aurum

That's exactly what is wrong. Which shows how biased your understanding of JP is.

@Ulax well said. Green does not understand freedom, oppression or emergence.

JP has become more corrupt, but he's not purely bad faith. Leftists are just ignorant, biased and pretend like the answers are obvious.

I think relationships are generally very good for your development as a human. They're going to force you to grow and mature. But it's worth making some distinctions between human development and awakening. Awakening is really trans-human. So there's overlap, but also distinctions. Personally, I've let go of the idea of needing my partner to be interested in hardcore consciousness. I think it's an unfair expectation and puts you in the bind of looking for a unicorn. Really want I need from her is just basic maturity and to be a good mother. As long as she supports me taking time for consciousness work, that's enough. She doesn't need to be Peter Ralston. Consider that dating a woman who is interested in hardcore consciousness will inevitably come with serious downsides.

There’s a difference between a model being misused by people who haven’t understood or embodied it, versus a model that is just misleading because of its internal problems. I’d argue MBTI is more the latter.

Which brings us to some very interesting metaphysical questions. Are the chakras “real”? What does it even mean for the chakras to be real? Does it have to be physical and 3rd person objective? If only a small percentage of ESP practitioners can detect them, are they real? Or are they metaphorical? Also, do they need to be real? Or is it enough that they just serve as a useful map? These are heavy questions that most new agers do not significantly grapple with.

But that’s not how it’s used. People do not even acknowledge that lack of verticality is a problem because they mostly don’t even understand that it’s missing. Or why verticality is significant. If you want to use MBTI as a foundation and build from there, I have no problem with that. I’d encourage it.

I've acknowledged it can have value from the beginning on this thread. What's much less obvious is how it's limited. Especially in the context of a forum like this, which is focused on development. The problem is that MBTI can't actually ignore verticality without making wrong assumptions, such as equal and innate cognitive preferences. Like it or not, MBTI is playing in vertical territory but without acknowledging it. This is fine if you're just a normal person who probably isn't going to do much development anyway. You get a cool, new, relatively fixed psychological identity and maybe get to know yourself a little bit better. But it's very subpar for what we are trying to do. So to be extremely clear, I think it's fine if you want to learn about MBTI. It may even offer some unique explanatory power compared to some vertical models, which could make it worth integrating. But I don't see anyone else here acknowledging these limitations. None of these horizontal personality models should be taken that seriously.

Well I disagree with your GPT on certain statements. Have it debate me instead of you

Of course. The only problem is really just taking it too seriously.

Smart

@Emerald There's two things happening at once with the chakras: 1) New age group-think, which does create some consistency as long as you stick with sources that share meaning-making. It often feels coherent, until you test it 2) Large amounts of inconsistency once you actually dive into the specifics of people's intuitions, interpretations, protocols, results and diagnoses. There's no way you can't really verify or falsify any of it This is also not limited to the chakras. The chakras are just one case of this larger dynamic within new age thinking.

That's fine. So let's say there is a surface-level, newspaper version of both astrology and MBTI. And there's also a more serious, deeper version of both as well. My point is that regardless of depth, they're structurally quite similar. And people use them to collect and stitch together various preloaded identities. This also holds for Human Design, Gene Keys and Enneagram. They can be fun or useful for basic introspection. But I don't personally take them seriously beyond that.

Verticality is about development. Self-reflexivity is about construct-awareness.

Everything has been consistent about the chakras? We've had very different experiences then. Or maybe different standards for consistency. The real point I wanted to make was not about which chakras are "actually" masculine or feminine. It's about the lack of consistency, falsifiablity and construct-awareness around the use of the model.

It is not fine. Statistical traits are better than not, but that does not solve MBTIs verticality problems. Nor its lack of self-reflexivity.

That sounds like a double standard to me. Astrology isn't also useful? Have you seen how complex astrology can get? How do you know it's all woo woo? You could take an entire course on it and still only be a beginner:

I have looked into the cognitive functions. I see many problems.

I agree there is general consensus on that point.

That's just your opinion. I could make a very strong argument for why it does.

How is it my horoscope explains me to a T???

Lol. Maybe if you're a woman.

Yes, unserious models can still be useful in a very limited context. Astrology can also be useful for certain people.

MBTI is not a serious model. You do not have an innate cognitive preference.

There's some overlap with masculinity and love, of course. Ultimately we could collapse all these distinctions if we wanted. But it's also not strictly the same. Masculinity requires less love.