Showing posts with label Rants. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Rants. Show all posts

Saturday, May 5, 2018

An INTJ Gives Advice: How to Give the Perfect Hug


Hey, everyone.

Judging by the title of this post, I'm likely to draw a crowd that isn't my usual one, therefore introductions are in order. Hello. I am Bryan C. Laesch, the Writer, and this is my blog. Usually I write stuff relating to MBTI and INTJs, and this time will be no exception. Originally, it wasn't going to have the INTJ angle, but since I present everything in here as fact like only an INTJ can, I may as well present it from that angle.

But first, let me start this off by saying that contrary to popular belief, INTJs do like hugs. I should know as an INTJ myself. I quite enjoy them, although I am very selective about whom I hug. But this post isn't about who to select embrace--this is a technical manual on how to give someone what I have deemed... The Perfect Hug.


Now, you may think "all hugs are perfect" or some sentimental BS like that, but that's blatantly false. Through the hugs I've given and received, I've noted the qualities that make a good hug and the qualities that don't. And because I'm an INTJ, I'm probably right and only possibly wrong.

But before I begin, I want to do a shameless self-plug. If you enjoy my writing, please consider supporting me on Patreon. $1 a month really helps me out, but I will accept more if you feel like it. Don't worry though, I offer plenty of rewards for higher dollar amounts. Also, I released a new book a couple of weeks ago called Tales of Romance: Unlikely Lovers. I'll bet you $2.99 that INTJs can write romance.

With that out of the way, let's get on with the show.

The Perfect Hug

But before I give you the skinny on how to perform The Perfect Hug, a question: what is The Perfect Hug? It's exactly what it sounds like. No mystery here. However, judging by some of the hugs I've seen, it seems to be quite a mysterious and little-known about technique and phenomenon. However, I can tell you that The Perfect Hug does leave an impression on you. You remember it long after you have experienced it. To prove it to you, I'm going to give you two examples of The Perfect Hug that I experienced myself. But in order to do so, we must go... into the past.


May 2007

When I was a young man of a tender 18-years old, not even graduated from high school yet, I had the privilege of sharing a rather powerful embrace with my high school's campus minister. Now, that may seem a little weird to some of you, but Mrs. LaRocca was the affectionate sort. Our principal even joked about it at graduation or some other similar ceremony.

Anyway, I had stopped by the school to pick up my personal files and show off my cool Gothic, spiky hat and my cool Gothic, Hot Topic shorts with the chains. Who would have thought that I, a very straight-laced student, was into spikes and chains and metal and sh*t. Anyway, I was passing by Mrs. LaRocca's office and she called me into it and we had a short discussion. About what? I can't remember. But as I was getting up to leave, Mrs. LaRocca went in for the hug and I didn't refuse her. She squeezed affectionately and I returned the sentiment. Then she squeezed again, and I squeezed back. And then finally, there was a third set of squeezes. I'm not complaining about the squeezes, but it is strange that there was three of them in a sequence, and the hug was sort of long.

Some may think that Mrs. LaRocca was copping a feel, but I highly doubt that. Even if she was, there's nothing I could do about it as she is deceased now, and besides, the hug was burned into my mind. I thoroughly enjoyed it. So even if I was a victim...


November 2017

For the next example of The Perfect Hug, we now skip to a more recent date. Back in November, there was a momentous occasion in the form of my high school reunion. Peculiar how both of these are related to my old high school. Anyway...

At the end of the night, my two hot dates, actually two girls who graduated the year after me that I took as my guests, went to say goodbye to another girl, Jessica, from their class who had married a guy from my class. And the goodbyes took a while. I had already stayed later than I meant to and it was a quarter to one in the morning. All I wanted to do was leave because I was tired and sort of disappointed with how the evening had turned out. But then something special happened.

My guests finished their goodbyes and I similarly went to wish a good night to Jessica just to be cordial. I didn't dare presume a hug from her as she and I were never that close, but she decided to give me one anyway. Although, that decision might have been alcoholically induced as she was pretty spiffed.


According to her, she had been drinking since noon and there was plenty of alcohol at the reunion. She even had a small plastic cup full of wine when she went to hug me. But because I don't believe in giving whimpy hugs, I went ahead and pulled her in tightly. It was just for a second or two as I had pulled her off balance and spilled her wine a little. I apologized, but Jessica said it was fine, commenting she appreciated the tightness. She set her wine down and came back for round two. And I tell you, she really gave it the beans. And what can I say, I don't give whimpy hugs, so I returned the sentiment. It was the best hug I had received in more than six months, and it's probably the best hug I've had in the past six months.

