Heyy thank you so much for the 45K likes! Also, please kindly check out the original audio :D th-cam.com/video/v2iwKy596ag/w-d-xo.htmlsi=qAtoSiKzSb1xzwZG
Because Ni tells them this debate is simply pointless while ENTP's Ne probably tells them it's fun. It's the opposite. Ni is searching for reaching a point and Ne is seeking entertainment.
As an INTP, I would argue that water is the liquid form of H2O and ice is the solid form of H2O. Soooo technically, by the definition of wetness, the ice is wet, but water is not wet.
I mean we could probably argue properly with INTP in this case (just for the sake of it). ENTJ is just yelling and not actually delivering any arguments also they won’t change their mind anyways so that is a waste of Energy.
As an INTJ, i'd probably stay silent and act like i'm tired of their shit while weighing both sides in my head and get a reality crisis. (And a migraine 2 hours later).
@@edav9”the property itself can’t give itself that property”, but wetness is not equal to water percentages, because water content doesn’t define the entire property. Therefore by their own explanation. Water is wet should be a valid statement. However, what actually happened is wetness/ something is wet or not is not necessary a quantifiable thing, as most of the time it’s used to express a sensation.
Water should be considered as wet, because theres also wet ice, and wet air (water vapor). If water's solid and gas form has a wetness too it, its liquid for should be called wet too. Since water is a group of H2O particles closely together, its water covered by itself. Therefore water is wet.
@@konika.s_headspace ...No. Something is only "wet" when the quality of the wetness can be removed from whatever surface or entity we're talking about. If something is wet, it can also technically be dried. You cannot "dry" water. You can only dry a surface or entity that has water on/in it. You are removing the thing that gives itself its property. You cannot run a towel across the surface of a pool and then say "The pool is now dry, or more dry, because of what I just did."
@@justme8841 Not really. Most of us INTJ's already know who is correct but decide not to get involved in meaningless arguments. We just let them do their own thing
As INTJ, that's me with my Resting Bitch Face. Internally, I'll be feeling tired and hopeless seeing them waste time and energy debating about something so trivial.
I wish there were more videos like this, with just the 4 analysts arguing over stupid shit. Like, people build us up like we are supervillains, but as someone from a house of almost all analysts, we actually spend half of our time just going on long philosophical and scientific debates about EVERYTHING. -an INTP
@@shellfire6931 Not really. As they said in the video, it is a property of water, but that doesn't mean it is wet. Water cannot wet itself in the same way that fire cannot burn itself. Water itself is not wet, but it can wet other things. I hope you understood, because my English is not very good.
@@andreacristina8656 No, fire can't burn itself, but fire is hot and hot and wet are both adjectives too, thus, transforming other stuff is not only a matter of verbs that don't apply to oneself, but a matter of characteristics that one can cause to spread.
@@callderaz It does makes sense to me that one molecule is not wet, so now I'll assume not all forms of water are wet, like a single molecule or ice at 0 degrees Kelvin where no movement could happen to spread water, just like O2 in liquid form is not hot in our human perspective. After all, a single molecule can't even be classified as a liquid for it to act as one in a mixture. However, in the linguistic interpretation of "water is wet" we're not denying that one dihydrogen monoxide is not wet, just like the affirmation "birds fly" doesn't deny that penguins don't fly while still being true, and when considering that the meaning of water is usually aplied to the liquid, not the molecule, I'll take it as true that water is wet.
I also got labelled as a 4-word INTJ from some random website and from My POV - the whole debate is illogical and useless , its like Asking a 5year old that who they love the most? Father or mother!
So true I almost never want to be in a argument that doesn't involve me or benefit me in any way I do not want to get involved in the argument and just watch -INTJ
I almost never want to be in an argument that doesn't involve others or doesn't benefit others in some way. I don't even want to watch, it's stressful -INFJ
I'm an INTJ and just staying in the background when others have dumb arguments is so relatable (not than other types are dumb, just some people). When my class was planning stuff for the graduation they acted like all the teachers were against them and only defending the other class. I just nodded when they were talking to me but I swear I couldn't understand why they felt so attacked for not getting everything they wanted. When I was alone with the teachers I would talk about how weird they were for a bunch of adults (first time year of adulthood, of course, but even then...)
Fun fact: humans can't actually feel that things are wet, we just feel the temperature difference. This is why sometimes when you wash your hands, you feel like they're still wet, but it's just that they're colder than usual. (From an INTP)
As an ENTP, that was my exact reaction as the video started, especially since I had an entire discussion with my friend if water is wet and we decided the same thing as they are saying
If something is dry, it can get wet. Can water be dry? Interestingly, YES! That's proof that water is wet. Looks up Action Lab dry water experiment or something, I don't remember the actual name of the video. - INFP
Wetness is defined as consisting of or covered in liquid, so water is indeed wet. But if you define it scientifically, then it's a solid surface covered in liquid. So surprisingly, both of you can be correct depending on the context.
The way I look at it is an individual water molecule is not wet but has the property to make whatever it touches wet, so if you have a little as two water molecules touching then that makes them wet. So water in essence isn't wet but any grouping of it like a glass of water is.
To be wet is to be drenched in liquid, you can't drench a liquid in liquid as they either mix or separate. Liquids cannot be wet, because they are liquid, only non-liquids can be wet.
Nah, a grouping of water can't make itself wet either, because when water is grouped it bonds with itself with hydrogen bonds, it effectively becomes just a larger water, ergo cannot make itself wet.
