36 پاسخ به “چگونه به طور واقعی ذهن یک نفر را تغییر دهیم”

1. Crowder > you

2. "how to handle people with high egos" pls

3. Win debates VS Change people's mind

4. I didn't even watch this video halfway but I just wanted to say I change someone's mind when arguing by listening to the other person's opinion first then explaining my opinion. It usually works unless someone is very stubborn. 🙄 Literally one time I tried doing this with a stubborn person and when I started saying my opinion they interrupted saying no no no I'm right and you're wrong.

5. except it's change MY mind not change your mind. he isn't trying to change the other persons mind,he's offering to let them change his.it's more for the audience then the participant.i haven't watched but that's a important distinction if your going to make a video about it.

6. haven't watch this but you can't change someone mind by manipulating them, that's weird

7. Change my mind is not for Crowder to change your mind. It is for others to change his. The main point is to get people to start learning how to have a discussion without bomb throwing among other things.

8. The problem I have with you using Steven for this video is that Steven comes with facts and hardly any opinions. If you used just the people arguing with him I would agree with you.

9. coercion => intimidation => submission => authoritative => tyranny => slave master.

10. Steven Crowder is a f**** moron and Drifter nothing more nothing less. Using him as anything other than an example of a d**** is a waste of everyone's time.

11. CHRISTOPHER HITCHENS. DO IT.

12. triggering an emotional response is step one to changing their mind about something. and honestly, if it were left up to just peoples emotions, the whole world would be a complete shitshow

13. How I read the title;
    How to ACTUALLY manipulate someone's mind to agree with you.

14. it's the act of having a discussion with two differing view points that opens people's minds and allows them to change. how is what Steven is doing incorrect? if anything it's the most correct way to have the types of discussions he had on his show

15. Really enjoyed the video but shouldn't the thumbnail be changed? After all in the video you go over the good and the bad of Steven Croweder, some of the stuff he does is good and others bad so a thumbnail that says STOP DOING THIS (Picture of Steven Crowder) seems a little like clickbait

16. Take away here is not to react. But listen

17. Excellent perspective. Something to think about sir

18. Please do a video on Henry Cavill. With the Witcher release this would be really good. Thanks

19. Crowder isn't perfect, but he is awesome!

20. I like the part where the other person refuses to listen/talk to you

21. Wait the whole point is for them to change Stevens mind right?

22. When insults are hurled at me in a debate, I immediately stop the conversation with the person. If a person resorts to insults, I see them as not confident enough in their views, or even not intellectual enough to support their argument. Their credibility is out the window and I am done with that person. I will never engage that person again.

23. His rapport building looks like passive aggressive sarcasm alot of the time in an attempt to make someone uncomfortable to make them triggered which is his money shot, he doesn't wanna change minds, he wants money shots.

24. 2:46 there’s a sub 2 PewDiePie sign in the background

25. Use the person's name frequently. A person's name is their favorite word in the world.

26. b/t/w/ I really appreciate the placing of Crowder in the role of success and failure of how to win converts, not arguments. I think it makes a much stronger point then comparing different people or different topics that could come across as arguing apples and oranges. as opposed to comparing a bushel full of apples. On more than 1 occasion I have watched him argue in favor of a topic I'm fairly knowledgeable about and where my opinion wholly agrees with his opinion (a good example is his "Socialism is Evil") where he completely lost my moral support with each of the people he debated. Not because he made bad points, but because at some point he ended up reverting to problematic tactics (Syllogistic fallacies, argumentum ad hominem, strawmanning) Even when we (Myself and Crowder) are in factual agreement, as soon as any of those methods are deployed it feels like he has already lost the argument…To his credit, there are many cases where I think his entire conversation positively used the methods for changing others minds outlined here, that left me with the impression he could not have made a stronger or more productive argument where the metric of success isn't winning the argument, but convincing the other person that there is merit to Crowder's argument. And the other person may be open to, with more time, evidence and contemplation changing their mind on a belief they were very sure of before the discussion

27. Yo how do I approach a girl without coming off as creepy or desperate

28. This is a fantastic continuation of groundwork you laid analyzing Ben Shapiro dialectic method & Russel brand interview. Personally I would love a video about the topic you allude to about the significance of breaking rapport, such as the Hitchslap affectation

29. It has to be their idea. All you can do is plant the seed. You can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make them drink.

30. I know he's not as famous as some of the other people you do reviews of on this channel, but would it be possible to do a review of Miles Luna's charisma from Rooster Teeth?

31. Thank you so much for sharing these amazing videos! I have Asperger's and your channel has been priceless for me. I share it with all the autistic people I know.

32. That was a pitch, that offer. Payback when unsatisfied.

33. The change my mind section isn’t really about changing people’s minds. It’s more about a peaceful, open, and unedited interviews and dialogues.

34. Can we get a face reveal

35. Communist Chinese robot

36. Why political and philosophical duopolies? That is a problem with Americans. They tend always to think about 2 sides and 2 solutions only. No out of a box solutions. This is because of the First past the post voting system where they get only 2 parties in the Congress, which leads to 2 extremes. In Europe, we have a proportional system of voting that leads to having 5-8 different parties in parliaments, with different views on different social and political questions. For example, in the European parliament we have 7 political parties/groups, in the Croatian parliament, we have above 10.
    That gives some strange combinations. In Austria, now they get a coalition government (conservatives+greens) that is more conservative in a question of nation, but green in a question of ecology and environment.
    In my life, I myself was voting for the following parties ( for the national parliamentary, local, or European elections, and presidential elections): the right wing-conservative (4 times), green ecological (2 times), left-wing socialist (2 times), social-liberal and Euro-federalists (2 times), independent-right wing leaning+decentralization candidate (once).

نظرات بسته شده اند.