But that's the point of The Perfect Hug. You remember it long (long, long, long) after the fact because it touches you like nothing else can. It turns a sh*tty night into a great one, and keeps an administrator burned into your head after her death and makes you model every hug you give after that after the one you shared with her. That's the power of The Perfect Hug.


The Technique

Alright. With story time out of the way, now we can dive into the how-to.

1. Get on My Level


The first step is good news for all those who have bad backs or for those dudes who have accidentally choked themselves on the huggee's shoulder when bending over. The first step is to be on equal ground as the object of your affection. However, this does not simply mean that you're both standing on a level surface as if one of you is taller than the other, it will still be awkward as hell. No, no.

In order to "be on the same level," I suggest matching the level of your torsos or heads. If that means that one of you needs to step down or step up, or one of you needs to pick the other up (only do so when necessary), then do so. You may also both sit down, but there is a caveat to this which I'll get into in just a moment.

Anyway, having your torsos on the same level will allow you both to have the proper body positioning and leverage for the next few steps, hence why I try to dissuade you from picking up the object of your affection.

2. Open Yourself Up (to Love!)


Having someone put an arm around your neck or waist is a great feeling. There's no feeling quite like camaraderie or like the sensation of "this is mine." But... it's a fact that side hugs suck. Car hugs suck. And most of the time, sitting hugs suck because you've got a bunch of legs in the way. The caveat to the sitting hug I mentioned is this: the smaller one of you should sit in the bigger person's lap, legs angled to the side obviously, or just go ahead and straddle the bigger person.

Swag Activated
But what step number two is about is that you should face the person you intend on embracing and you should be open to allowing your chest to touch theirs.

3. Where You Stickin' Those Hands?

This is more about arm placement than your hands. Anyway, my tip here is that the smaller person should wrap their arms around the other's neck, and the bigger should wrap their arms around the middle to lower back. I understand that this embrace may be too "intimate" or "personal" for certain situations, in which case I'd day the smaller person can wrap their arms around the other's torso, and the bigger one will wrap their arms around the other's upper back.


However, do not take this opportunity to play a game of grab ass. This is The Perfect Hug. It's a sign of unconditional love, not bow-chicka-wow-wow.

4. Keep Your Butt In

Do you ever get the urge to just give someone a swift kick in the ass? I get the feeling all the time. But I am an INTJ, so... But! I do get this feeling the most when I see people hug and they stick their butts out. Now, you may argue that some people's butts are sticking out because they're leaning over to hug a person who's sitting, but this scenario violates step number one, therefore...


But it really drives me crazy when I see people who are standing and doing it. What? Are you afraid of getting close? Then why are you hugging? And if it's got something to do with preserving each other's hair, I swear to God, somebody's gettin' a booting tonight!


Some may then ask the question, "But what do I do if the guy I'm hugging is, ahem! Excited?" If you don't like feeling a boner or a specific someone's boner, don't engage in the hug. But this is about The Perfect Hug, and there are no boners in The Perfect Hug. Again, this is about unconditional love and not brown chicken, brown cow. So once one is popped, you don't need to worry about having perfect form anymore. Plus, the dude with the erection ruined the hug first, so you don't need to feel guilty about not being able to give The Perfect Hug.

5. Squeeze!

This is the trickiest part of the hug because so many overdo it, and instead of being an affectionate cuddle, the hug turns into a sick, new WWE wrestling move. I remember one hug I got from a friend of mine. She was enthusiastic about it at the time because she had been going through a tough time and I was there for her in her time of need. But when we embraced, her hands landed at the base of my neck, and so when she squeezed, it was actually painful.

Ergo, the amount of pressure you want to aim for is tighter than when you first embrace, but there's no need to put all your strength into it. You can get a little enthusiastic and squeeze harder than necessary, but if the huggee starts twitching or screaming, you've gone too far.


6. It's More Than a Feeling

It's ironic that I say it's more than a feeling because that's what this bit is about--the "feeling" of The Perfect Hug. A better word would be the "intention" or "aura." And as I have already stated, The Perfect Hug is about unconditional love. There's nothing pervy or romantic about it; it's just love and acceptance.