Tf you guys arguing about? ENTJ stated water is wet based on it's "form" (liquid) as they has Se cognitive function. Perceiving thing as the way it looks like. ENTP and INTP using Si as how they reasoning and providing explanations from the basic components of water itself, not based on what can be seen (not Se user). This is MBTI Content, see how each MBTI has different perception based on their cognitive function, although it is possible that they can learn how Si user thinks and perceives things. - ENTJ
How specific do we want to get? Wet isn't a process. It's a state. It is a state most closely tied to the touch sensation of a liquid. What you are describing is saturation. The wetness one feels is actually the sensation of the liquid itself, so liquid water both causes and is wetness. Water can also be solid (ice) and thus dry. So if water can be dry, then mustn't it also have the capacity to be wet? Yes. Additionally, can liquid water be wetted with other liquids? Yes. Liquid water is wet because it is a liquid, and wet is a definitional quality of liquid and not of the object being described as wet.
I, an INTP define "wet" as "something with noticeably higher concentration of water within it or it's surface then it's usual" while "dry" is having a noticeably lower concentration. Since Water is nearly 100% water, its concentration of water is never "much higher" then it's usual. Therefore, water is at least not THAT definition of "wet".
Counterpoint, water can be made hydrophobic. If something can be hydrophobic, then it can be dry because it will not in such a state come into contact with water in the sense that would make it 'wet'. Therefore, it would be fair to say that water is wet. Unless it is specifically made hydrophobic and therefore dry. -the INTJ's thoughts while they watch the argument and contribute nothing to it.
@@thesocialistsarecoming8565 Counterpoint to your Counterpoint. But it needs to be MADE to that level of hydrophobic. How often is this even occurring in nature? Other than a gaseous state? (Which means it has evaporated to O2 and H2 and isn't H2O anymore.) If not, then it's good to say via data count that it is negligible. Therefore, on an account of typical properties of water, it's not wet as it can't be made dry. Things that "Make water Hydrophobic" like that would technically change Water into something else and it isn't truly H2O anymore but some type of other % Solution. Also, water is naturally hydrophobic. That's why it's not in a Solid State in Room Temperature. - Another INTJ-T
So, from what I've gathered, what, consists of being “wet”, it is something that is doused with liquid or soaked. A liquid can be made wet by itself or another liquid, but it has the property to make something else wet.
Noo wayy, Cloumello is back?? The 20 second ad is still playing but I can guarantee that this is going to be yet another great video! edit: Yep it indeed is, I absolutely love how relatable the black haired girl is lol, we all have that one mf in our lives who cuss the fiercest and is the most aggressive in defending their points yet have basically no logic and refuses to listen to contradicting evidences and "what am I speaking? CHYY-NEESE?" was hilarious for some reason And also, great art as usual lmao
Could I just say you’ve improved a lot? Like the MBTI designs r so much fun (esp the INTP design im obsessed with the goggles, fit and hair), and the poses, expressions and line art, also the colours look so good.
Water molecules are cohesive when then they're between water molecules, but when they come in "contact" with other molecules they can be adhesive although it depends. When you put a drop of water on a sheet of paper, the water's in the shape of a small sphere which means they're cohesive. But when you very slowly touch the surface with one finger, the water becomes adhesive and the molecules massively suck up to your skin. Point is, water is wet but isn't. .... I'm jumping. -INTP
A fire is hot because to touch fire is to become hot. It is therefore a property of the substance itself. So it is also that property. Same as other sources of heat can be hot and other liquids can be wet. Water does not impart wetness, it is wetness. And thereby things that have water become wet because water is what is wet. Water is wet so by having water on you you also become wet because you have water on you, the water has become a part of you and thereby you have gained it's innate quality of wetness.
That logic doesn't really track because fire being hot isn't at all the same as something being wet. In a fire, chemical bonds breaking during combustion, results in a radiation of heat. Fire is the physical manifestation of that heat being released through combustion. Fire is hot because fire is literally heat. Wetness, in contrast, is simply generated by an object being covered in water. Wet being defined as: "covered or saturated with water or another liquid." Water cannot cover itself, when separate collections of water meet, they form hydrogen bonds and become a larger collection of water. Surface tension due to these strong bonds excludes anything else from entering that collective, thus water collects on surfaces or seeps into them and makes them wet. Water cannot cover water. Water makes things wet, it is not literally wet.
@@DeathlyLight I would aruge that a single water molicule would cover itself as a water moclicule cannot be seperate from itself othewise it is not a water molicule. alternitivly If something has to be covered in a liquid to be wet then wouldn't that make the liquid the wetness? that would imply that the wetness is not wet. which is paradoxal. Also how can you give a physical property without first having that property? how can you make something hot (giving it high energy) without first being hot (having high energy)? how can you dye something red without the dye first being red? In order to give something a physical property like being wet the thing that gives it that property must also have the property. If you don't have an apple you cannot give someone an apple. if you don't posess the property of wetness you cannot give wetness.
@@DeathlyLight Wetness is also a chemical property of the hydrogen bonds. Also by the definition of "saturated with a liquid", water is already saturated with a liquid, that being itself. It does not need to "cover itself," it merely needs to "be saturated with itself" which it is, by the identity of being a liquid.
As an INTP myself I would ask the ENTJ to show me references for the definition of 'wet' and check if water being on anything is considered wet or anything other than water.
@@KuroDHero Quite baffling, right? If something have a dry state, then that means it have a wet state. It's like if someone is alive, they can die, so what about undead?
Day 3 : Conspiring against the water. Water wets because that's how we perceive it and anything else, but that doesn't mean that water wets because of its composition, water is liquid, but that doesn't mean that it wets itself. My head hurts lmfao -ISTP☠
The point is whether the definition of ‘wet’ implies the process of changing from dry to wet, in the same vein, like whether the dirt is ‘dirty’. So the discussion is either right on both sides, or meaningless. But the process of thinking about this topic is interesting anyway. - Love from INTJ
But in the question 'is water wet' its already conceded that we're talking about wet as an adjective not as a verb Also adding silica dust to water can separate it from itself and is then called dry water
Water is a wetting agent as it can make things wet. An agent of a property has that property. For example, oxidizing agents can oxidize other chemicals because they are oxidized themselves. Therefore water is wet. Alternatively, wetness is often defined as the water content of a substance, in which case water is maximally wet when it is pure.
