Joshe

For example: You have to ignorant of the model to say it's mostly useless. https://1lib.sk/book/2632202/5e45bf/psychological-types.html

You're wrong bro. Until you do a deep dive into Jung's cognitive functions, you're just speaking out of your ass. You're rejecting the entire foundation of Jungian cognitive functions, seemingly without knowing it. The whole point is to show patterns of cognition. Do you think patterns of cognition do not exist? Do some people have a natural tendency for abstract thought while others, more concrete? Do some people have more mastery over the physical world than others? Do some people value social harmony more than others? If the answer to these is “yes”, which is obvious, then we’re already talking about stable cognitive tendencies. When you look at those tendencies in clusters, patterns emerge. That’s what Jung did, which is what MBTI is built on. If you explore it in earnest, you might actually learn something. I have an ISTJ mom. If you go read the description of an ISTJ, you will know more about my mom than she does, without ever having met her. You will know she religiously adheres to self-imposed routines, does not like abstract thought, and hates change and spontaneity. Because that's how ISTJs are. How is it the ISTJ description explains her to a T? Patterns bro. These behaviors and preferences cluster for a reason and they offer a ton of explanatory power. If you can’t see the utility in that, the limitation is in you, not the model.

Yes, it's not as awesome as the descriptions make it seem. My energy is definitely dwindling with age. I've accepted my poor social skills. As for going out, I partied my ass off in my teens and 20s and got more than my fill of social games. I moved around a good bit and always wound up in a group of friends, but I don't enjoy that anymore, so now, like you say, I'm holed up in a box. As far as protecting ourselves from physical agression, I found out early I couldn't fight worth a fuck. lol, so I have to be careful not to be confrontational to the wrong person. Many "alpha male" types feel threatened by me for some reason and try to start shit, even if I never speak to them. That's another problem solved just by not going out. Many problems solved by not going out. For me, physical world and social games are the Achilles' heel. I used to work construction and I had a serious problem with remembering where I put things in the physical world. I can remember where things are placed internally, but not externally. That's probably my biggest complaint with this condition. It's too easy to neglect the physical world for too long and then it all comes crashing down like a huge wave of overwhelm. The thing I like best about it is the fierce independence. Like, I don't need anything outside myself to be happy, except for an efficient and rejuvenating physical environment. Also, there has always been a strong internal locus of control and when I want something, I can work endlessly for it, nose to the grindstone. It sometimes feels neurotic but I'm fine with the tradeoffs. I'll take it over some time-wasting Fe bullshit... I just wish the physical world wasn't so difficult to manage.

Yeah, good point. It’s like there’s some deep, deep well of emotion we have to keep down. I once tripped on psychedelics and that mother fucker came wide open. Lol. It was the best. I literally felt a flood of heavy shit just streaming out of my chest like a beam. Something serious is buried deep. Probably trauma. Lol.

😂

@Natasha Tori Maru Yeah, there are problems with using ChatGPT for typing. You’re welcome! Yeah, the way you want to help others by skipping over all the feels and getting right to the solution is Te. Lol. It’s funny. It presents as odd to people. Like, they can sense that I care deeply about their problem but I’m only interested in connecting with them logically, strategically, searching for clarity and a path forward. Classic Ni-Te. That’s just how we “connect” I guess. I’ve wondered if this is some sort of a defense mechanism to keep emotional flood gates closed. Yeah, a lot of the INTJ personality descriptions are like fluff-pieces. When lots of people read it, they say “I’m that one!” because the type does contain virtues most people would like to embody. Ni provides vision and direction, Te analyzes and calculates how to get there, and Fi stands for something and will stand all by itself if it must. I never let the fluff pieces go to my head but there is some truth to it. Doesn’t make us special, just different. And we still have many shortcomings, obviously. I never really felt better or superior to anyone, just very different. Learning about my type explained a lot. 2-3% of the population are INTJ, so realizing that and the difference in cognition has helped me to accept myself and others. Most people IRL see me as ‘weird’, so being and INTJ isn’t anything glamorous, lol, that’s for sure. Yeah, Joyce is a good resource, as is personality hacker. And yes, text is different than speaking off the cuff but unless you’re very fragmented, I don’t see how you could hide your type for very long. But maybe some types are just easier to peg than others. I haven’t gone deep on all the types. You might also like “Love who” and Frank James. Frank James is mostly funny skits but you can pickup a lot from them.

Nice! Your prompt is too scientific for my taste. 😆 I actually just gave the deep researcher my profile link and told it to analyze 200 posts/comments to figure out my type based on cognitive functioning and it did really well. The only rule I gave it was to ignore any post about where the user mentions their own personality traits and ignore any MBTI claims the user has made. It seems to work pretty good out of the box by having it focus specifically on cognitive functions instead of MBTI. Still not sure how accurate it is for other people though. I just tested i on @Nemra. Nemra, ChatGPT analyzed your posts and says you're an INTP. Here's the results. https://chatgpt.com/share/6862fb68-6880-8010-9944-596af7ca8ec1

Might as well not even bother waking up. Lol.