Some may argue that you don't need a proper form or technique to pull off such an embrace so long as the unconditional love is there, but let's get real; proper alignment, form, and technique can all be sort of hypnotizing when executed properly. Not to mention it puts you, the hugger, into the right frame of mind where you can drum up the feeling of unconditional love and pass it along to the huggee. If however it takes you a moment to feel the love before you can "activate" it, I suggest a brief meditation right before so you can put your mind at peace and feel the love fill you up.


Conclusion

And there you have it! A step-by-step guide to The Perfect Hug. Not to mention, this also concludes what may become the first of a new series on my blog: An INTJ Gives Advice. I can give life changing advice and challenge INTJ stereotypes at the same time! Yippy-skippy! But seriously, I truly meant everything I said here. I will never forget the hug I had with Mrs. LaRocca or Jessica, and they are the goals I strive for when I give a hug, although it can be frustrating when the object of my affection doesn't put in the same amount of work. Story of an INTJ's life... well, sort of, but not really.

Anyway, for next week, I plan on writing those two posts on whether an INTJ believe in love and what INTJs think about during and after they make out. Hopefully they help move a few copies of Tales of Romance: Unlikely Lovers. So be on the look out for those posts sometime next week. And, as I always say...

Keep writing, my friends.

More About Bryan C. Laesch:


Amazon: My Author Page
Facebook: Bryan C. Laesch, Bawdy Scholar
Patreon: Bryan C. Laesch

Instagram: Bryan C. Laesch
Twitter: BryanofallTrade
Youtube: Bryan C. Laesch, Bawdy Scholar



Monday, April 30, 2018

Your ACTUAL Hogwarts House (According To Your Myers Briggs Personality Type): A Response to The Things.com


Hey, everyone.

So, I know this is kind of late. It was my intention to have it out earlier this week. Technically, last week. Things really get busy around here on weekends for some reason. I never get anything done. And my internet decides to be a f*cktard and things that should take 15 mins end up taking more than an hour.

Anyway, today's topic is one that I've been sitting on for a while. Since back in December I think. Basically, TheThings.com wrote an article called "Your ACTUAL Hogwarts House (According To Your Myers Brigs Personality Type)." Now, what makes TheThings.com experts at MBTI, I have no idea, but considering I've never seen them write any other MBTI articles and they get quite a few things obviously wrong here, I don't think they know MBTI very well. But before we really get into this rant, I want to remind you all of my Patreon. If you believe that I'm doing God's work helping to further MBTI theory, then I sure would appreciate the support. $1 a month really helps me out, but anything more than that would be even more appreciated and I have all sorts of goodies offered to those who do.

All right, then...

Hogwarts Houses

For those who don't know how the Hogwarts houses from Harry Potter break down, it's like this, and this is more or less a direct quote from Pat Boivin of the Super Best Friends Zaibatsu: "You can be a real cool guy, a huge nerd, a racist, or some assh*le called Hufflepuff." Basically in Harry Potter, the students are "sorted" via the Sorting Hat into "houses" which act like fraternities/sororities while students attend Hogwarts. The four houses are Gryffindor, Ravenclaw, Slytherin, and Hufflepuff.

Each house is known for specific official and unofficial traits. Gryffindor is typically for the bravest of the brave and sometimes braggarts. Your heroes end up here. Ravenclaw is for the wise, smart, and intellectuals. Got a high IQ, love puzzles, and would rather mete out wise sayings than going out on Saturday night? Welcome to Ravenclaw. Slytherin is generally regarded as the "bad guy" house because most of the villains in HP come from Slytherin, but also because people who go to Slytherin are so ambitious, they're typically ambitious to an amoral fault.

As for Hufflepuff, ain't no gives two sh*ts about Hufflepuff. TheThings.com tries to argue that the most loyal and cooperative people go here, but JK Rowling herself said that everyone should want to be in Hufflepuff because it's the happiest of the four houses. It's the happy-go-lucky, wastefully cheerful house in a sense. And as an INTJ, I ain't got time for that. Not to mention, in one of the books, the Sorting Hat quotes the founder of Hufflepuff as saying, "I'll take the lot," and even singing that Hufflepuff "took the rest" whereas Slytherin wanted the most cunning, Gryffindor the bravest, and Ravenclaw the most intelligent. Basically, Hufflepuff is the catch all for people who have no notable traits.