@@UtkarshTripathi_ supreme leader, stop it haha. Water is a compound. It's physical state is liquid. Water is same no matter where you go(like water in China and water in America is same or water that you find in earth and mars is same. It made up of 2 Hydrogen molecules and 1 Oxygen molecule). So, there is no meaning about saying that water is wet. Because, it is being itself. Then how can we say water is wet?
Perfect matching in characters and opinions. They all both kind of have a point though. I also just realised that in my language (Greek) this argument wouldn't stand as the word for wet is also the same word as liquid. And while they can argue water is not wet, they can't say it's not liquid. Not in this form it appears to be at least. Because, yea, someone can argue about ice and steam. I now wonder if Naruto was dubbed in Greek (since someone mentioned Natuto, so I assume the scene is from there) and if yes, how did they dub this argument??? Unless all this is from a parody and that scene never happened. (And this is what happens when you give Ne to an ISFJ, I need to stop). Anyway nice animation!
I once brought up this argument in 3rd grade because i have read about it on some magazine and wanted to flex to some classmates. They laughed at me, and when someone does that i go completely mute, so i couldn't properly explain it to them & they just walked away. Never talked to them again, probably for the better lol. ~sincerely, an "i have no fucking idea what my type is, even after being into the mbti community for more than a year now".
"I wanted to flex on some classmates" sounds like ENTP. But if you say that being laughed at made you "shy" and then you disappeared from their lives, then you might be INFP or possibly ENFP/ENFJ. Wish you all the best.👐🏻🌈
if being wet is the state of being covered in h20 molecules....individual water molecules are covered in other molecules...thus making every molecule of h20 wet with other molecules of water.
as an intp that doesn't subscribe to this intp's beliefs, i think this would have gone smoother if the entj asked why the intp and entp were saying "itself" in reference to both water and something being wet
As an INTJ, I would say that both possibilities are technically valid , since "wet" means being affected by water, through direct contact. In this case, the water is in direct contact with itself therefore it is indeed humid :)
Did you know that people don't have receptors in their skin to tell if something is wet or not? We can only check it by using temperature and pressure receptors! Fun -INTJ
As an INFP, I'm shocked to hear them make that argument. Water is absolutely wet. It has the property of cohesion meaning it will stick to itself, and a liquid sticking to something is what makes it wet. MAYBE you have an argument if you say a single molecule of water isn't wet, but I have yet to see a single molecule of water used for ANYTHING but looking at it through a microscope. So water is indeed wet. You'd think the people who prefer thinking over feeling would have realized that... and now I feel like I'm coming off as passive aggressive, so I apologize. I'm not wrong though.
So , logically , Wet means that a liquid is touching a solid , its an adjective that describes this exact thing , and it doesn't have to be water , it can be milk or anything , but putting two liquid together means nothing really , therefore water touching water means nothing also , therefore water isn't wet , you need a solid object mate , that's it , it's so simple , I don't know why people are stupid , for me that's the real question 😂😂😂😂 - INTP
Not exactly. The INTP was referring to a specific water they were both observing, saying one doesn't get wet when touching it. The ENTJ was oblivious to that and asked why since water as a liquid is supposed to be wet. The debate was launched on water as a whole, not the liquid the INTP was primarily talking about.
@@kringle7804 no at the beginning of the video the intp says "when you touch this water ***you*** don't get wet" and the entj got confused and started referring to water in general
Any liquid by definition is wet. It’s only not the case when you change the definition of the term to only mean a solid being covered by moisture. Every liquid is saturised with Moisture, which gives it a wet property.
If water was wet by the strictest definition of the word wet, we’d have an infinitely looping paradox of recursion hell. If we stretch the definition of the word wet we could call water technically wet without infinite recursion
huh, idk, in my personal experience it could be like: -ENTP: For gods sake, im telling you water has to be wet! -INTJ: Not necesarily, therefore you need to define what ''wet'' means -ENTJ: come on INTJ, philosophing again? HAHA you weak *makes annother 20 reps* -INTP: yeah whatever
![[#2024MAMA] ROSÉ (로제), Bruno Mars - APT. | Mnet 241122 방송](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/dgGqD28J6aQ/mqdefault.jpg)
Heyy thank you so much for the 45K likes!
Also, please kindly check out the original audio :D th-cam.com/video/v2iwKy596ag/w-d-xo.htmlsi=qAtoSiKzSb1xzwZG
yo man can you try and make a hxh one
They're hot
may i join (asking is first before joining)
cuz i am an INTJ Women
INTJ staying silent in the background is so real
Yeah just not worth it
Yeah, I LOVE this detail.
as an entp me and my intp friend were just explaining this to our entj friend and then i see this video-
Because Ni tells them this debate is simply pointless while ENTP's Ne probably tells them it's fun. It's the opposite. Ni is searching for reaching a point and Ne is seeking entertainment.
@@kyurei4478 As an INTJ I would love to see how these people interact and argue, it's both pointless and fun to watch.
"YOU AREN'T WET! damn right about that" is sending me 🤣
Micheal Scott in the background; “That’s what she said!”
