Joshe

lol, true. It's so funny when you lay it out like that. I've seen this one used on you and Natasha and am just like 🤦‍♂️ Like, what kind of logic even is that? As if you don't have access to what it's like to be an actual woman just because your cognition is different. Just flip the scenario: a cognitively sophisticated man goes to a woman's dating forum and tells them they're theorizing too much or whatever, and the women say "but you're not like most men". It's like, "Yeah, ok, but I'm still a fucking man and I've been around men my whole life. I have direct, high quality access and the ability to understand the nature of a man, because I am one." And the women tell you you don't know wtf you're talking about and dismiss you because you're "different". The logic is absurd, unless I'm missing something.

Yeah, I don't rely on Ni with work. Too risky. Except it did pop into it the other day when a client was trying to bullshit me that my latest deliverable had a problem I had already solved and verified wasn't a problem anymore. And because they misinterpreted something, they kept insisting there was a problem and I told them to reverify and they told me they did and the problem was still there, so I asked for a screenshot to confirm and they refused. I struggle to keep my Ni out of situations like that. It's like "I KNOW you're full of shit", lol. I have been wrong in one of those situations before, so I'm careful not to imply I think they're full of it. But yeah, that's a lesson I had to learn: Ni doesn't belong in my work. Some day, I hope to move into a line of work that requires it. Past my bedtime. I enjoyed it as well, and my Te did update my model of you in a more positive light tonight, so that's good!

Yes, that's how I've always experienced Ni too. As a kid, I was really odd because I was in constant observer mode, like just trying to soak up data to understand everything that was going on around me. I remember going to school and being a loner and didn't even care and wasn't bothered by it in the slightest because observer mode was too dominant. And the key thing about that mode was that it wasn't trying to close because it wasn't even close to being able to make sense of the world. It was like that until about mid 20s. Mid 20s, all the data started to crystallize and I realized over and over where the intuitions from all the observations started to be right, and where they were wrong. And when they were wrong, I had to know why, like a compulsion. So basically, whatever this cognitive architecture I have is, it was just training the shit out intuition and it had built-in correction mechanisms that were fine-tuning it. Ni proposes, Te disposes. Eventually, my intuitions became so mystical to me that it was like "how tf do I know this?" And for me, Te is really strong, so I would put in the work to understand how I knew - untangling the Ni. After years of untangling the Ni, things got even more mystical because the system just kept proving things that I myself wasn't actually working to produce, or at least, it didn't seem like it other than the Te. Once I gained competence in unpacking Ni, that's when I started closing more. The craziest thing is when you're highly metacognitive AND have Ni AND can competently unpack Ni. That's a strange default mode to live in. And the thing is, I'm aware where there are holes. I can sense it, but that doesn't stop me from trying to fill them in. And part of the process of filling them in is to actually make guesses and be wrong. And when I'm wrong, it registers like a serious violation to my system, which ups the stakes. And I'm guessing being wrong registers like a serious violation to you too, which is why you're so vigilant about avoiding it? I've intuited that before, which is why I wrote you, basically a letter once lol, explaining why it's ok to be wrong and the utility of it, and that you should open yourself up to it more. I've considered that maybe you aren't as Te heavy, thus not as likely to unpack your Ni...maybe? I believe we spoke before about how Te is likely different/weaker for a woman. Also, if you knew me in real life, you would see how careful I am with closing on things. Here on the forum, I have time to think and unpack the Ni, but it's not like that in real life. I mean, I still have sharp intuition, but it arrives as a knowing without a chain of evidence, which sucks, lol. Yeah, same here. It's disposition. I used to want to embody other modes of being, but then when I thought about it and tried it, was like fuck that. There's no escape from you Ni, sorry, lol. Try to immerse yourself in Si, the function furthest from you, and see what kind of hell you create for yourself, lol.

This is like the 3rd time I've heard this. I don't get that impression at all and think you guys are reading her wrong. I think she just likes exploring ideas and sharing her thoughts. Not sure how you guys jump to try-hard. Like, I get the sense she literally doesn't give a fuck, lol. So, I'm hopping in just to say that I think the perception is wrong.

