Carl-Richard

I just think the science vs. pseudoscience distinction is useful. That is my main point. This goes back to whether personality traits are to be considered as pure descriptions of behavior or as innate qualities that cause behavior. You seem to treat the E/I spectrum as the latter, but I don't think you need to interpret Big 5 that way (unlike say cognitive functions). General scientific skepticism aside, an average test-retest correlation of 0.88 for all traits is a serious thing (0.80 is considered "good"). It certainly dwarfs any hints of empirical adequacy produced by MBTI or SD.

Scientists*, not a bunch of quacks trying to sell you something No. It doesn't specify that, unless you can point to something specific. I only debate MBTI with you, so again, selection bias

I doubt it. I thought I would score pretty much the same as DocWatts, but our C and N differ by 27% and 34%: It's at least not pseudoscience

Considering I was completely crippled by anxiety, depression and existential despair prior to trying meditation, it certainly liberated whatever intelligence was within me. My first mystical experience completely changed my life. It was like I permanently lost a huge chunk of myself, and what remained was a light feather floating down the river of life.

Get up to date on the facets Again, combine the traits High C and Low N. Of course Low N is the most important factor in this case, but C is the best predictor of life success, which definitely affects your self-image. Again, an ideal leader, as opposed to say a tyrannical leader – one that has their subordinates' best interests in mind (a leader of people). Technology entrepreneurs are leaders of ideas, maybe someone you wouldn't like to work for (*cough* Amazon warehouses *cough*). Again, your mind is poisoned by typologies and their dichotomies. There are no "agreeable types" or "disagreeable types" in Big 5. You're given a standarized score of 0-100 for each trait. You can have a score of 50 – that's not a problem

Where are you getting this from? I was combining different traits (high C and low N) to explain confidence. Other examples: the combination of High E, High A, high C and low N makes you an ideal leader. High E, low C and high N makes you more prone to binge drinking and risky sexual behavior. It's relevant when it's literally what is being contested (the scientific validity of personality typologies). You're just appealing to more pseudoscience. Man, are you listening at all? I'm talking about the mental gymnastics associated with typing. Again; typologies.

That's just ridiculous. Perfectionism is more correlated with conscientiousness (subsets orderliness and industriousness). Think OCD. Neuroticism (subsets volatility and withdrawal) is about emotional lability and negative emotion, i.e. how frequent and extreme your emotions are. Think BPD (borderline not bipolar). Confidence and happiness are probably correlated, and they can be explained by combining high conscientiousness and low neuroticism: you tend to get shit done while also having a persistent positive self-image. So you trust your own abilities more (confidence), and you're more likely to be successful in life as well as being naturally happy. Yay, let's mention yet another pseudoscientific personality typology ? It's because it's not a typology (which is an outdated and empirically unsupported concept in personality theory). It's a trait theory: all people have various degrees of the same traits. It makes sense for the same reason that all people experience different levels of the same types of emotions. In broad behavioral terms, different humans are variations on the same theme. There exists no justifications (statistical, biological or otherwise) for the strong dichotomies postulated by personality typologies. It's very ambiguous within a typology framework ("Ti-user"). For example, you can appeal to moral values (Fi) as an argument in a debate and then give logical explanations (Ti) for why you did so or why you hold them.

@Razard86 Worst joke ever

@Oeaohoo I would say that the knowing of God's fundamental nature (God as Oneness, which is one form of revelation) is exactly that: it goes beyond constructs and contexts. However, the mind has a tendency to corrupt such teachings in retrospect (the moment they're put into language), especially when it comes in other forms of revelation like visions or voices from God (which are often inherently linguistic). (This may seem like a tangent, but it's related): With regards to say eschatological visions, a postmodern question could be: are you interpreting them literally or metaphorically? Are they literally about the end of the world, or are they a symbol for e.g. the general fight between good and evil? For example, I really like the story of the Fall as a metaphor for the origin of metacognition (or reflective self-awareness), i.e. the time when humans really became human (which probably happened as recently as 30-50k years ago): we ate from the tree of knowledge and became aware of the fact that we were naked. You could argue that such ancient myths were designed to be taken metaphorically, as they predate rigorous sequential reasoning and instead rely on the mind's innate quality of making associations as a means of communication. This associative quality, in that it's inarticulate and intuitive, is driven by the very roots of your being (archetypes, the unconscious), and stories like the Fall can therefore serve as a sort of deep memory cue for those aspect within yourself (in that you "remember" the fall into self-awareness of your ancestors through your DNA so to speak). Pre-literate mythic people would be much more attuned to this than we are, as they were again less burdened by the noise of the intellect. So in a way, the inarticulate or metaphorical ways of communication are both less corruptible and more amendable to the deeper truths of your being. (If this seems disorganized, it's because I first misinterpreted your comment and then had to rewrite some stuff, and also the fact that I just recently fixed a broken sleeping schedule and threw all my hormones out of whack ).