ISTJ

Sorry that I needed a whole paragraph to sh*t on Hufflepuff. But going back to TheThings.com, not only am I pissed about how wrong they got INTJs, but I'm also a little ticked about what they got wrong about ISTJs. The writer says ISTJs would be Hufflepuffs because how important loyalty and cooperation is to them, and I have to call BS. While it is true that ISTJs have Si as their dominant function which makes them very conservative on many things, that doesn't exactly mean they believe in community. Not to mention, their auxiliary function is Te which while being rational, it is very opinionated. Take my Old Man for example: I'm pretty sure he's an ISTJ. He does things by the book, but he's very opinionated to the point of never believing himself wrong. And those types of people don't do well in "community" although they may believe in the essential principle.

Now, for those of you well versed in HP and MBTI, you're probably wondering why I haven't mentioned the fact that ISTJs are like Spock which means they should be Ravenclaws. But TheThings.com does have a primary and secondary house for each personality. They call ISTJs "Huffleclaws" since they admit to the fact that they would make great Ravenclaws. However, given that I practically live with Spock, I can tell you that Spock wouldn't have any friends in Hufflepuff. He might not have any in Ravenclaw, preferring to call them acquaintances or equals, but I don't think the arrogant ISTJ would admit to any Hufflepuff being his equal. It's not likely at the least. What's really funny is that I found another source, this time an image, that I more agree with in terms of the housing.



As you can see, ISTJs are put in Slytherin with a secondary mention to Ravenclaw. I'd probably have that the other way around and say that ISTJs are Ravenclaws first and Slytherins second, possibly even Gryffindors if their conservative "tried and true" methods are under attack, but this image is much more accurate than TheThings.com. The only way I could see an ISTJ going to Hufflepuff is if he's truly unremarkable as far as his smarts go and he doesn't really believe in fighting for tradition. But at that point, that might not be an ISTJ.

INTP, ENTJ, and ENFP

Before getting to the main even of INTJs, I want to take a quick look at INTPs, ENTJs, and ENFPs. TheThings.com listed INTPs as being Ravenclaw first and Slytherin second. The image I have disagrees on the secondary choice and chooses Gryffindor. I think we can all agree on the Ravenclaw part, but Slytherin versus Gryffindor requires some attention.

TheThings.com places INTPs in Slytherin due to their adaptability as one of the qualities that Dumbledore mentions that Salazar Slytherin, the founder of the house, valued was resourcefulness. While this is possible, I think an INTP is more likely to use their Prospecting trait within their auxiliary function Ne, meaning they're more capable of flexible thinking than flexible doing. This is a perfect match for Ravenclaw, but not necessarily for Slytherin.

Now, I know an INTP--my sister--and she's a very opinionated and passionate person. When it comes to politics or something stupid happening in the world of social justice, she will rally and rant like you've never seen a person rally and rant. Like, she'll rant to me about it, and then she'll rant to my Old Man when he gets home from work. She definitely seems to have a very developed Ti and Si, making her a loner who believes in and argues logically for "tried and true." In public and social situations, she can get along with just about anyone, but in private, she's very much an individual. This is all fantastic for Ravenclaw, but when she gets in a fighting mood to defend the status quo, she could definitely be a Gryffindor. So, I again have to agree with the image.


Going onto ENTJs, TheThings says they're pure Ravenclaw with no chance at being anything else. The image however says ENTJs are Slytherins first and Ravenclaws second. While we can all agree that ENTJs could be Ravenclaws because they're so analytical, but when you factor in the fact that they're all entrepreneurs and dynamos on top of that, things get a little murky. I could see them being Slytherins due to their entrepreneurial ambitions, but I think ENTJs could also be Gryffindors. It takes a lot of bravery to start a business yourself, and it takes even more bravery to do it again and again when it fails which does happen. 66% of small businesses close within their first 10 years. To face such odds and go through with it anyway, and to try again after you fail, that's a combination of tenacity and balls. Personally, I'd feel more comfortable calling ENTJs Gryfferins or Slytherdors than anything else.

Now, onto ENFPs. Here, both the image and TheThings agree with each other. They both place ENFPs in Gryffindor first and then Hufflepuff second. TheThings writer argues that ENFPs belong in Gryffindor because they always seek to do the right thing. True, ENFPs do posses Fi which is associated with strong personal morals, but I have to say, so what? INTJs also have Fi, and although it's their tertiary function versus ENFPs for whom it is their auxiliary function, there's no such thing as an INTJ hypocrite--there just isn't. INTJs and ENFPs alike have a very strong sense of self. And if having a strong sense of morality is all it takes to get into Gryffindor, then shouldn't anyone with an Fi function be able to get into Gryffindor?

