Carl-Richard

Why is population growth non-linear? Why is advances in data processing non-linear? All intelligent self-improving systems work this way. Once growth entails you becoming better at growth, growth becomes exponential.

Oh, I forgot to mention that each category of Big 5 can be divided into 6 facets as well (NEO PI-R). So in total, 5 categories with 6 facets each makes 30 different facets. There is support for various facets using the same statistical procedures as used on the initial 5 categories (Lexical approach). If we were to typologize/dichotomize each trait/facet continuum in the Big 5 (for example making orderliness-disorderliness into two types — O and DO), that would create 5*6*2 = 60 possible types. So which is the "proven" number for dividing personality? 5? 6? 30? 60? There is no reason to simplify it to that level.

Interesting.

@Village I can just imagine the long threads of denial under whichever place this was posted

Not to completely derail the discussion, but for me, this is the best argument for why there should be mandatory vaccinations for hypercontagious diseases. Letting them just run wild even if they're not very lethal is incredibly irresponsible considering the risk of lethal recombinants which could wipe out the entire planet.

My brother recently told me about an experience he had 2 months ago before he went to bed. He was really tired and ended up just staring himself in the mirror for 10 minutes, and after a while, he felt a so-called weird scary feeling and as if he was no longer looking at himself anymore. He snapped out of it quickly, but he thinks he had a brief moment of ego death. I've had similar experiences as a small child. One time, I was looking up at the night sky with my friend and got in touch with the infinity of the universe and felt a deep fear of dying. This kept happening many times as I was growing up. It probably ended when I was around 11, but then it came back really strong during the summer when I was 14. Then after that, it disappeared virtually for good, all up until I started meditating 5 years later. Now it's a daily occurence. It seems that these things are strongly influenced by inheritance, but I also think it can be just as strongly influenced by environment. Have any of you had any similar experiences from when you were young? What do you think about the nature/nurture debate? Are some just cursed with the wrong set of genes or is it possible for anyone to have these experiences?

The critical stance against typologies really doesn't matter to the lay person. Even if you follow Big 5 and learn that you're only 51% extroverted/introverted, people will still tend to call themselves "an introvert" or "an extrovert". If we look past the data compatibility argument (that for a typology to be representative of the data, a trait would need to follow a bimodal distribution and not a normal distribution in the population), personality psychologists aren't exactly averse to using discrete categories in the first place (all personality traits are discrete categories). Categories are supposed to simplify and summarize (that's the very reason you make categories and models). A type is just another way of categorizing and simplifying. As long as you're aware of this (or not, as in the case of the layman), it really doesn't matter what you call it (a discrete type or a continuous trait).

I mean... I guess that's one way to avoid having to be accurate; to only talk in hyperbole or irony

Falsification has a strict definition. It's not the opposite of verification. Dividing personality into 16 categories has not been "proven false". There is simply a lack of verification. Finding verifying evidence for one theory does not automatically falsify another. Big 5 only has more verification than MBTI. There is actually debate about there being a sixth category (HEXACO).

In what way has it been "proved false"?

I'm in this case using a very strict definition of science, but nevertheless, I would be careful not to compare something like MBTI with something like flat earth. You're losing a ton of nuance there. For a start, one is based on the genius of Carl Jung and the other is based on epistemic blindness.

MBTI maybe. Big 5 is pretty solid quantitatively speaking. There are many things science can't help you with within your own life. MBTI has helped many.

For me, somehow something like this feels completely genuine while a video of some professor dunking on mysticism feels like a parody. It's like somewhere along the line, Poe's law reverses itself, as if it's a type of horseshoe theory. It's so inherently ridiculous that it just has to be authentic. It goes beyond parody.

No what no?

Nice.

Wokeverine. Cmon, you made it way too easy

How normal people engage in internet conversations: Person 1: Makes points A and B by saying c d e f g. Person 2: "I disagree with A and B and I'm going to write it in a couple of sentences." How Orange debunk lords engage in internet conversations: Person 1: Makes points A and B by saying c d e f g. Person 2: "You didn't provide any evidence for your claim, therefore A is false." "B i'm not going to address because I'm going to gish gallop you with a bunch of tangentially relevant paragraphs without directly addressing the point, picking apart every little unimportant detail like some postmodern genius." "c is a logical fallacy." "d is not a valid authority." "e is pseudoscience." "f is not backed by peer reviewed studies." "g is irrelevant - my argument still stands." Of course you shouldn't expect anything when talking to these people in the first place purely based on psychology, but you can also make that conclusion by just looking at the structure (or shape) of the conservation. It's impossible to have a back-and-forth when all you get in return is a tedious deconstruction of 5% of what you're saying and endless tangents of self-important verbosity. This is one big reason why debates don't work. Even if the psychology allowed for people to change their minds, the format that arises and some people excacerbate the effects of just makes it impossible.

❤️ Nice Who would've thought that reductionistic behaviorist concepts like stimulus/response could be used for something this holistic Back at ya

Yeah. Using his logic, if we were to trust him as an authority, where is his PhD in mysticism? ?

Cuz colonization.

Anybody else simply playing it for fun? I would tend to agree with @EnlightenmentBlog regarding the type of strategic thinking you're developing. Even if it was highly generalizable, I think most people already have enough step-by-step linear logic anyway. Working on your intuition will supercharge your strategic thinking, which will be the kind of strategic thinking that takes you into Tier 2 territory: solid left-brain base with intuitive augmentations. There is nothing more strategic than letting God do the thinking for you

Yes. I did one game on Chess.com where I didn't have any mistakes or blunders and only 1 inaccuracy (the rest were primarily best moves), but other than that, I'm pretty noob

What?

If we assume reality to be everything that exists, ask to be shown what it is that limits reality, and ask if that limit isn't a part of reality as well.

What time period after taking it are we talking? All psychedelics disrupt sleep for some time.