Yeah, I didn't mean Aba either. Aba doesn't appear to have any of the elements. I was agreeing with Leo that I think sadism seems part and parcel to something like narcissism. Maybe not all of them, but most. Every narc I've ever observed was willing to kick anyone and everyone under the bus for their own gain. And if the person they kick under the bus is an enemy, then they will take delight in the kick. So basically, narcissism seems to more often than not have sadism baked into it. I remember telling my buddy a long time ago that if Trump and Hillary Clinton were alone in the desert and if Hillary was hanging from a cliff, Trump would delight in stepping on her fingers to make her fall if he knew he could get away with it. He was like "nuh uh, you're crazy". Trump is sadistic. He delights in ruining people's careers/survival and he makes subtly gleeful announcements when one of his enemies dies. And they wouldn't be so subtle if he didn't have to worry about political backlash. A fucking dark tetrad is running the world right now, lol.

I'm an INTJ, and precision matters more or less depending on context. If the context doesn't call for precision and approximation is more efficient, that's what gets used. Not using the most efficient tool is what gets you called a dumbass, lol. INTPs care too much about precision in most all contexts. That's the problem, lol.

Lol, that must be interesting. I've actually never known any INTJs in real life. Sounds about right though, lol. Stubborn, immovable. Fierce independence of thought. Me too 😆

Yes, I grew up with my mom and my sister and my aunts, and my sister had many attractive friends and I hung out with them often. I even had all girl friend groups in school where I was the only guy in the friend group, and I've been genuine besties with a couple of hot girls. But that doesn't mean I didn't go through very similar challenges with the opposite sex as most other men go through, and it doesn't mean I don't understand crippling anxiety/fear regarding the opposite sex, because I went through that as well.

Yeah, I was actually going down that line of thought the other week. Like, how did we miss this?

Putting a name to the pattern is a good idea because the pattern does exist. It doesn't make sense to say "Dark triad + sadism", lol. I actually love the term because it's a good example of how terms box in our thinking. For example, it's easy to say "are they dark triad?" and then tick off the boxes, but that makes it easy to overlook sadism. And if you look closely, sadism does seem to cluster with the triad.

That's true. But what I'm saying is it doesn't have to be this way. One can use logic and reason to see the truth of things such that healthy reappraisals replace the less accurate, unhealthy ones. I'm not sure this is accessible to everyone or what the challenges might be, as it came natural to me early on, but I think it's largely accessible and just takes practice. That said, it seems easy to do wrong, so I'm actually not sure. Still, automatized antecedent-focused reappraisal (such a mouthful, lol) is probably one of the best self-help technologies that exists. I just came across the term today. It kinda seems like Psycho-cybernetics adjacent but pointed at situations instead of self-image.

I gotcha. I'll keep that in mind. Yeah, you're remembering right. You, me and him had a convo talking about sisters and you were talking about your brother. The lee joker or something like that. I didn't know he got banned, wtf? Haha, I see. That actually makes sense. I actually don't mind deep probes at all. I'll try to keep in mind this is a big driver for you, and see your probes as mining more so than critical audits, lol. Lol, yes, I've thought about this too. Like, is this some sort of strange Ni-Ni dynamic? Fucking weird, lol.

I don't think you have to see yourself as low value to feel the sting of rejection. I think the highest value person on earth can feel it and the sting of rejection is natural. The solution isn't to mask it with thoughts of your value. The solution is to train your interpretations upfront, so the sting never lands. Automatized antecedent-focused reappraisal isn't suppression. It actually prevents the negative appraisal from landing because you've used logic and reason to see the reality of the situation more clearly, and have found the wise relationship to it. Recited appraisals you don't believe never automatize, and you just end up faking it. "I'm high value" as an affirmation can't cut it, IMO.

I interpreted that you were trying to bring this advantage to my awareness when you said "I think you have been really well socialised and have sisters yeah?", as if it was lost on me. It is a good point, so sorry if I misinterpreted, but I wasn't sure how else to interpret it. I actually just realized I may have been misinterpreting you a lot. Maybe you're just adding caveats that I've compressed, because I compress a lot, but I'm not sure because we have history where your responses clearly assumed ignorance on my part. Unless I've misinterpreted those instances or took one or two occasions as your default response pattern to me. I'm genuinely sorry if I've misinterpreted you. I'm just not sure that I have.

Automatized antecedent-focused reappraisal.

Yes, I'm aware of how things are more or less difficult depending on circumstances. That doesn't mean the solutions as I see them are not correct or useless, even if the climb is higher. Yes, that's how learning works, lol.

