typing him FATBASTARD, because it is common knowledge.

Never seen that term used before, but it really does make alot of sense and is fitting for him.

As I stated though, in terms of his capacity to cause discussion and make a big deal out of a mostly quiet topic, to generate awareness, he's excellent at that, and that cum_hoc_ergo_propter_hoc thing fits perfectly as a way to do so, as it incites discussion and argument.

The problem is... it also means that it draws alot of bad conclusions... meaning if he's RIGHT about something... then the people who are wrong will use his horrible reasoning against the concept as a whole, as if everyone believes that false reasoning >.>

 

[Thalassa]

I like what he represents.

He represents change and sticking up for his beliefs. As far as I can tell, he sticks up to Corruption, injustice, and thins that are unethical all in spite of the people. The People. He seems to have his set around getting the consent of the people through fairness and liberty.

And you know? Top an ENFP, these things can really earn you some respect. Criticize him all you want, I do sometimes...but know you're criticizing one person who is standing up while the rest of us just sitting around. You know?

I agree. Sure, Michael Moore can be obnoxious. Does he exaggerate sometimes? Probably. But that doesn't make what he's doing wrong or completely illogical. It's overly simplistic to criticize him with broad strokes like "propaganda." I sincerely think that what some of the people in this thread meant to type was "since I disagree with him, everything he says must be untrue." Which is a logical fallacy in and of itself...

I respect Michael Moore. I do think he really is on a mission to do something good. I don't think he's a complete fraud. While I might not always agree with his tactics, I admire him for getting out there and trying to make a difference.

Besides, this is America: would he really be able to grab people's attention without a little flash and song and dance? I think he knows sensationalism sells, and I'm sure he deems it worth it in order to reach people with what he sees as being important causes.

 

[Litvyak]

know you're criticizing one person who is standing up while the rest of us just sitting around.

Speak for yourself.

As I stated though, in terms of his capacity to cause discussion and make a big deal out of a mostly quiet topic, to generate awareness, he's excellent at that

+1

 

[r.a]

Michael Moore is a piece of shit attention whore, who manupilates the truth for his own gain.

Just because he happens to be on the righteous side of the issue from time to time, that doesn't make him honorable or reasonable.

Edit: I'm guessing he's a self righteous/self centered ENFJ.

plus one

 

[Blank]

Meh, Moore's got such a swirl of controversy/hype around him that it makes me want to have no part of it.

I watch his movies with an open mind, and relate mostly to the people he interviews (who tend to bring up good points whether they're intentional or not) and make my own inferences based upon them. As a person though, I don't trust him because of how ridiculously biased he is.

Biased or not, he brings up good points, but those points should be taken with a grain of salt.

That's all I have to say.

 

[Lateralus]

Can you explain why you think he's SJ?

If you were to base your opinion of type distribution based solely on the opinions of people on this forum, you would think that 95% of humans are intuitives. But in the real world there are more sensors than intuitives. My assessment is that people on this forum have no idea how to type people, and if they claim that they do, they're full of shit. It's especially difficult to type someone like Michael Moore where you have such a small amount of information. All we have are his movies and a few interviews.

My reason for thinking he's an SJ is...SJ is the most common temperament. If you knew little about a person, you would have the greatest statistical probability of being correct if you simply guessed SJ every time. That's better than thinking that every famous or intelligent person is intuitive.

 

[Happyman]

If you were to base your opinion of type distribution based solely on the opinions of people on this forum, you would think that 95% of humans are intuitives. But in the real world there are more sensors than intuitives. My assessment is that people on this forum have no idea how to type people, and if they claim that they do, they're full of shit. It's especially difficult to type someone like Michael Moore where you have such a small amount of information. All we have are his movies and a few interviews.

My reason for thinking he's an SJ is...SJ is the most common temperament. If you knew little about a person, you would have the greatest statistical probability of being correct if you simply guessed SJ every time. That's better than thinking that every famous or intelligent person is intuitive.

Hee-hee-hee! Man, you've killed the NUMBER ONE innocent entertainment on this forum!
Typing famous people is like sudoku and horoscopes.

Dramatic news: forum's activity drops by 45%!

To be honest I agree that we put 'N' much too often. I cannot imagine anyone here (including myself probably) typing any of last American presidents 'S', yet the most common 'two-letter-combination' for them was SJ (right from the start - with ISTJ Washington)

Yet, I hoped for some arguments for M.Moore's 'S-ness', on Your part. There are some serious ones:
- He focuses on real stories and history.
- He's very average in his tastes.
- He uses tons of popular catch-phrases in his interviews

(I'd still go with ENFP, though - to what I wrote before, I'd add his crazy idea to write a book and make a documentary after being fired - very un-SJ! - and basically creating new way of making documentaries).

 

[Lateralus]

Yet, I hoped for some arguments for M.Moore's 'S-ness', on Your part. There are some serious ones:
- He focuses on real stories and history.
- He's very average in his tastes.
- He uses tons of popular catch-phrases in his interviews

This would still be flawed. MBTI is about internal processes, not behavior. Perhaps you should discuss his Enneagram type.

 

[Oberon]

I respect Michael Moore as a documentarian (really, a propagandist, but he works in that end of filmmaking) who can open a movie. I don't appreciate some of his tactics, though. Even back in the Roger & Me days, he kept up the whole "Roger Smith wouldn't speak to me" thing and had the empty seat in every theater gimmick, even though he did eventually speak to Roger Smith and did not include it in the film.

I had a great idea from one of the Hit & Run posters at Reason.

A Letter to Michael Moore

"Dear Mr. Moore,
I would like to see your new film Capitalism: A Love Story, but I don't want to pay. Please send a free ticket to 1550. . ."

That's my problem with Moore. He's an end-justifies-the-means kind of guy, which makes him fundamentally dishonest.

 

[Happyman]

This would still be flawed. MBTI is about internal processes, not behavior.

Hrm... true. Yet, I don't think anybody treats it dead seriously here.

Also almost every MBTI test includes numerous 'behaviour based' questions (i.e. 'Do you tend to stay till the end of the party or do you quit early on?'). Which probably means they believe in correlation between the two (behaviour and cognitive functions).

Putting it simply: the 'typings' are seriously flawed yet are not sheer nonsense.

 

[Lateralus]

Hrm... true. Yet, I don't think anybody treats it dead seriously here.

Some people sure seem to take it seriously to me...at least until they're shown to be wrong. Then they pretend it's all just for fun.

 

[d@v3]

I really dislike Moore. He sets a negative mood within society with his comments. For instance, I know we are all (well, most of us are) tired of Iraq, but he wasn't/isn't helping with his negative attitude.

 

[Happyman]

Some people sure seem to take it seriously to me...at least until they're shown to be wrong. Then they pretend it's all just for fun.

Do you mean me? Anyway, you've responded to the least important part of my post.

Do you think there is a correlation between cognitive functions and behaviour or not?
I'd say the whole idea of MBTI-testing is based on the assumption there is a strong relation between the two (not to mention whole psychology).