I noticed the larger and more complex a set of instructions, the more it will fail for any given instruction. AI seems to be good at adhering to a few complex instructions, but once you add more than 5 or so, it starts to fail, IME. I wonder if a better approach is to instead of letting AI use it's own knowledge, define heuristics for each type and have it check against that. Something like: Dominant characteristics of an INTP: Internal logic focus – prioritizes internal consistency and logical coherence over external rules System-builder mindset – loves building internal frameworks, models, or taxonomies Truth over efficiency – values what is logically correct, not necessarily what’s useful or practical Detaches from emotion – separates logic from personal feeling to maintain objectivity Highly analytical – breaks down ideas to their core components Skeptical and critical – naturally questions assumptions, especially broad generalizations Precision-driven – prefers clarity, specificity, and refined definitions Slow to speak, quick to refine – may take longer to reach conclusions but seeks intellectual purity Personal logic – doesn’t blindly accept external systems (like laws, traditions, or consensus) Private problem-solving – works things out internally, often without expressing the full process aloud But this too would probably be too comprehensive for AI to manage well. Now I'm thinking, come up with heuristics for how each type tends to communicate, because that's essentially what is being tracked, and that would be much simpler for AI to manage. Something like: So for example, if someone is often talking about the future or doing things now for the future and if they don't soften their critiques, and if they're usually very direct, this would point to an INTJ. I think simple heuristics like this could work with a large enough sample size, and it probably wouldn't even have to be that large. So if someone has this communication pattern: oftens clarifies terms, often questions assumptions, and is less concerned with social niceties, it's a good bet they're INTP. I'm thinking 5 communication patterns per type should suffice. Maybe even add style and trait heuristics as well, but maybe would have to be careful not to overwhelm the AI. Maybe what types of conversations they typically engage in, are they more scientific or spiritual, abstract vs concrete, degree of politeness, what topics they're passionate about and what they tend to defend, how careful do they write, etc. I think heuristics like this could be very efficient if used well. Like, if someone doesn't give a fuck about using proper grammar, that simple heuristic could be high-leverage. I bet there are some very specific high-leverage patterns you could flesh out so that two or 3 alone could get you most of the way. This would be very efficient, but maybe too optimistic. Also, a 2-step process seems good. Maybe first have it run your initial prompt and then use the results from that to confirm with the heuristics analysis.

Cool idea. One problem I ran into when working with ChatGPT and MBTI is, ChatGPT’s MBTI knowledge is too intertwined with internet lore - it hasn’t been sufficiently trained on MBTI. Your prompt would probably produce mostly accurate results but ChatGPT would still make critical errors at a significant rate. Also, if it reads a post where someone claims to be ENTP, it might just lazily conclude that claim is true. Getting the prompt right is difficult.

Aspiration does drive change. What is more dominant than aspiration?

😂

Or living up to an ideal becomes the prize, and when others live up to it, it’s a reminder that you’re not. I “should” be this good. I “should” reach mastery.

I was speaking to the perspective that conveniently didn’t account for it. But yeah, exactly. There’s a lot of room for growth. Effort, if applied, could improve things bigly.

Good point.. but the bar is on the floor. Chronic inflammation, poor sleep, and shitty diets are the norm. Heart disease is the #1 killer worldwide, and it doesn't have to be. We’re not doomed by genetics here, we’re just not optimizing. Diet is the #1 risk factor for heart disease. So if a global shift in diet could eliminate the leading cause of death, how much would the health needle move in the positive direction? 3%? And this is just one aspect. Not to mention sleep, gut biome, mental health, and the optimizations we've yet to discover. If we were to capitalize on every optimization available, we’d move the baseline of human health so far forward that today’s “normal” would look like dysfunction. I don’t know what percentage that would be, but it sure as hell isn’t 3%. I'm cracking up over here how this is even debatable.

Ok, so, if this is your claim: "65% genes + 32% randomness = 97% outside your control."... you're making a category error. Apparently, this is a common logical fallacy with a name: heritability fallacy. Also, what we call "randomness" today is largely things we don't understand yet. What you're doing is equating the measurement of statistics that describe variation across a population with what determines an individual’s potential. It would be like saying teachers only account for 10% of test score variance, and therefore teachers can only improve an individual student’s performance by 10%. This is so obviously fallacious. Just like with the teacher, if you take an individual and optimize their environment (diet, exercise, sleep), their health outcomes can drastically improve, even by 90%, depending on baseline... clearly. What happens when you're on the brink of death and take a pill to cure you? Is that intervention a 3% improvement? There seems to be some weird bias lurking around here. I suppose because it is the best working hypothesis folks have for explaining "what will be, will be" or "every hair on your head is counted".

This is a really cool idea, thanks for sharing. I’d like to bump it up to 2-4 times per year. I really like the deep sea diving idea. Something about scuba diving is very spiritual. Never been to the deep though. Calm is a requirement and can cost you your life if you break protocol. Lol. I like that for some reason.