As for their Hufflepuff side, TheThings says that ENFPs would be a shoe-in here because they're so supportive and able to connect with people. While it's possible that Hufflepuffs have this strong sense of community, it's never really mentioned in HP. Another problem is that ENFPs are known to be on the fence about whether they're introverted or extraverted. Many ENFPs consider themselves introverted and they've even been called the most introverted of the extraverts. So, just because an ENFP can connect with people, that doesn't mean that people are connecting with an ENFP. I have heard that ENFPs can be very guarded about themselves and feel as if no one really knows or gets them. And as Dumbledore said, "It's not our abilities who make us who we are, but our choices." So if an ENFP doesn't choose to let people in, is she really connecting to people, and doesn't this hurt the case for Hufflepuff?

TheThings also says that ENFPs are imaginative and creative which somehow is attributed to both houses, but I don't understand how and the writer doesn't explain. To be honest, if a personality is Intuitive and possesses either Ni or Ne in their dominant or auxiliary functions, I think they should be considered for Ravenclaw. I think whoever wrote the article really overlooked the effect(s) of Intuition on wisdom and intelligence. So, where would I put ENFPs then? I think they probably belong in Hufflepuff, but I see no reason for them not to be able to get into Ravenclaw.


INTJ

Finally! We get to the reason why I originally wanted to write this damn post. Anyway, TheThings says that INTJs are all-around Slytherins with no potential to be anything else. Um, excuse me, but what the f*ck did you just say!? At least the image gets it right and says they're Ravenclaws first and Slytherins second. But going back to TheThings, holy sh*t, is the writer's argument all over the damn place. This is where it really breaks down and I have to stop myself from smacking an idiot.

TheThings says that INTJs are "pure Slytherins" because while we do have original minds, we have an "innate understanding of what makes people tick" which I don't understand how that's an INTJ trait or a Slytherin trait. Is this person trying to say that both INTJs and Slytherins use or manipulate people? If not, and what the writer is actually saying is that INTJs have the ability to read people, then why isn't this seemingly very social quality not make us a perfect match for the sociable Hufflepuffs? I mean, hell, I know why an INTJ would never be a Hufflepuff, but the article writer doesn't seem to know what the hell they're talking about.

Going on, the writer accuses INTJs of not being analytical because they're not Ravenclaws (WHAT A BUNCH OF BULL SH*T!!!!!), but at least, according to the writer, we are "extremely adaptable" and can work around anything. This is true; INTJs can do anything. However, that's not the point. INTJs know this. We know we can do anything we set our minds to, but the problem is that we are selective about what we set our minds to because we have very personal and refined tastes. Yes, we are flexible, but only when we give a damn. The rest of the time, we do what we feel like.

Next, TheThings (man, I hate typing this stupid website's name) says that INTJs "want to be the best at whatever it is they're doing, especially if it's something they're passionate about." This is another point that requires some clarification. INTJs do want to be the best, like no one ever was. However, it's not a case of especially if it's something we're passionate about, it's a case of only if it's something we're passionate about. Sure, I did want to be the best bowler at my friend's birthday party a few weeks ago, but that feeling has subsided. I do however still want to be the best version of myself that I could be which includes being the best writer there ever was. Our desire to be the best at something we're not passionate about is generally a passing fancy, or only exists when we're engaged in that activity. If we never touch it again, we don't give a rat's ass.


Finally, TheThings says that we're some of the most loyal people you'll ever meet. This is true; no argument from me. However, how this is a Slytherin trait is beyond me because I was under the impression that loyalty was a Hufflepuff trait according to what the article writer said about ISTJs. Not to mention, loyalty was a big deal in HP, and in HP, all of the most important characters were Gryffindors, so what in the hell is this person talking about? I'm not saying that loyalty can't be a trait of other houses, but it should really only be a central trait of one or two.

So then, where would I place INTJs? Well, that should already be obvious. My first choice for INTJs is Ravenclaw with my second choice being Slytherin, but why? Well, I've taken the tests and quizzes online about which house I belong to at Hogwarts. I've even taking the one on Pottermore, and get this, depending on my attitude at the time, I can get either Ravenclaw or Slytherin. How does this happen? It comes down to one question: What do I value more: wisdom or ambition? On those days where I value wisdom, I get put into Ravenclaw, but on days I choose ambition, I'm put into Slytherin. I've even taken that test What Is Your Hybrid Hogwarts House and I got Slytherclaws, which I agree with wholeheartedly, even more so than Ravenclaw or Slytherin alone.

