Joshe

You ever heard the phrase "You can't fix stupid"? Well, it's true, and there's more of them than there are of you. It has to fix itself by getting burnt for it's mistakes and coming to a better conclusion on its own. The best way to speed this up is to stop providing opportunity for stupid to double down and stop providing it with fresh outlets for its expression. In other words, there should be no trying to change stupid's mind. There should be no visible, hostile antagonist to stupid. This particular breed of stupid thrives on attention and identity building. If it were starved of attention in the political realm, it would find other things besides politics to focus on. In an ideal world, the left would wise up and realize this and work quietly in the shadows, but this is a fantasy. As such, there will be ideological wars and wars of identity, and as long as there are elites to exploit this, it means stupid wins more often than it should because it has numbers, momentum, and is easily exploited. So what do you do? I see no other way to beat stupid than to starve it out. Provide it no sustenance and no opportunity to gain ground. Bad systems collapse when they stop being rewarded. Here's what that would look like, per ChatGPT: Dont: Don’t expect widespread top-down change from reasoned argument or moral appeals. Don’t waste energy on ideological theater. Debates on social media aren’t the battleground that matters. Don’t flaunt your ideals like a badge or shove them into every conversation. Don’t try to convert everyone. Most people aren't open to new ideas until they feel the pain of their current one. Don’t rush to rescue when the consequences finally land. Don’t keep trying to prevent the fall—sometimes collapse is the lesson. Don’t confuse visibility with effectiveness. Don’t make your stand all about signaling virtue or intelligence. Do: Think “build a parallel operating system,” not “win an argument.” Refuse to be their enemy. That denies them a narrative to rally around. Starve them of attention. Let stupid scream into a void. Influence through example: Be effective, competent, grounded. Let the contrast speak for itself. Move resources behind the scenes: fund smart people, support well-designed platforms, build tools that scale truth quietly. Build real alternatives: community organizations, independent media, local power structures, education platforms. Create safety nets for the aftermath, not the prevention. You’re not trying to stop the pain—they need the burn to learn. Prepare to step in when stupid breaks its leg—not to say “I told you so,” but to lead better by example. Act on values, not applause. Say less, build more. Quiet confidence is harder to provoke—and harder to stop. "You don’t beat stupid by engaging it. You beat it by ignoring it, outlasting it, and building something it can’t reach. That’s the real revolution. It happens out of sight—and hits all at once when stupid finally runs out of road." I've seen this in my own life. I tried for many years to beat the stupid out of several people and it never works. They only start to catch on when you stop being antagonistic to their stupidity. It seems to take about 2-5 years before they start to come around. lol, but that's only if there is no antagonism. They will know there's unspoken antagonism, but that's actually an invisible whip that serves to bring them around sooner or later. It's actually a huge catalyst for their maturation. Quiet, subtle disapproval is surprisingly effective, but it requires patience. Let them sit with their own mess without giving them a scapegoat.

A large part of "this work" is to know thyself, which is no trivial task. Understanding how one's cognition operates is foundational to "this work". It's not only good for knowing oneself, but also others. If you were to forget about MBTI and ask yourself "Is fleshing out and defining cognitive patterns a useful endeavor?", the answer would be "if there actually are stable and consistent patterns, it could be very useful". Turns out, there are stable and consistent patterns that we can track. The whole point of psychoanalysis is to explore how and why your mind functions the way it does, usually with a goal to resolve a psychological problem via clarity of one's mentations, and their implications. Cognitive function theory can show you why those mentations are there and why they persist, which could aid in strategy for their removal or addition. Problems are perceived and dealt with differently by different cognitive configurations. Specific configurations can make specific problems more or less challenging. Knowing your cognition could aid you in finding the best path for verticality. It's a tool. The model should be used to build and fortify a foundation for verticality, not to lock oneself into the model.

haha, I ain't got the energy ATM.

It's more about the physical environment than people. It's just really easy to neglect the physical environment and hard to maintain it. I can spend two weeks getting everything in order but in 3 months, it'll be chaos again because I've gotten lost in my inner world. Makes me want to just throw everything in the trash. lol, but I know I'd regret it. I bought a shipping container to store all my shit in, thinking that would solve all my problems. Nope. That's now a disaster as well and none of my problems are solved. I'll get there!

And regarding verticality:

They are not structurally similar at all. I plugged your statement into ChatGPT and said "Is this correct?"