If it’s touching itself its wet 💀
@@pixelzebra8440no wonder INTJ got tired of hearing stuff like that and said, “Lord help us.”🤣🤣🤣
such an ENTP thing to do 😂 joke in the middle of a fiery argument
@@pixelzebra8440HELP
I feel like ENTP doesnt really care either way, he just disagrees with ENTJ for the sake of arguing with her lol
Yeah, there are two definitions of "wet", so we ENTPs just side with one or the other given the chance
As an ENTP, yeah that's basically what's up
Поэтому я и ненавижу ENTP охх!
That's the most ENTP thing an ENTP can do
And this is why entp is the worst mbti, change my mind😂
I can just imagine an INFP dumping a bag of ice in the water, saying “now water is wet”, and then leaving before all hell breaks loose
As an INTP, I would argue that water is the liquid form of H2O and ice is the solid form of H2O. Soooo technically, by the definition of wetness, the ice is wet, but water is not wet.
yeaaah no as an INFP i'd either side with INTP cuz she's right and bounce off of ENTP's shenanigans (cuz that's my usual dynamic with my local ENTP)
As an INFP, I'd probably agree with the water isn't wet people.
@@Makisetutuloo And then you'd lose, because water is also the name for H2O.
As an INFP. I say water is wet. You can’t tell me if I’m underwater I’m not water
"YoU'Re NoT WEt!"
" fucking right about that"
got me rollin on the floor
INTJ doesn't argue with idiots, he's not going to waste his energy for nonsense
I mean we could probably argue properly with INTP in this case (just for the sake of it). ENTJ is just yelling and not actually delivering any arguments also they won’t change their mind anyways so that is a waste of Energy.
@@claracatlady9844 i think she did, but INTP just countered it again
Because Ni is based.
@@fathanyusrizal too much yelling for me to hear what’s going on. If you need to yell to “argue” your point then you don’t have a very strong argument
As an INTJ, I agree with this.
as a INTP. I can tell that water isn't dirt.
Same! I thought that was common sense.
yuh, if you ask me what do I get from watching this video. The dirty isn't wet, too
@@meEatBorgur spittin facts over here!
@@meEatBorgur I’d also say that the dirty isn’t water
@@stevenhthe21st DAYUM, GENIUS SLAY KWEENS 💅✨️
As an INTJ, i'd probably stay silent and act like i'm tired of their shit while weighing both sides in my head and get a reality crisis. (And a migraine 2 hours later).
real
Being in constant doubt of literally everything issa mood😌
if i see this in real life i just laugh in the corner silently until they done 😂
As an INTJ, he probably is thinking "Well, it depends on how you see the water. Therefore this debate is nonsense"
same (I’m also an INTJ)
"Because it can't making itself itself" would imply it's wet from the start so it can't make itself wet because it's already wet.
“Wet” is just a feeling of human. So this is why “Wet” be defined as adjective.
No wet is when something is covered or saturated with a liquid such as water
@@edav9”the property itself can’t give itself that property”, but wetness is not equal to water percentages, because water content doesn’t define the entire property. Therefore by their own explanation. Water is wet should be a valid statement. However, what actually happened is wetness/ something is wet or not is not necessary a quantifiable thing, as most of the time it’s used to express a sensation.
@@Sirawxy ??? water amount > 0 = wet seems quantifiable
Water should be considered as wet, because theres also wet ice, and wet air (water vapor). If water's solid and gas form has a wetness too it, its liquid for should be called wet too. Since water is a group of H2O particles closely together, its water covered by itself. Therefore water is wet.
@@konika.s_headspace ...No. Something is only "wet" when the quality of the wetness can be removed from whatever surface or entity we're talking about. If something is wet, it can also technically be dried. You cannot "dry" water. You can only dry a surface or entity that has water on/in it. You are removing the thing that gives itself its property. You cannot run a towel across the surface of a pool and then say "The pool is now dry, or more dry, because of what I just did."
- you're right on the money. me and engaging in pointless arguments are completely incompatible.
- intj
Me and not making up pointless arguments are completely incompatible
Entp
0:41 "water is touching itself all the damn time. Therefore water is wet."
Ayoo??🤨🤨
Same
Same
Water: 😳
BRO
I would agree with the ENTJ on that cuz it funni and go straight back to annoying tf outta them - ENTP.
INTJ just watching the chaos is relatable.
While thinking about who is right 😂
My response generally amounts to "this argument is pointless"
@@justme8841 Not really. Most of us INTJ's already know who is correct but decide not to get involved in meaningless arguments. We just let them do their own thing
as an INTJ, this is so real, but mainly because I don't know how to initiate or engage in conversation
Right? We’re standing on the sidelines either because we don’t care to jump in, or just don’t know how to jump in.
fr
As INTJ, that's me with my Resting Bitch Face. Internally, I'll be feeling tired and hopeless seeing them waste time and energy debating about something so trivial.
Relatable
Same
yep
🤓🤓🤓
As an ENTP, i can confirm i'd 100% agree w/ every single thing my fellow INTPs says and side w/ them. 😋‼️✨
SAME LIKE BREAKING PLATES FOR AMBIENT MUSIC- well estp joins us too usually
YES PREACH SAME HERE😍💯‼️
Thank you! Finally someone understands us -intp
HEHEHE U ENTPS R SO BASED I LOVE YALL
Ride or die, ENTP?
- INTP
Why is every personality role and this conversation so accurate??! This is EXACTLY me and my siblings and our opinions lmao
Thank you so much for the super thanks!
@@cloumello.channel No problem! Your animation is awesome.
as an intp i really do say crap like this daily and i love starting arguments 💀
Same 💀
it's just so fun ngl 😂
same
i only use groupchats im in to troll my friends
Same, but water is wet when 2+ molecules are present
I wish there were more videos like this, with just the 4 analysts arguing over stupid shit. Like, people build us up like we are supervillains, but as someone from a house of almost all analysts, we actually spend half of our time just going on long philosophical and scientific debates about EVERYTHING.
