Carl-Richard

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?

Hahahahaha that's genius!

Orange on God: If God existed, he wouldn't let babies suffer and die. That is evil and unjust. Tier 2 on Orange's take on God: You can only place value judgements like "evil" and "unjust" on things like suffering and death from a very specific perspective of survival, in this case an anthropocentric and westernized perspective (as an example). That dying baby will feed billions of microorganisms and bacteria. Is that a bad thing? Obviously not for them. And is it necessarily bad for you? You cannot survive without microorganisms. Without death, the earth would be overpopulated, and then even more babies would suffer and die a horrible death. In many non-western cultures, death is seen as a much less threatening phenomena, which is often a result of recognizing its importance to the cyclical nature of life. Instead of asking "what is best for humanity?", maybe a better question could be "what is best for the whole?". Maybe that is God's perspective.

I said "that could be Blue aswell" to indicate that it does also happen at Red, just not for the same reasons. Red would be driven exclusively by individualism while Blue would be driven by collective values aswell. However, Facism and white supremacism is actually Blue at its core.