I understand your point, but you're wrong. I've watched the movie "23". I'm well aware of the mind's tendency to find patterns and the motivated reasoning it uses to add meaning to them. I'm very skeptical when patterns first emerge and I'm often the first one to call out bullshit patterns. Horoscopes and star signs are bullshit, from what I can tell. I've gone deep into the cognitive functions and confirmed the patterns are real. You could use the fallacy exemplified in the movie "23" to dismiss all patterns if you want.

@Natasha Tori Maru You might like Dear Kristen. She's an Aussie. This is one of her more serious videos but she does a lot of funny skit-style vids that I like.

It doesn't. To equate the functions with astrology and horoscopes is just proving you don't have a clue about the model. Most likely out of some groupthink, scientifically-dogmatic knee-jerk rejection of the model and/or just not being aware of the foundation it's built on. You are likely operating on the flawed notion of the 4-letter dichotomies. In that case, you're absolutely right. MBTI is an absolutely bullshit model if that's all you know about it.

For example: You have to ignorant of the model to say it's mostly useless. https://1lib.sk/book/2632202/5e45bf/psychological-types.html

You're wrong bro. Until you do a deep dive into Jung's cognitive functions, you're just speaking out of your ass. You're rejecting the entire foundation of Jungian cognitive functions, seemingly without knowing it. The whole point is to show patterns of cognition. Do you think patterns of cognition do not exist? Do some people have a natural tendency for abstract thought while others, more concrete? Do some people have more mastery over the physical world than others? Do some people value social harmony more than others? If the answer to these is “yes”, which is obvious, then we’re already talking about stable cognitive tendencies. When you look at those tendencies in clusters, patterns emerge. That’s what Jung did, which is what MBTI is built on. If you explore it in earnest, you might actually learn something. I have an ISTJ mom. If you go read the description of an ISTJ, you will know more about my mom than she does, without ever having met her. You will know she religiously adheres to self-imposed routines, does not like abstract thought, and hates change and spontaneity. Because that's how ISTJs are. How is it the ISTJ description explains her to a T? Patterns bro. These behaviors and preferences cluster for a reason and they offer a ton of explanatory power. If you can’t see the utility in that, the limitation is in you, not the model.

Yes, it's not as awesome as the descriptions make it seem. My energy is definitely dwindling with age. I've accepted my poor social skills. As for going out, I partied my ass off in my teens and 20s and got more than my fill of social games. I moved around a good bit and always wound up in a group of friends, but I don't enjoy that anymore, so now, like you say, I'm holed up in a box. As far as protecting ourselves from physical agression, I found out early I couldn't fight worth a fuck. lol, so I have to be careful not to be confrontational to the wrong person. Many "alpha male" types feel threatened by me for some reason and try to start shit, even if I never speak to them. That's another problem solved just by not going out. Many problems solved by not going out. For me, physical world and social games are the Achilles' heel. I used to work construction and I had a serious problem with remembering where I put things in the physical world. I can remember where things are placed internally, but not externally. That's probably my biggest complaint with this condition. It's too easy to neglect the physical world for too long and then it all comes crashing down like a huge wave of overwhelm. The thing I like best about it is the fierce independence. Like, I don't need anything outside myself to be happy, except for an efficient and rejuvenating physical environment. Also, there has always been a strong internal locus of control and when I want something, I can work endlessly for it, nose to the grindstone. It sometimes feels neurotic but I'm fine with the tradeoffs. I'll take it over some time-wasting Fe bullshit... I just wish the physical world wasn't so difficult to manage.

Yeah, good point. It’s like there’s some deep, deep well of emotion we have to keep down. I once tripped on psychedelics and that mother fucker came wide open. Lol. It was the best. I literally felt a flood of heavy shit just streaming out of my chest like a beam. Something serious is buried deep. Probably trauma. Lol.

😂

@Natasha Tori Maru Yeah, there are problems with using ChatGPT for typing. You’re welcome! Yeah, the way you want to help others by skipping over all the feels and getting right to the solution is Te. Lol. It’s funny. It presents as odd to people. Like, they can sense that I care deeply about their problem but I’m only interested in connecting with them logically, strategically, searching for clarity and a path forward. Classic Ni-Te. That’s just how we “connect” I guess. I’ve wondered if this is some sort of a defense mechanism to keep emotional flood gates closed. Yeah, a lot of the INTJ personality descriptions are like fluff-pieces. When lots of people read it, they say “I’m that one!” because the type does contain virtues most people would like to embody. Ni provides vision and direction, Te analyzes and calculates how to get there, and Fi stands for something and will stand all by itself if it must. I never let the fluff pieces go to my head but there is some truth to it. Doesn’t make us special, just different. And we still have many shortcomings, obviously. I never really felt better or superior to anyone, just very different. Learning about my type explained a lot. 2-3% of the population are INTJ, so realizing that and the difference in cognition has helped me to accept myself and others. Most people IRL see me as ‘weird’, so being and INTJ isn’t anything glamorous, lol, that’s for sure. Yeah, Joyce is a good resource, as is personality hacker. And yes, text is different than speaking off the cuff but unless you’re very fragmented, I don’t see how you could hide your type for very long. But maybe some types are just easier to peg than others. I haven’t gone deep on all the types. You might also like “Love who” and Frank James. Frank James is mostly funny skits but you can pickup a lot from them.