I know a friend from high school who has it. Haven't talked to him in years though

There is probably a coffee table in front of him when he is recording.

Based on what I've heard, it's only a relative increase compared to other brain regions, but the same area still has lower activity compared to the sober state.

@thisintegrated Just from a first person perspective, I simply prefer the feeling of not knowing over illusions of knowledge, which is a tension I feel very often when I engage in MBTI typing, to some extent SD. However, I've noticed that with the very best models, I don't really have to engage in them consciously, because they're in a sense too obvious, maybe because they're fully ingrained in my thinking, or because they're an integral part of common language, like with Big 5. For example, when you're describing a person using normal personal adjectives, you can easily siphon each description under a Big 5 category in retrospect (because that is how the model was constructed). However, with MBTI and SD, it feels kinda forced, like my mind is funneled into some stereotypical lines of thought and post-hoc reasoning; square-pegging round holes.

I think that was in fact the main thing that triggered me that time you used sex as a metaphor (more so than the emotional dissonance). It was a kind of deconstruction or hyper-generalization of the concept, which seems to be your preferred style of communication (which is perfectly valid). I guess I prefer to work more within a standard linguistic framework and leaving the concepts as they are, although that certainly also has its flaws.

@Razard86 You have a thing for deconstructing concepts ?

If your life is good right now, why roll the reincarnation dice?

You're worried about thoughts, my dude

Mysticism and depth psychology generally uses different definitions of consciousness: phenomenal consciousness, which is transpersonal, vs. self-consciousness (metacognition), which is personal. Phenomenal or transpersonal consciousness is absolute reality. The unconscious is the non-metacognitive or inarticulated parts of one's personal mind. It's the forces and influences on the personal mind that the personal self (ego) is not able to talk about.

That's a scary thought, but that's all it is for now: a thought.

42:35 - 45:00 (context: he just talked about self-mutilation rates). 36:56 Schizophrenics are also social outcasts in Amazonian tribes. 50:35 interesting story on that topic.

I think 99% of famous people never intended to become famous, certainly famous intellectuals.

You're projecting human traits like metacognition and free will onto God. God just is. Creativity is its essence.

Maybe in an isolated sense (as there is a trade-off in choosing different levels of analysis), but in the larger scheme of things, you only end up covering more ground, because the higher levels aren't contradicting the lower. For example, SD doesn't explicitly describe or explain DNA, genetics or evolutionary game theory, but the things it does explain is certainly not incompatible with those things. It captures larger structures, hence it's systemic, biopsychosocial, metatheoretical etc. I mean pragmatic in the sense that one recognizes conceptual constructs and theoretical models as useful fictions – nothing more, nothing less. Reality seems to work "as if" what one is postulating is true, i.e. descriptive, explanatory and predictive utility. You could say postmodernism takes this conclusion too far and gets lost in the weeds ("all metanarratives are equally valid or invalid"), meanwhile metamodernism sticks its head up and regains some perceived sense of control. It does so by conceding that it's indeed only a perceived sense of control, but that this is still useful ("an useful fiction"), unlike say modernism which is stuck in a type of naive realism ("this is objective reality"). It's not just a practical problem, but also a theoretical one. Models are supposed to simplify reality into neat categories whereby one can e.g. create explanations (reducing one category to another, e.g. "biological inheritance is the generational transfer of genes"). If reality is indeed infinite, then the conceptual approach will never give a complete account. In a sense, giving a partial account is the point. That is what is useful.

Want to blow your mind even more? Psychedelics decrease net brain activity.

Like with most things, it's the extremes that are problematic. You have little to worry about unless you're a professional athlete or completely sedentary.