Carl-Richard

You came in with this "let me tell you how it is" attitude and then drew a sharp distinction between the test and the construct, and then you claimed that in fact all personality tests suck, which excuses the poor performance of MBTI in that realm.

I pointed out how you gave the standard MBTI defense.

You had to learn MBTI from somewhere, and sooner or later you had to adopt the core justifications (survival agenda) to keep using the model.

They taught you well. Every MBTI enthusiast thinks personality tests are useless, and it's the first thing they'll tell you.

This is what the MBTI cult teaches you, yes ?

Yup. It's a form of spiritual bypassing (hiding behind spirituality, using it reductively). Naive skepticism is a more general concept which can describe certain kinds of spiritual bypassing, but also more ordinary ways of thinking.

Dismantling the cooler brother of physicalism — panpsychism — in their home court (methodological naturalism). https://iai.tv/articles/bernardo-kastrup-why-panpsychism-is-baloney-auid-2214

Not if you look at the trait aspect vs. the type aspect, i.e. how any given trait has a score of 0-100 vs. how you can only be either this or that type. What is actually simple about Big 5 is the amount of conceptual entities, but not the amount of quantitative variation. You can think of it as MBTI doing a lot of work for free. The amount of conceptual entities is greater, and each entity is a simple yes-or-no value, so it's therefore easier to draw conclusions based on smaller amounts of data while still getting some reasonable answer: For example, let's say the CIA wanted to secretly gauge your personality from across the world. They can't give you a personality test and map out your exact 0-100 score on the Big 5, so therefore the model loses a lot of its power. However, with MBTI, they can do what you're so good at doing: draw vast conclusions based on limited data () by relying on the internal logic of the model. Even if it's not a very accurate assessment, it may have some utility in predicting your behavior, hence it can be a good solution if you're very pragmatically oriented.

Lol. He named mainly two things that seemed to be important: it's quick and easy (like I already mentioned), and he insinuated that it works independent of context (which is a dubious claim, but I get the point), and by that, he was referring to the typology aspect and its black-and-white nature, and how it's cognitive rather than behavioral. The reason scientists reject MBTI is mainly because personality typologies generally aren't valid or reliable. Trait theories are, and that is by the way my concession to MBTI: retain the cognitive functions and treat them as traits that everybody have to various degrees.

Is consciousness chaos?

He is making a pragmatic case for MBTI, as an intelligence specialist. Then the fact that it's simple, quick and easy becomes more important. When I'm arguing against MBTI, I'm taking a more restrictive approach, as a scientist, and then validity and reliability becomes more important. Everything he said here is consistent with this. That's why scientists favor it less than intelligence specialists. The CIA will use whatever they can to get the upperhand on the enemy, so of course they're less picky.

@AtheisticNonduality I was just going to deploy the "practice meditation" propaganda ;D

How do you get to Being without Doing?

So you can ask why.

@zurew Oh shit, thank you! I was waiting for that one

We're already doing that in sectors such as public health, at least in my country. The biopsychosocial model is becoming more and more prevalent, i.e. how factors like biology, psychology and socioeconomics all impact health, which is a holistic model. For example. you have reforms like Samhandlingsreformen from 2009 which focuses on bettering coordination between different health services, preventative approaches, challenges associated with changes in demographics etc. Other examples are emerging fields, like clinical health psychology, which addresses the connection between physical disorders and mental health, and community psychology, which deals with the connection between social challenges (marginalization etc.) and mental health. There is also a greater focus on patient participation in general as well as in more traditional healthcare, which challenges the paternalistic doctor-patient dynamic. These are mostly examples of Green systems thinking and context awareness, which have aspiring holistic features to them. To get to Tier 2, we need more radical proposals which aim to change the very structure of society, like the kind Game B talks about: fostering a post-rivalrous society where we can genuinely recognize our shared existence as humans, deep ecology where we also include nature into the equation, and of course construct updated psychotechnologies (and other technologies) for addressing the meaning crisis (reclaiming the healthy essence of religion and spirituality) and the public health crisis (which of course both overlap as mentioned in the beginning).

What do you think?

A high-functioning individual.

Weed is also known to make you more paranoid and sensitive to sounds and threats in general. With increased amygdala activation and decreased latent inhibition, you're more likely to remember such events and make connections between different factors.

Being able to fight is a proxy for general resilience.

All hard things?

I'm just talking about what makes something good.

Yeah. No. Remember feeling inspired?

How much contrast do you want? Who is the most likely to fuck up contrasts?

?