Nice! Your prompt is too scientific for my taste. 😆 I actually just gave the deep researcher my profile link and told it to analyze 200 posts/comments to figure out my type based on cognitive functioning and it did really well. The only rule I gave it was to ignore any post about where the user mentions their own personality traits and ignore any MBTI claims the user has made. It seems to work pretty good out of the box by having it focus specifically on cognitive functions instead of MBTI. Still not sure how accurate it is for other people though. I just tested i on @Nemra. Nemra, ChatGPT analyzed your posts and says you're an INTP. Here's the results. https://chatgpt.com/share/6862fb68-6880-8010-9944-596af7ca8ec1

Might as well not even bother waking up. Lol.

I noticed the larger and more complex a set of instructions, the more it will fail for any given instruction. AI seems to be good at adhering to a few complex instructions, but once you add more than 5 or so, it starts to fail, IME. I wonder if a better approach is to instead of letting AI use it's own knowledge, define heuristics for each type and have it check against that. Something like: Dominant characteristics of an INTP: Internal logic focus – prioritizes internal consistency and logical coherence over external rules System-builder mindset – loves building internal frameworks, models, or taxonomies Truth over efficiency – values what is logically correct, not necessarily what’s useful or practical Detaches from emotion – separates logic from personal feeling to maintain objectivity Highly analytical – breaks down ideas to their core components Skeptical and critical – naturally questions assumptions, especially broad generalizations Precision-driven – prefers clarity, specificity, and refined definitions Slow to speak, quick to refine – may take longer to reach conclusions but seeks intellectual purity Personal logic – doesn’t blindly accept external systems (like laws, traditions, or consensus) Private problem-solving – works things out internally, often without expressing the full process aloud But this too would probably be too comprehensive for AI to manage well. Now I'm thinking, come up with heuristics for how each type tends to communicate, because that's essentially what is being tracked, and that would be much simpler for AI to manage. Something like: So for example, if someone is often talking about the future or doing things now for the future and if they don't soften their critiques, and if they're usually very direct, this would point to an INTJ. I think simple heuristics like this could work with a large enough sample size, and it probably wouldn't even have to be that large. So if someone has this communication pattern: oftens clarifies terms, often questions assumptions, and is less concerned with social niceties, it's a good bet they're INTP. I'm thinking 5 communication patterns per type should suffice. Maybe even add style and trait heuristics as well, but maybe would have to be careful not to overwhelm the AI. Maybe what types of conversations they typically engage in, are they more scientific or spiritual, abstract vs concrete, degree of politeness, what topics they're passionate about and what they tend to defend, how careful do they write, etc. I think heuristics like this could be very efficient if used well. Like, if someone doesn't give a fuck about using proper grammar, that simple heuristic could be high-leverage. I bet there are some very specific high-leverage patterns you could flesh out so that two or 3 alone could get you most of the way. This would be very efficient, but maybe too optimistic. Also, a 2-step process seems good. Maybe first have it run your initial prompt and then use the results from that to confirm with the heuristics analysis.

Cool idea. One problem I ran into when working with ChatGPT and MBTI is, ChatGPT’s MBTI knowledge is too intertwined with internet lore - it hasn’t been sufficiently trained on MBTI. Your prompt would probably produce mostly accurate results but ChatGPT would still make critical errors at a significant rate. Also, if it reads a post where someone claims to be ENTP, it might just lazily conclude that claim is true. Getting the prompt right is difficult.

Aspiration does drive change. What is more dominant than aspiration?

😂

Or living up to an ideal becomes the prize, and when others live up to it, it’s a reminder that you’re not. I “should” be this good. I “should” reach mastery.

I was speaking to the perspective that conveniently didn’t account for it. But yeah, exactly. There’s a lot of room for growth. Effort, if applied, could improve things bigly.