-an INTP
1:16 "You're not wet!" As an Entj this is hilarious!😂
hol up, wait, INTP has a point 🤔 -ENFP
I agreed upon the second he pulled up the chart 🗿 entj is dum for not doing so
- ENFP
(also hello there enfp sibling)
yeah, make sense😂😂 -enfp
'Course I have a point. -INTP
Aren't you supposed to find a point in what ENTJ is saying and me to agree with INTP 🤭?
-INFJ
Yuppp - enfp
INTP giving Varian vibes with the gloves, and I'm in love
TRUE
So real
tts fan wows
the goggles help too, lol
I WAS SAYING THATTTT
As an INTJ, I should confirm. I am just standing here, menacingly.
Literally same here 😒😔
as an ISTP, I can confirm that i would look at them, silently while i make fun of them in my head about how stupid and pathtic they are
it depends on the viewpoint if you think about it, so id say its stupid to discuss as well, idk im what anymore intp or intj... i relate to both of em
@@prakharanand5760same here, although i think i relate more to intj but whatever, doesnt matter
Not sure they really care. They don't look afraid 😂.
Thank you for making the ENTJ the intelligent one. This was necessary.
@@callderaz No one who thinks water isn't wet is intelligent.
@@callderaz So basically you are saying ENTJ is the one with common sense right here....huhhh
@@shellfire6931 Not really. As they said in the video, it is a property of water, but that doesn't mean it is wet. Water cannot wet itself in the same way that fire cannot burn itself. Water itself is not wet, but it can wet other things. I hope you understood, because my English is not very good.
@@andreacristina8656 No, fire can't burn itself, but fire is hot and hot and wet are both adjectives too, thus, transforming other stuff is not only a matter of verbs that don't apply to oneself, but a matter of characteristics that one can cause to spread.
@@callderaz It does makes sense to me that one molecule is not wet, so now I'll assume not all forms of water are wet, like a single molecule or ice at 0 degrees Kelvin where no movement could happen to spread water, just like O2 in liquid form is not hot in our human perspective. After all, a single molecule can't even be classified as a liquid for it to act as one in a mixture. However, in the linguistic interpretation of "water is wet" we're not denying that one dihydrogen monoxide is not wet, just like the affirmation "birds fly" doesn't deny that penguins don't fly while still being true, and when considering that the meaning of water is usually aplied to the liquid, not the molecule, I'll take it as true that water is wet.
I also got labelled as a 4-word INTJ from some random website and from My POV - the whole debate is illogical and useless , its like Asking a 5year old that who they love the most? Father or mother!
I love it.
I agree with my two ENTP and INTP fellas. (I can't argue with an ENTJ myself)
-INFJ
You can very well argue by using Fe.
Да потому что я всегда права! Какого хрена я не права?я не могу воспринять свою "не правоту"
I am an INTP and say water is wet.Come join us,lol
I love INFJs - INFP
@@kyurei4478 Maybe could succeed maybe not 😓
So true I almost never want to be in a argument that doesn't involve me or benefit me in any way I do not want to get involved in the argument and just watch -INTJ
YES, I LOVE THAT SO MUCH - ENFP
I almost never want to be in an argument that doesn't involve others or doesn't benefit others in some way. I don't even want to watch, it's stressful -INFJ
WOW a infj never met one of those before nice to meet you. Question how do you hate humanity but at the same time want the best for them? -INTJ
I Am Liking Yall Keep It Up, I Just Wanted To Experience Life With My Breath -INTJ/INFJ
What do you mean by that -INTJ
As an ENTJ, this is insanely accurate. I could easily see myself doing the exact same things in the exact same argument.
Same, the slight agression is on point
I agree
Right and if they said water is wet i would have probably gone the other way around 🌛
IKR, I would argue until they left the room. Then I would follow them out the room to continue the argument.
Water is wet, in fact, it is a wet substance, indeed, it is, in matter of fact, wet, as stated, they are a wet substance, indeed, and it is wet.
I'm an INTJ and just staying in the background when others have dumb arguments is so relatable (not than other types are dumb, just some people). When my class was planning stuff for the graduation they acted like all the teachers were against them and only defending the other class. I just nodded when they were talking to me but I swear I couldn't understand why they felt so attacked for not getting everything they wanted. When I was alone with the teachers I would talk about how weird they were for a bunch of adults (first time year of adulthood, of course, but even then...)
Fun fact: humans can't actually feel that things are wet, we just feel the temperature difference. This is why sometimes when you wash your hands, you feel like they're still wet, but it's just that they're colder than usual.
(From an INTP)
I confirm that I loved watching my fellows Analysts argue about something by using the same logic multiple times in different wording. - INTJ
The voice fit entj perfectly and she looks so pretty in your art style
This is the most accurate description of Te and Ti logic
As an ENTJ tho I gotta agree with INTP and ENTP
@@jacobdevilliers9485that's because you're smart
What's Te and Ti?
@@Fentskii the cognitive functions
@@yeabsira_MG Te: extraverted thinking. Ti: introverted thinking
LOL Te logic vs Ti logic argument be like:
*btw I'm gone make this MY OWN animatic soon, baby!*
She really going to argue with the personality type with logic in the name.
As an ENTP, that was my exact reaction as the video started, especially since I had an entire discussion with my friend if water is wet and we decided the same thing as they are saying
If something is dry, it can get wet. Can water be dry? Interestingly, YES! That's proof that water is wet. Looks up Action Lab dry water experiment or something, I don't remember the actual name of the video.
- INFP
Wetness is defined as consisting of or covered in liquid, so water is indeed wet. But if you define it scientifically, then it's a solid surface covered in liquid. So surprisingly, both of you can be correct depending on the context.
