Carl-Richard

Then you can tell Thisintegrated to stop using the two interchangeably. I simply went along with it.

@thisintegrated You're making it sound like personality theory is something people do and not scientists do ? I tried to dumb it down instead of screaming into the void like I did the last 3 times I talked about this. So much for ease of communication ?

Is it a scientific failure, or is it a failure of laymen vocabulary? True. That's what I said What I said is there are many personality models that are more empirically and structurally sound than MBTI. There are also many domains of personality psychology (the cognitive domain is one out of seven) and many highly useful models (e.g. many in the evo-bio and emotion domain). It's all superceded by Big 5 though in terms of empirical backing.

What you're really saying is that it's not Big 5 that is flawed – it's communication that is flawed. That is true. Accurate communication is tedious, which is why people write books. It is "taught" in psychology classes, in the sense that it's briefly mentioned in the introductory personality curriculum and explained why it's not up to par with other theories (by bringing up the points I've mentioned). The reason it's a popular model is because it's rather normatively neutral (no one type is particularly "negative"), which is why companies like to use it, and like you said, it's easy to communicate.

Jung didn't use a structured empirical methodology to come up with the functions, unlike say Cattel's 16PF and Big 5, which used factor analysis and the Lexical hypothesis. Rather, it was an idea based on his clinical experience and general knowledge. Additionally, it's a typology ("types"), which is something personality psychology has moved away from. Personality is polygenetic (unlike say blue/brown eyes or male/female), which means that there exists a huge variation of personalities (like a spectrum). In other words, you can score higher or lower on a trait, but it's not either/or ('this' or 'that' type). The technical term for this is "normal vs. bimodal distribution". If you're asking for a personality typology, then I couldn't name you one. If you're asking for a personality trait theory, then Big 5. The empirical data on that one is unmatched. Separate from the typology aspect, I think Jung's cognitive functions are still useful as descriptions of cognition and behavior, like personality adjectives (just very precise ones). For example, instead of thinking of frequent use of Ti and Ne as an indication of the "INTP" type, you can just leave it at "frequent use of Ti and Ne".

There is a reason you don't learn about it in personality psychology ;D

Avoiding creating excess victims. Let's forget pre-modernity and holy wars: look at all the contemporary guru scandals.

I'll have to dig for it. Give me a second. Look, it's fine to read about general developmental theory or consult your own experiences and synthesize your own understanding. However, I would be careful lumping all of that under the label of "SD", certainly when it goes against the core assumptions of said theory, and doubly so when the developers themselves have explicitly rejected it. We're talking about a specific scientific theory that is based on decades of rigorous empirical investigation and is represented by a specific set of people (it's a trademarked concept). That is what SD is. If you have some starkly different opinion about human development, then that is not SD. You can call it something else. It's easy to poo-poo the intellect when you've had a couple of mystical experiences and start to feel intrinsic joy etc., and you may think that it's the solution to all the world's problems. Maybe it is, but how do you share it with the world without say letting it devolve into a cult or a religion (*cough* the last 5000 years *cough*), or without it being corrupted by rivalrous game dynamics or other systemic issues? That is an intellectual problem, which Yellow thinks it can solve, and which Turquoise is starting to solve. A person like Sadhguru has not abandoned his intellect. He has simply put it in (proper) context with the mystical dimension of life. Mysticism certainly has a real place in the future of this world and will play a part in "higher stages of development", but the way it's being romanticized in places like spiritual communities (and projected onto whatever scientific theory) is not helpful. Mysticism has existed along slavery and all the other atrocities of pre-modern history. One of SD(i)'s strengths is in explaining how this is no longer the case, and it has to do with a movement from lower to higher complexity across all domains.

I don't know if you were here when it happened, but Leo has publicly addressed Beck's criticism on the forum, removed his video (or it got taken down) and changed his stance somewhat. I also don't see why you feel the need to disagree with the developers of the model. Ken Wilber is also in line with Beck on this issue (see his video on "Waking up ≠ Growing up"). The fact is that Turquoise is not inherently mystical, as mysticism has existed for many thousands of years, and Turquoise necessitates Yellow, and Yellow didn't exist before 50-70 years ago. Turquoise is the evolution of Yellow to a more collectively oriented focus. Again, that said, I think discovering and adopting mysticism becomes more likely once you approach Tier 2.

Intuition works at a subtle level of feeling and mind activity, and frequent thoughts, worries and fears will inhibit this ability.

The more you empty your mind, the more sensitive it becomes.

@Michael Jackson This is not another dogpiling thread. Keep it to "mods/admins in general".

And humans survive.

Peace and madness, conscientiousness and openness, fear and love.

?

How is slavery bad if you don't care about survival?

In that case, you're just allowing someone to rule somebody else's (your) survival. How is that moral?

Do it again

Karma is not morality. It's physics. Morality is about survival.

Do you think this varies based on if the mods in question had actively applied for their position or if they were merely approached and given the offer?

Just try it for a week.

Patriarchy. Take a look at BATGAP's videos. It's pretty 50/50. https://www.youtube.com/c/Batgap

Afterwards when you're done being delusional

Bro seriously, go the middle way: go for 3 days between faps and I'll promise you that the sensitivity will return AND your brain fog will lift. I've been on both extremes before, and I choose the middle way every time.