"Intelligence without ambition is a bird without wings."
Salvador Dali

INTJs are wicked smart, intuitive, analytical, and sometimes when we speak, we sound like an old sage offering advice to young whipper-snappers who don't know their own asses from a seven dollar hat. But on the flip-side, we are ambitious, we don't have patience for people, we have a habit of trying to force our ways via pure willpower, and at our worst, we could be a Voldemort type villain--all the fixings are there.

Conclusion

Holy hell, this was longer than I expected. I apologize, but TheThings really got me riled up. It especially breaks my heart because the writer of the articles claims to be an ENFP. ENFPs and INTJs are kindred spirits, so we should be able to understand each other, so it breaks my heart that this ENFP doesn't understand INTJs. Although, I have heard that some people aren't totally honest with themselves when they take the MBTI test and varying tests yield varying results, so perhaps the article writer isn't a real ENFP. I hope to God he or she isn't. Especially if it's a she.

Anyway, my real conclusion is that INTJs have the potential for being both Ravenclaws and Slytherins. My personal feeling is that we pull closer to Ravenclaws, especially when you consider that we have a huge thing for eldritch knowledge, which you might think is a Slytherin trait, but we don't intend to use it to take over the world, so go, go Ravenclaw. As for the others, I don't really care if I'm wrong, but being an INTJ, I'm probably not.

For my next two posts, because it's spring and because I wrote a romance book, Tales of Romance: Unlike Lovers (buy it here!), I'm going to delve into the questions of whether or not INTJs believe in love and what they think about while and after making out. So, don't miss those. But first I have to get another post out on how to give the perfect hug because I've been sitting on that for a while. But regardless of what comes out first...

Keep writing, my friends.

More About Bryan C. Laesch:


Amazon: My Author Page
Facebook: Bryan C. Laesch, Bawdy Scholar
Patreon: Bryan C. Laesch
Twitter: BryanofallTrade
Youtube: Bryan C. Laesch, Bawdy Scholar

Monday, February 26, 2018

The Top 10 Reasons Why the Autonomous Car Won't Kill the Auto Industry



Hey, everyone.

For those of you who don't know who I am since this topic is a little outside of my usual ones, I am Bryan C. Laesch, The Writer. I mostly do creative writing and write about INTJ theory. For those of you who do know me and wonder why I'm tackling the self-driving car, well, listen up.

Here's the deal: a lot of people are talking sh*t about how the autonomous car will be the death of the auto industry. But there's a problem with that assumption: the people talking that smack aren't car people. They're reporters, liberals, environmentalists, city slickers, and other assorted enemies of the automobile. None of them are regular schmucks living in middle America who have multiple family members, working in the auto industry and have multiple family members and friends who are petrolheads. So let this Michigan boy from Metro Detroit enlighten you as to why the autonomous car won't kill the auto industry.

1. Autonomous Cars Are Still Cars

So long as cars exist--no, scratch that--so long as people have a desire for sophisticated, complex, and powerful personal conveyances of any kind, car companies, or personal conveyance companies, will always exist because someone has to make the damn things in order for them to exist. Uber, Lyft, and anyone else in the transport industry can't possibly buy enough autonomous cars to cover the demand created by all the drivers and riders in the world. Not to mention, even if they could, they would still need someone to build new models when technology improves.

2. Expense

People keep saying we'll have autonomous cars by 2021 or whatever, but that doesn't mean squat. Just because they exist doesn't mean people are going to buy them. But more importantly, they're going to be as expensive as balls! Ever heard of the electric car? Know why it hasn't taken off? It's too damn expensive. Even a used Tesla model with 20,000 miles on it is still 60 grand for what is essentially a 4-door family sedan that can be had from any of the Big Three for a fraction of that.

3. The Transition Won't Be Immediate

Like I said in the last point, not everyone is going to buy an autonomous car. But even those who do, not all of them are going to switch over immediately. Get this, many people keep a car for around six years, and the average age of any car today is about 12. The used car business has plenty of business, and people who purchase a new car either the year autonomous cars go on sale or the year before are not just going to trade in their new car for a slightly newer car. It's a waste of money.