@adriancarlito8830 As with all arguments, definition of terms is ESSENTIAL.
The actual chaos that can cause a riff between Thinkers:
Ti VS Te
The way I look at it is an individual water molecule is not wet but has the property to make whatever it touches wet, so if you have a little as two water molecules touching then that makes them wet.
So water in essence isn't wet but any grouping of it like a glass of water is.
Facts!
To be wet is to be drenched in liquid, you can't drench a liquid in liquid as they either mix or separate.
Liquids cannot be wet, because they are liquid, only non-liquids can be wet.
@@PeachDragon_why CANT you drench liquid with a liquid? Why is it necessary for wetness to exclude separation or mixture?
@@entropy8634bro is mad lol.
Nah, a grouping of water can't make itself wet either, because when water is grouped it bonds with itself with hydrogen bonds, it effectively becomes just a larger water, ergo cannot make itself wet.
1:43 have ur dammn mins mind
Tf you guys arguing about?
ENTJ stated water is wet based on it's "form" (liquid) as they has Se cognitive function. Perceiving thing as the way it looks like.
ENTP and INTP using Si as how they reasoning and providing explanations from the basic components of water itself, not based on what can be seen (not Se user).
This is MBTI Content, see how each MBTI has different perception based on their cognitive function, although it is possible that they can learn how Si user thinks and perceives things.
- ENTJ
This.
exactly yes
wet is the process of being exposed and affected by liquid, water isn't wet, it is liquid
This.
Real
Within this frame, water isn't wet, but it is wetness.
As a intp this made me think that there is still hope in the world
How specific do we want to get? Wet isn't a process. It's a state. It is a state most closely tied to the touch sensation of a liquid. What you are describing is saturation. The wetness one feels is actually the sensation of the liquid itself, so liquid water both causes and is wetness. Water can also be solid (ice) and thus dry. So if water can be dry, then mustn't it also have the capacity to be wet? Yes. Additionally, can liquid water be wetted with other liquids? Yes.
Liquid water is wet because it is a liquid, and wet is a definitional quality of liquid and not of the object being described as wet.
As an INTP, INTP has a point-
Before watching this video, I didn't even realize that someone would question this point, lol 😅
As an INTP, the INTP is fucking wrong.
@@agchains78543 as a fellow INTP i can agree, this INTP has been lobotomized
@@agchains78543as another INTP your wrong
@LxnaMothas an intp, no u
As an INTP I can confirm water ain't wet and dust ain't dusty.
F### you mean, dust ain’t dusty!? F### out of here with your clean, immaculate dust!
I, an INTP define "wet" as "something with noticeably higher concentration of water within it or it's surface then it's usual" while "dry" is having a noticeably lower concentration. Since Water is nearly 100% water, its concentration of water is never "much higher" then it's usual. Therefore, water is at least not THAT definition of "wet".
I don't know if water is wet or not, but why dust isn't dusty? 🤔
Counterpoint, water can be made hydrophobic.
If something can be hydrophobic, then it can be dry because it will not in such a state come into contact with water in the sense that would make it 'wet'.
Therefore, it would be fair to say that water is wet. Unless it is specifically made hydrophobic and therefore dry.
-the INTJ's thoughts while they watch the argument and contribute nothing to it.
@@thesocialistsarecoming8565 Counterpoint to your Counterpoint.
But it needs to be MADE to that level of hydrophobic. How often is this even occurring in nature? Other than a gaseous state? (Which means it has evaporated to O2 and H2 and isn't H2O anymore.) If not, then it's good to say via data count that it is negligible. Therefore, on an account of typical properties of water, it's not wet as it can't be made dry. Things that "Make water Hydrophobic" like that would technically change Water into something else and it isn't truly H2O anymore but some type of other % Solution.
Also, water is naturally hydrophobic. That's why it's not in a Solid State in Room Temperature.
- Another INTJ-T
1:35 This part is so well animated, I fell in love with this channel
So, from what I've gathered, what, consists of being “wet”, it is something that is doused with liquid or soaked. A liquid can be made wet by itself or another liquid, but it has the property to make something else wet.
Noo wayy, Cloumello is back?? The 20 second ad is still playing but I can guarantee that this is going to be yet another great video!
edit: Yep it indeed is, I absolutely love how relatable the black haired girl is lol, we all have that one mf in our lives who cuss the fiercest and is the most aggressive in defending their points yet have basically no logic and refuses to listen to contradicting evidences
and "what am I speaking? CHYY-NEESE?" was hilarious for some reason
And also, great art as usual lmao
just use the brave browser dude.
Could I just say you’ve improved a lot? Like the MBTI designs r so much fun (esp the INTP design im obsessed with the goggles, fit and hair), and the poses, expressions and line art, also the colours look so good.
Everyone: Listening to the argument about water not being wet
Me: Casually simps on all character designs
Me too
My man i found kindered soul
ITNJ would just say, "you're all stupid." Then they leave.
Water molecules are cohesive when then they're between water molecules, but when they come in "contact" with other molecules they can be adhesive although it depends. When you put a drop of water on a sheet of paper, the water's in the shape of a small sphere which means they're cohesive. But when you very slowly touch the surface with one finger, the water becomes adhesive and the molecules massively suck up to your skin. Point is, water is wet but isn't.
....
I'm jumping.
-INTP
AYYY THE ANALYTICS 🕺🕺🕺
Analysts..?
never knew im a 📊
The analytics should realise wetness doesn’t have to come from water…
@@Sirawxy where else does wetness come from then...
@@elisep9481It can come from a non liquid steam clouds fog.
