Carl-Richard

?Whaaat but I'm so not extroverted lol

Simmer down, people ?

No. There are so many options out there. I think extroversion as a trait, at least as conceived by laymen, is mostly defined relative to the general population, which would probably create a 50/50 split of intro/extrovert, but don't quote me on that No. Idk. Functionally speaking, yes, but things like agreeableness, conscientiousness and stress tolerance are probably more important.

Yeah, like trauma. I don't know why you pulled the meditation card

Loool don't worry If you're talking about developmental-psychological stage theories and their rampant empirical WEIRD-bias, then you have a point. That said, it's not necessary to project a normative conception of progress onto the core of these models, which is fundamentally about describing the movement from lower to higher complexity. It's perfectly possible to have a highly complex civilization that buckles under its own weight, which could compel you to associate complexity with decay. Well, although science cannot settle metaphysical questions, if your metaphysics is in conflict with the existing science (and you care about science), it's a problem.

It might be because these eschatological visions don't have much in the way of empirical evidence (historical or experimental), meanwhile the structural stage theory of SD and related theories do have some. Remember that Wilber's synthesis is not merely about theology or ontology, but also science.

Conversation between Analytical Idealism and Process-Relational metaphysics. Yup, Whitehead makes my head implode. Man what a time we're living in that we can listen to these galaxy-brained individuals causally drop nukes of wisdom on your head for free.

I think you're expecting a bit much of the model in terms of what specific things it can tell you. It's not a very specific model. It gives a very broad and general overview, and you lose some details in the process (there's a trade-off in choosing a particular level of analysis; specificity vs. generalizability). Its purpose is metatheoretical in that it places already very wide categories into an even wider context. Eschatology seems to be a rather narrow category in this context.

Eschatology goes right under the intersubjective quadrant.

I use my phone

If the meditative state is completely dissociated from any underlying psychic structures, then personality type and psychological development doesn't matter either.

?

I'm saying if your parents were say meth users, that certainly has an impact on your ability to love today. Things like having experienced love and warmth during the critical period of psychosocial development, to be privileged enough to reach beyond your immediate survival needs and learn about meditation and achieve peak states.

I can only do it on my computer. In YouTube, right-click on the video itself while watching it and select "copy link at current time" or something like that.

I'm sorry I really don't understand ?

Please elaborate.

Trauma associated with upbringing, family situation, interpersonal relationships, socioeconomic status, culture, health problems etc.

I always say this, but I was in the same music class as her in high school, one grade below Literal angel. Many teary moments.

Recently re-visiting Dream Theater. The purely instrumental middle section of The Count of Tuscany always gets me teary-eyed (I'm all for the instrumentals and aesthetics, I rarely ever listen to lyrics): (starts at 10:57, but 10:17 for context). This one is similar:

True, we've established that much.

Define overreliance and point to it in me. I must have contracted Alzheimer's.

Ok, then let me just not concede to your framework at all then: you have a blockage against acknowledging the empirical facts.

@thisintegrated This is what is going on here: you have a blockage against acknowledging the empirical facts because it would supposedly force you to engage in Te, which would undermine your framework two-fold (because you would to have to both concede the argument because I'm right AND demonstrate in real time how flimsy the framework is). Instead you've resorted to going silent or posting vague snarky responses like "hehe, Te!", which is a double bind tactic: if I go silent, I lose; If I keep going, I lose. It's also covert frame control, which is usually what Tier 1 people do when they feel threatened (hmm...). Tier 2 always acknowledge the frame, because they're context/construct aware and above such petty games. Anyways, I said I would stop giving the same critiques over and over again, and now you know more why.

Yeah, apparently they just go silent

This is the selection bias I'm talking about. You're making it seem like I only use Te because I like to use empiricism to criticize MBTI, a topic where speculation around cognitive functions are the most likely to come up in the first place. What about my 6500 other posts in other threads? Besides, according to thisintegrated himself, caring about Te is not indicative of a Te type, because apparently ENTP uses it all the time.