@Natasha Tori Maru Thats huge. Congrats! And I’m just like that. If I postpone things that have to be done, anxiety and irritation pile up. Although unfortunately, I haven't mastered it the way you describe.

When I was in my 20s, I used to wonder how certain people acquired traits that I wish I had. There was one Gen X guy who was confident AF and possessed the strongest will I’d ever seen. I mistakenly thought he intentionally developed this in himself. Every time I tried to peer into his mind to see how he formed these things, he had not even the slightest clue. I found this to be the case for everyone else I came across who possessed a trait I admired and coveted. When I tried to ask them for their secrets or advice, they didn’t have any. They can’t tell you how they do it because they don’t know. People develop traits, attitudes, mindsets, mental orientations, etc, unconsciously and these configurations of mind manifest in different ways. It’s about the stories deep in the psyche, formed mostly by experience and circumstance, and then the position one takes toward those stories that make them prone to this or that action. The stories form around identity. Anyway, eventually I realized different mindsets have different energetic signatures. And if you can shift your mindset, like through loving-kindness meditation, where you actually feel deep empathy for even your enemy, then what else is possible? You can rewire yourself for immense love but not immense drive? Of course you can, if you can create the right configuration of mind and practice single-pointedness of mind upon that configuration. It’s an advanced practice, but it can be done. Have you ever noticed that if you have an appointment or someplace to be in the morning, when the alarm clock goes off, you jump up without grumbling and complaining and just go because you have to, but other times when you aren’t pressed for an appointment, you complain inwardly and create a living hell for yourself? This is a matter of very subtle thought that occurs in milliseconds and is very hard to notice. It’s possible to remove the mentation that creates that hell and thus, remove the friction, making it seem effortless.

100%. And 65% is much more reasonable. Now imagine if, instead of just giving everyone the same environment, one group had an optimized one. Would that group have an extended lifespan? How much could we move the needle through intentional optimizations? Even with randomness in the mix, I think the whole baseline shifts up with good optimizations. There's still a lot of room to affect outcomes. I don't buy that there's very little you can optimize for to drastically move the needle.

Nice honesty. I think these are very common feelings but most don’t have the courage to admit them. I notice similar feelings in myself as well. I’m not sure the best solution but for me, I just acknowledge the feelings and move on and try not to get hung up on them. I also don’t try to force myself to be good, as in be happy for the fortune of others if I’m not. When we feel we deserve so much better and see others we deem less deserving reap more rewards than ourselves, it is naturally unpleasant. The only way I would know to eliminate the negative feelings is to remove the “shoulds”. Which would likely take extensive psychoanalysis to identify and uproot. You’re likely a neurotic, like me. If so, there is a book that will show you things you will know to be true when you hear them, but never allowed yourself to see. It’s called “Neurosis and Human Growth” by Karen Horney. My preferred method to uproot things is psychoanalysis. It’s hard work though.

I agree on the depth. It is very deep, but Aurum and I argued extensively a similar topic a while back. They’re basically saying genetics determines 99% of one’s reality. Aurum was more saying it’s 80/20 rather than 99. But all you have to do to dismantle these positions is look at twin studies. 100% identical genetics and one twin can be a diseased, obese conservative and the other a health nut, pink-haired liberal. Until this gets squared, if we’re to respect reason and truth, their positions are wrong.

You can both contemplate and use tools to help you contemplate. What matters most is that you arrive at what is true, not so much how you arrive there (unless you have ego involvement). If I bounced back and forth between contemplation and material in a book, would you make fun of that too?

No one argued genetics don't matter. They just argue that it does not account for 99% of health outcomes. That position is impossible to even steelman because of how absurd it is. If you can't see the absurdity, well, I suggest contemplating whether or not you're offloading too much of your thinking to an authority figure. Plug the position into any advanced AI and watch what happens. Ask it "Does this text contain any fallacies? If so, explain them all." His text in this thread alone contains like 5 fallacies. Sorry if this is earth-shattering, but this should be like common sense stuff. "If genetics alone explained exceptional vitality, identical twins—who share 100% of their DNA—should have nearly identical health, energy, and lifespans. But they often don’t. One can become obese while the other stays lean, one may develop heart disease while the other doesn't, or one lives decades longer. These aren’t isolated cases—they’re the norm in population studies. That alone shows genes set a range, not a destiny. So when people point to rare outliers like Trump or McAfee as proof that effort is irrelevant, they’re ignoring the mountain of evidence showing that environment, behavior, and even luck play massive roles—even among people with identical genetic "blueprints."" "The allure of genetic determinism lies in its simplicity. It offers a ready-made explanation and absolves individuals of responsibility. But biology doesn’t support this view. Health, behavior, and even personality are not puppet shows—nor are they blank slates. They are dynamic systems influenced by both nature and nurture, shaped over time through feedback loops of action and adaptation.