I am a ENTP my friend is a INTP, let's go we actually match
Love the character designs, as an INTP I agree with INTP 😅
If an infj enters the conversation they may say it is the uncaused caused like in Summa Theologica of Aquinas when referring to water is wet hahahaha
This might be the most accurate depiction of an ENTJ I’ve seen 😂
Im just watching this all unfold -ISTP
joining you my friend -ESTP
istp cameraman?
@@coco-id8ws Probably
Yea i dont got enough energy foe that shi
I Kinda Agree With INTP And ENTP
(I am INFJ)
Me as an INFJ can confirm this
Me too..
Not me
because y'all have tert Ti XDDD
Im INFJ too
I think I’m all of them at once lmfao
Also I love ur INTP design it has sm steampunk alchemist vibes it’s very cool
A fire is hot because to touch fire is to become hot. It is therefore a property of the substance itself. So it is also that property. Same as other sources of heat can be hot and other liquids can be wet. Water does not impart wetness, it is wetness. And thereby things that have water become wet because water is what is wet. Water is wet so by having water on you you also become wet because you have water on you, the water has become a part of you and thereby you have gained it's innate quality of wetness.
That logic doesn't really track because fire being hot isn't at all the same as something being wet. In a fire, chemical bonds breaking during combustion, results in a radiation of heat. Fire is the physical manifestation of that heat being released through combustion. Fire is hot because fire is literally heat.
Wetness, in contrast, is simply generated by an object being covered in water. Wet being defined as: "covered or saturated with water or another liquid." Water cannot cover itself, when separate collections of water meet, they form hydrogen bonds and become a larger collection of water. Surface tension due to these strong bonds excludes anything else from entering that collective, thus water collects on surfaces or seeps into them and makes them wet. Water cannot cover water. Water makes things wet, it is not literally wet.
@@DeathlyLight I would aruge that a single water molicule would cover itself as a water moclicule cannot be seperate from itself othewise it is not a water molicule. alternitivly If something has to be covered in a liquid to be wet then wouldn't that make the liquid the wetness? that would imply that the wetness is not wet. which is paradoxal. Also how can you give a physical property without first having that property? how can you make something hot (giving it high energy) without first being hot (having high energy)? how can you dye something red without the dye first being red? In order to give something a physical property like being wet the thing that gives it that property must also have the property. If you don't have an apple you cannot give someone an apple. if you don't posess the property of wetness you cannot give wetness.
@@DeathlyLight Wetness is also a chemical property of the hydrogen bonds.
Also by the definition of "saturated with a liquid", water is already saturated with a liquid, that being itself. It does not need to "cover itself," it merely needs to "be saturated with itself" which it is, by the identity of being a liquid.
No…heat is what makes something hot, not fire. Water isn’t wet, fire isn’t burnt.
INTP: Casually shows a whole analysis board containing the facts and properties of water
ENTP: NO.
As an INTP myself I would ask the ENTJ to show me references for the definition of 'wet' and check if water being on anything is considered wet or anything other than water.
Marriam webster currently lists 'consisting of a liquid (such as water)' as one of the definitions of wetness
Are water dry then?
@@RaihanBrine just look at that actionlab video you mentioned
@@KuroDHero Quite baffling, right? If something have a dry state, then that means it have a wet state.
It's like if someone is alive, they can die, so what about undead?
@@KuroDHerosome would say that pure water is 100% wet.
Technically if you can make water hydrophobic then its been giving itself its own properties already 🤓☝️
you can't make water hydrophobic
It's not the water that's become hydrophobic, it's other things that can be made hydrophobic. Therefore, water isn't wet 🤓☝️
-ENTP
@@cocomeloon7901mixing water with silica dust makes dry water meaning water is inherently wet
@@FuelGhostResQ it's an emulsion, please dedicate 30 seconds to googling that word
@KuroDHero Just change the state 😮
Day 3 : Conspiring against the water. Water wets because that's how we perceive it and anything else, but that doesn't mean that water wets because of its composition, water is liquid, but that doesn't mean that it wets itself. My head hurts lmfao -ISTP☠
entj with Te arguing what is real and widely & universally understood. entp and intp wih Ti and Ne arguing abstract concepts. pretty accurate
As an ENTJ who thinks water isn’t wet, I fight with that fury for INTP’s argument.
The point is whether the definition of ‘wet’ implies the process of changing from dry to wet, in the same vein, like whether the dirt is ‘dirty’. So the discussion is either right on both sides, or meaningless. But the process of thinking about this topic is interesting anyway. - Love from INTJ
But in the question 'is water wet' its already conceded that we're talking about wet as an adjective not as a verb
Also adding silica dust to water can separate it from itself and is then called dry water
Water is a wetting agent as it can make things wet. An agent of a property has that property. For example, oxidizing agents can oxidize other chemicals because they are oxidized themselves. Therefore water is wet.
Alternatively, wetness is often defined as the water content of a substance, in which case water is maximally wet when it is pure.
Animation is so smooth!! God-damn (I agree with ENTJ, and that is not because I'm ENTJ.....................*WATER IS WET*)
No its not
It’s not
I can c me arguing like this but on the other side
- Entj
Water is not wet. How can you say it is wet?? (I stand with INTP) - ENTJ
@@AkshayMohan-sy7yf give some reasoning for the claim, supreme leader
@@UtkarshTripathi_ supreme leader, stop it haha. Water is a compound. It's physical state is liquid. Water is same no matter where you go(like water in China and water in America is same or water that you find in earth and mars is same. It made up of 2 Hydrogen molecules and 1 Oxygen molecule). So, there is no meaning about saying that water is wet. Because, it is being itself. Then how can we say water is wet?
Perfect matching in characters and opinions.
They all both kind of have a point though.