4. Not Everyone Wants Autonomous Cars

See, here in Michigan, despite the fact that our roads are absolutely terrible, most of us are still car people. We like cars. We like driving. We have a strong car culture. Now, that doesn't mean autonomous cars can't have a culture, but I don't see very many people getting excited over something they can't really play with. You may be able to work on it, but you can't drive it, so what's the point? But if it's a car I can drive, now that's worth investing in because then I can experience first hand, first foot, first eye, and first ass cheek the hard work I've put into my machine.



 

5. Not Everyone Trusts Autonomous Cars

I know I certainly don't. I would never trust any machine to completely take over for me. Even if I had an autonomous car, I would always sit in the driver's seat ready to take over in the case of an emergency, assuming of course I could interfere. Depending on the programming put in self-driving cars, they may not allow the driver to interfere for legal reasons even if it means the people in the car end up in a horrible accident. And I don't want to leave that decision up to a bunch of boffins who are just doing what they need to in order to get paid.

6. People Like Owning Cars

Remember how I said people like cars? Well, people like owning them. Ever heard of Jay Leno. He has 169 cars alone, not including 117 motorcycles. My brother has damn near 20 cars himself. Some of them are parts cars, but most of the cars he owns he got because he wanted to own them or because he had a purpose in mind for them. So, even with services like Uber and Lyft, not everyone is going to use those services. People will want to own their own cars, and not rent.

7. The Technology Won't Be Perfect

Everyone knows that new technology, as great as it is, usually sucks because all sorts of problems start showing up that didn't show up in testing. All it will take is one bad review or one bad news story, and the autonomous car can be dead before it ever leaves the womb. All it takes is one famous person, like Bill Gates, to buy the first autonomous car on the market and get killed due to a problem in its programming. Pile up enough stories like that, especially about beloved celebrities, and people will be avoiding the autonomous car more than a skunk with irritable bowel syndrome.

8. Do-It-Yourselfers

There are lots of people out there who don't believe in taking their broken goods to a professional to get fixed. I don't know if it's because they're cheap, they're confident, or just lazy, but there will be people out there who think they will be able to service or customize their autonomous vehicle. And one day, you're going to find yourself on a two-way road, and this DIY-er will be coming in your direction in his self-serviced, self-driving car. Doesn't that make you feel good?



 

9. Some Roads Are Too Perilous for Autonomous Cars

There are some roads in the world that no self-driving car will be able to navigate. Take Bolivia's Death Road. In some places, there's not even enough room for two cars to pass by each other. Sometimes there will only be three wheels on the road. And sometimes, even driving the road in a regular car is too perilous. Next, take a look at the traffic in India. Even Indians think the traffic is insane. There's no way an autonomous car could navigate an Indian rush hour.

10. Millennials Will Have to Buy Cars Eventually

I know, I know; this one isn't all that much about autonomous cars. But when people talk about the death of the auto industry, one of the things they mention besides autonomous cars is that Millennials aren't buying them. Well, number one, just because they're not buying cars now doesn't mean they will never buy cars, and number two, Millennials aren't the last generation of the human race. There's one coming after them and reports suggest they're more conservative than the dusty, old conservatives we have today, which probably means they're going to want to buy and drive a car.

Also, Millennials could be buying cars at the same rate that older generations are surrendering theirs, so maybe the numbers are just even. Plus, one day, Millennials are either going to look at each other, or their parents are going to look at them, and they're going to say, "This is bullsh*t!" and they'll end up joining the real world, which includes car ownership.

Alas, have no fear dear petrol friends. The car's future is assured. Why, even the internal combustion engine could be around for another century before it is definitively replaced, and even then, there will be clubs out there devoted to the ICE, so it's not likely to die until we do. But cars in general, whether they're diesel, gas, electric, autonomous or flying, cars will be around for a long, long, long time. Until teleporters are invented. But, I'm pretty sure that will never happen.

I hope you enjoyed this rant. I hope to make more in the future.

Keep writing, my friends.

More About Bryan C. Laesch:

Opera:

Amazon: My Author Page
Facebook: Bryan C. Laesch, Bawdy Scholar
Patreon: Bryan C. Laesch
Twitter: BryanofallTrade
Youtube: Bryan C. Laesch, Bawdy Scholar

Can You Pigeonhole Yourself through MBTI?

So, here’s a question for all you MBTI nerds: do you fear that knowing your personality type will pigeonhole you into acting a certain...