Carl-Richard

So you were the Devil all along. Go figure ?

? Chomsky would shoot you. In the beginning, language acquisition looks nothing like logic, more like basic imitation of sounds and movements. Children start by acquiring single words and phrases, and only over time, after learning thousands of words, they start to develop advanced grammar. It doesn't hurt to read some books just because you label it Te or whatever ? For a common definition of logic, I would recommend Kant's "analytic vs synthetic" and "a priori vs a posteriori" distinction. If you miss out on common definitions of things like "logic" or "emotion", communication will of course be hard.

You should maybe study some Piaget (maybe that helps to clear up some confusion around SD as well while you're at it ). Notice where "logic" arises:

...as I thought. You're inhabiting a different linguistic framework than dare I say most of mainstream academia, be it emotions or logic. No sane biologist would ever say insects use logic, or that animals with complex limbic systems can't feel basic emotions like anger. I learned at least that much from wasting a year in college on things like zoology systematics ?

Evil arguably also involves concepts like will and self-awareness, something that goes far beyond emotions, but of course emotions underlie all of it, because they're more fundamental. You're putting the cart before the horse. "The cortical areas evolved before the limbic system teehee", "sapience evolved before sentience", is essentially what you're saying... or maybe it's your idiosyncratic definition of "logic" as well that is pulling the strings here.

Is evil an emotion now? ? Cmon man. You're using a very idiosyncratic definition if you think that a cat can't experience anger if it isn't able to plot the kitty holocaust. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anger I'm talking about 1. and you're talking about 2. 1. is more fundamental and doesn't exclude 2.

@Razard86 Finally somebody else than me who thinks that Reciprocality has a case of word-itis. I watched this earlier today, and it's somewhat related to the predicament which adheres to the current progression of the situational state or the localization of the unfolding of current events :

I think trying weed at 17 shifted my baseline consciousness.

I think it is. Emotions evolved much earlier than cognition, and we share many basic emotions with many other animals (we share a limbic system). I think your definition of emotions is in fact reliant on cognition, i.e. cortical areas, rather than limbic areas. Now, what is reliant on cognition, is... you guessed it: cognitive emotion regulation (e.g. inhibition).

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 ).