Carl-Richard

That number would not be an accurate representation of transmission rates. You would have to do the population density in individual cities or individual populated areas. Most of Scandinavia's landmass is unpopulated.

You're assuming that shared behavior means shared experience. This doesn't have to be the case. You could display the same behavior with different stimuli (and vice versa) and the same stimuli can be perceived in different ways. An alien without our sense organs would also probably not agree with "a minimum common reality". The idea you're referring to has been given many names throughout history by people like Aristoteles and John Locke (the idea that certain qualities are perceivable through mutiple senses like form, size, movement etc.). They contrasted this with the more relativistic sense qualities like heat, colour etc. (more prone to adaptation). They used this to argue that we do infact have access to some shared reality, but this has been challenged by more modern models like "top-down" perceptual processing (their models assume "bottom-up" processing). Top-down processing describes how sense qualities like form, size and distance are subject to conditioning instead of being innate to the perceptual system.

It's normal to think that if the universe was caused by something, it must be caused by something else than the universe (something "outside" of it). However, the universe is everything that exists. If something caused the universe, that something must exist, and therefore that something must by definition be the universe, which means that the universe caused itself. Try to visualize what is "outside" the edge of the universe. It's just more universe. Therefore, every edge has to be imposed on reality. In reality, there is no edge. The universe extends forever in all dimensions. The concept of causality falls flat. Infinity is the ultimate strange-loop.

That thing you asked right there is his deal

Picture them as their 3 year old self.

Noam Chomsky illustrates the difference between Judging and Perceiving types (INFJ criticizing ENTP):

Yes, but it's not a reason for keeping it illegal.

Rationalism and postmodernism Orange Postmodernism is self-contradictory and we know this through rationalism. It's detrimental to the progress of knowledge. Green Rationalism is self-contradictory and we know this through postmodernism. It's detrimental to the progress of knowledge. Yellow Rationalism and postmodernism cannot be validated through a common method, but their utility can be applied towards a common goal.

I have no idea what the difference is between Ne and Ni. I've read atleast 10 explanations for it and I still don't understand the distinction. I primarily want specific real-life examples that can illustrate the differences rather than some more explanations (a way that I can create a picture in my mind of how it works). Thanks! :)))

That made no sense to me ngl

I did.

I could totally see why that is. I tend to lean towards INFP over INTP (Ne = Fi > Ti), and I think had no problems embracing the more obvious aspects of Green (feeling stuff). I still had this weird mental block from embracing it intellectually some years ago. It might be because I've always placed high value on thinking, objectivity and logic while trying to deny my feeling side (due to culture, upbringing), which tends to pull you back into small-minded rationalism. I was at that point at the very cusp of the alt-right pipeline (Thunderf00t, Sargon of Akkad, Atheism Is Unstoppable, Sam Harris, not quite Jordan Peterson or Ben Shapiro) which might've certainly contributed to that block. When I look back at that period, I always remember having an underlying feeling that the "SJWs" actually had their heart in the right place and that maybe I should've extended the courtesy of trying to see it from their perspective, but you know how echo-chambers work (it's hard to follow up on that intuition).

Is it that Ne is more multi-perspectival while Ni is more closeminded? If not, please elaborate?

One thing I find interesting is people who criticize MBTI by saying "I don't believe you can describe all the differences between people with only 16 personalities, but you do you", while at the same time having no problem with describing themselves using just a few words. I think it stems from a naive epistemic relationship to scientific models where confusion about utility and accuracy is the norm. People in that boat most likely believe that physics has basically gotten all the answers, just give it another 10-20 years. It's this attachment to the doctrine of logical positivism that elevates the natural sciences above everything else, and all things outside of that framework are seen as inferior and incomplete. In a sense, it's therefore actually liberating to see the limitations of all models, because then you actually come to appreciate a broader set of models.

I'm not so sure

Are you sure you're just acting?

One lens that can be useful in your situation is that science didn't really change - only your perception of it did. Going into science with your new perspective will make you a much better scientist.

Are you saying INTJ's are enlightened?

The only reason Walter wanted Gale to quit is because he recognized his brilliance and could foresee the fact that he was going to get replaced (Ni), which is why he wanted Jesse back

People can get allergic reactions to all types of medications.

Mindless neo-advaita platitudes are not useful for solving real-world problems.

You don't trust it when millions of people are going to get it? Well isn't that self-centered or what?