I also just realised that in my language (Greek) this argument wouldn't stand as the word for wet is also the same word as liquid. And while they can argue water is not wet, they can't say it's not liquid. Not in this form it appears to be at least. Because, yea, someone can argue about ice and steam. I now wonder if Naruto was dubbed in Greek (since someone mentioned Natuto, so I assume the scene is from there) and if yes, how did they dub this argument??? Unless all this is from a parody and that scene never happened. (And this is what happens when you give Ne to an ISFJ, I need to stop).
Anyway nice animation!
As an INTP
I have been saying this for my whole life and will stand by it
Meanwhile ENFJ waiting to be recognised...
I once brought up this argument in 3rd grade because i have read about it on some magazine and wanted to flex to some classmates. They laughed at me, and when someone does that i go completely mute, so i couldn't properly explain it to them & they just walked away. Never talked to them again, probably for the better lol.
~sincerely, an "i have no fucking idea what my type is, even after being into the mbti community for more than a year now".
"I wanted to flex on some classmates" sounds like ENTP. But if you say that being laughed at made you "shy" and then you disappeared from their lives, then you might be INFP or possibly ENFP/ENFJ.
Wish you all the best.👐🏻🌈
@@dantesabetis5948 cognitive functions
i adore character designs holy moly :>
water is THE wet. it is literally the embodiment of wet.
You might as well call water "wet"😂
@@beyondallreason-du4pq exactly!
if being wet is the state of being covered in h20 molecules....individual water molecules are covered in other molecules...thus making every molecule of h20 wet with other molecules of water.
as an intp that doesn't subscribe to this intp's beliefs, i think this would have gone smoother if the entj asked why the intp and entp were saying "itself" in reference to both water and something being wet
The Queen of MBTI has finally posted 🥳✨️ What's your opinion , is water wet or not ?
As an INTJ, I would say that both possibilities are technically valid , since "wet" means being affected by water, through direct contact. In this case, the water is in direct contact with itself therefore it is indeed humid :)
yeah!! the queen is back 👑✨
Water is wet. As in, it is wetness itself. There.
Thank you
Arghhh finally someone with common sense thank you
if water can't be dry then it can't be wet
@@Greys_my_favourite_color987 It is what wetness is. It causes wetness. And Red can't not be red just because it can't be blue.
Did you know that people don't have receptors in their skin to tell if something is wet or not? We can only check it by using temperature and pressure receptors! Fun
-INTJ
I love the designs here, it's like saying "I fucking love purple" and just going from there. Awesome.
IM ON INTP SIDE - ESTJ
not gonna lie as an INTP I would totally do that just to mess with someone.
Really like your MBTI art (´∇｀)
ENFP drinking a cold glass of water through a straw whilst listening to the conversation: Mmm refreshing! ☺️
I love these designs lmao can’t wait to see the rest of the personalities animated
As an INFP, I'm shocked to hear them make that argument. Water is absolutely wet. It has the property of cohesion meaning it will stick to itself, and a liquid sticking to something is what makes it wet. MAYBE you have an argument if you say a single molecule of water isn't wet, but I have yet to see a single molecule of water used for ANYTHING but looking at it through a microscope. So water is indeed wet. You'd think the people who prefer thinking over feeling would have realized that... and now I feel like I'm coming off as passive aggressive, so I apologize. I'm not wrong though.
No , you are an INFP for a reason mate 😂 - INTP
So , logically , Wet means that a liquid is touching a solid , its an adjective that describes this exact thing , and it doesn't have to be water , it can be milk or anything , but putting two liquid together means nothing really , therefore water touching water means nothing also , therefore water isn't wet , you need a solid object mate , that's it , it's so simple , I don't know why people are stupid , for me that's the real question 😂😂😂😂 - INTP
@@Almn68-Shiro Fair enough. Can fog or mist not be considered wet then?
As an INFP: I hereby declare that water, is NOT, wet.
The most annoying thing about idiocy is that you can't explain it to an idiot. -Dr. Ratio
Who’s the idiot here 🧐
But INTP contradicts herself. At first she says: "If you touch this water, you don't get wet". But later: "water makes other things wet"
Not exactly. The INTP was referring to a specific water they were both observing, saying one doesn't get wet when touching it. The ENTJ was oblivious to that and asked why since water as a liquid is supposed to be wet. The debate was launched on water as a whole, not the liquid the INTP was primarily talking about.
that just means for some reason the water doenst stick on you. if you make your hand hydrophobic that doesnt mean water isnt water
@@kringle7804 you perfectly described it
The assertion that water isn't wet is inherently a contradiction.
@@kringle7804 no at the beginning of the video the intp says "when you touch this water ***you*** don't get wet" and the entj got confused and started referring to water in general
We need more debates having all the purples
For the record, soap is self-cleansing. It does make itself clean.
as an intp, i agree
Any liquid by definition is wet. It’s only not the case when you change the definition of the term to only mean a solid being covered by moisture. Every liquid is saturised with Moisture, which gives it a wet property.
Except wet isn’t in any definition of it. So it isn’t by definition, but by shit you made up.
And by change the definition, you mean use the actual definition?
Just watching this makes me question everything-
As an INTP, after getting over my head on the whole debate its quite amusing that my argument stands with INTP featured here 😳
If water was wet by the strictest definition of the word wet, we’d have an infinitely looping paradox of recursion hell. If we stretch the definition of the word wet we could call water technically wet without infinite recursion
🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥 Very MASTERPIECE!!!!!! But funny😂😂😂
mommy entj will always be right
Amazing 😻
huh, idk, in my personal experience it could be like:
-ENTP: For gods sake, im telling you water has to be wet!
-INTJ: Not necesarily, therefore you need to define what ''wet'' means
-ENTJ: come on INTJ, philosophing again? HAHA you weak *makes annother 20 reps*
-INTP: yeah whatever