Nah bro. You gotta let the bitch know who is boss, because you know, that's what leader men do. @Olaf Trying to appear to be a leader actually just makes you look like a lost boy. Do you also pose with steeple fingers like Elon Musk during serious convo with your girl? All this micromanagement of how you're perceived is actually hurting how you're perceived. Abandon ship. When your tact with women is to vigilantly run a script that aims to manage her perception of you, you're actually operating FROM HER FRAME!!! She's still writing your script bro. You will literally be perceived like a weak beta with this approach because it comes across as insecure overcompensation, and it will be snuffed out, sooner or later, and you will ruin everything you worked for. The solution is to fix the base, not the content. Become a non-needy man with healthy boundaries and you don't have to manage frame. You just say yes or no as you feel, not yes or no depending on her.

It sounds like you don't just want infatuation, you want limerence. Limerence: A state of being infatuated or obsessed with another person, typically characterized by a strong desire for reciprocation of one's feelings but not primarily for a sexual relationship. Like infatuation, this state has a shelf life because what causes the dopamine release comes to an end and stops producing the dopamine or whatever chemical cocktail. Why does a song stop hitting after 50 plays? Same thing happens when "the fire dies" or "the spark is gone". What is that? It's her wanting to experience all the experiences involved with discovery of you - closing the gap. Eventually, the gap closes and the infatuation ends. By that time, it's how you treat her, her temperament, and prospects that determine if she stays, but she will no longer be "locked in". This is just a fact of human psychology, lol. "Locking a woman in" is a fantasy. A nice working dick doesn't solve the problem. Also, it's interesting that, according to the literature, limerence/infatuation runs its course in about 18-36 months. That's just long enough to spawn a human and for the mother to acclimate to motherhood.

Shit, I didn't even think about sincere confabulation. "Heilbrun's version isn't a three-year performance; it's a one-time reframing: a devastated survivor, waking paralyzed in a world where she killed her children, reaching once for the culturally legible explanation — and possibly believing it now." The no-recurrence problem that Heilbrun called "very unusual" for real psychosis: fully explained — confabulated voices don't recur because they were never generated by a psychotic process, only by a meaning-making one, and the meaning only needed making once. Every piece of evidence that the fake theory couldn't absorb, confabulation absorbs frictionlessly. There's no test that separates "sincerely misremembered voice" from "real voice" three years later. The confabulation is stored as a memory of a real event. Even she can't audit it — that's the whole phenomenon."

But she's not performing the standard script of how people in psychosis would generally answer and behave. That's what would require sophistication if this were a ruse. Sophistication or either just be dim-witted or maybe lacking knowledge. Or maybe she thought blaming it all on the meds would be sufficient. If she actually has in-depth knowledge of how psychosis presents and looks over time, and if she was faking psychosis, why wouldn't she just run the standard script? She spent 3 years under psychiatric supervision and never once decided to claim hearing voices. That's odd. So if it is a ruse, it seems like a sophisticated one. That, or it's not a ruse.

Holy shit: This is why we need to know her level of cognitive sophistication or whatever. It could answer if she's even capable of this fake. This seems like it would be a pretty sophisticated fake, so if she or her husband isn't cognitively capable of that, then I'd learn her way, I think.

But then again, if it was premeditated, you would think she would have faked command hallucinations more than just in that 20-min window. Most people don't drop a con before it's been bought. If it was planned, she probably would have looked into what the standard pattern looked like, you'd think. So, this is something to consider. Why didn't she just fake the commands later so that they would be consistent with the pattern? Also, I'm assuming there was no digital evidence hinting at premeditation. If no, that cuts further in her favor. I'd like to know what her knowledge of schizophrenia was prior to the act.

I just wonder if a certain combo of meds could have produced her particular claimed psychosis. I'm just trying to steelman her position. Either way though, that evidence you highlighted earlier regarding the voices only appearing during that 20 minute window is too suspicious for me to not lean towards lucid intent. Given that, I'm not sure if there's any evidence at all that could be presented to make me lean the other way. It's just too suspicious.

Schizophrenic patients

Yeah, I lean that way too but how do we know that the cocktail of meds she was on couldn't have produced something like a command hallucination? Have the experts said that's not a thing?