Carl-Richard

Why do animals get angry?

At the most fundamental level, anger is a response to a hindrance of movement. Is Sadhguru a plant?

What, so he can cure cancer as well? Emotions are just as much a part of the human experience as your body. For some people, again, they're either infrequent, or they last a very short time, or they're easily inhibited, or they're experienced in a more subtle way. These factors may lead to the appearance that somebody is in fact not experiencing any emotions at all. However, if you're claiming that the most conscious beings on Earth are unable to register emotionally salient stimuli, that would in fact be a severe disadvantage, and if anything, a lack of consciousness. I don't believe that enlightenment involves the subtraction of basic human processes. It's a transformation and recontextualization.

I was using "triggered" in a less loaded way. What about "activated"? His emotional system is certainly not inactive. You're talking about emotional inhibition. The emotion has to first arise for it to be inhibited.

Emotions are spontaneous and can be triggered in anyone. It's just that for some people, like Sadhguru, they're either infrequent, or they last a very short time, or they're easily inhibited, or they're experienced in a more subtle way; but the emotions are nevertheless still experienced. It's easy to conflate unconscious emotional repression with "spiritual detachment". If you're truly conscious, you will express whatever emotion arises within you (to the extent that is appropriate), because that is what is healthy human behavior. That is why Sadhguru cries at times, or raises his voice, or is polite etc. If your emotional system was completely inactive, you wouldn't be able to even move. He is certainly able to differentiate between emotional states, inside and outside himself, which again, is my only point. He is of course not stuck in the compulsive cognitive-emotional loops we call suffering.

At Sadhguru's level of consciousness, he is you crying and feeling horrible and depressed. Btw, search up "Sadhguru crying" on YouTube He is certainly happy just by his own nature, but he is also able to "feel the other", which is my point.

It's called empathy, a side effect of eroding the boundary between self and other

When I stopped smoking weed with my friends (I would still hang out while they were smoking), they were either confused or sad about it.

@Einsteinonacid

Maybe you should. See if you get any problems with making distinctions, especially between different sensors

I never contradicted that. You can try to quote me on it. Emphasizing? You mean only focusing on external factors?

No, you're trying to present evidence for your claim that "all the MBTI stereotypes are accurate", like you say in the title. It's not a coincidence you're talking about MBTI. If your only point was that needs determine personality, you could've gone for anything from Maslow's Hierarchical needs to Bowlby's Attachment styles, heck even the above Sameroff's Transactional theory, or even common sense.

Where lol? Can you quote me on it?

Duh(?)

Well sure. I'm all for deteriorating the concept of personality types When did logic get synonymous with intuition?

Well yeah. I was talking about the transactional model of development, which is about how the child (C) adapts to the social environment (E) and how the environment adapts to the child. Personality is of course a mix of nature and nurture. Biological predispositions to ESFJ traits and the child's reaction to the mother's behavior both do matter, but not simply that: they are interconnected. I'm still waiting for you to explain why spoiling your kids leads to ESFJs specifically and not just sensors in general. You gave a list of all the ways that ESFJs are not intuitive (creativity etc.), but none of it was specific to ESFJs. On the other hand, predispositions to ESFJ traits (sociability and extroversion), that are able to influence the mother's propensity to spoil, is of course an explanation that is specific to ESFJs (or at least more so than your explanation ).

I actually think that is the more likely explanation. There is a transactional process going on between child and parent (they co-develop), and ESFJs with their social intelligence and extravagant extroversion would probably be very good at shaping their parents' behavior according to their needs. ESFJ using their traits to shape their parents is also generally (just a type of explanation) more readily able to account for the specificity of the situation than one parental trait (propensity to spoil kids) supposedly creating excess ESFJs. I mean, just look at the traits that you claimed that ESFJs lack (creativity etc.): you haven't really made a distinction between different sensors at all, let alone the extraverts.

You can just say "depending on the person" ?

????

I sense a severe case of pulling-out-of your-ass-itis. Then there would be an excess of ESFJs in wealthy social democracies like Norway. I know a bunch of non-ESFJs (including myself) that are spoiled brats. My mom is an ESFJ, and to say that she didn't have to work hard would be absolutely ridiculous ?

Nothing new.

These two points summarize why I favor organic states (and its associated techniques) as a measurement for spiritual growth. You're training the very ground which produces all states to hold non-duality: every cell in the body, every energetic movement. Temporary states of profound insight have both standalone value and their own place in spiritual growth, but focusing on the source of all states, I feel is absolutely central.

I couldn't do that. I would catch on to their state and start tripping myself

@zurew I'm a little crazy Last one, in celebration of my country's birthday (in a way):

I'M DONE