nitramadas

Gura was bad enough, anyone calling himself a Guru is sure to be full of shit.. lol

Well obviously.. Just like you have "innocent until proven guilty", you can't start off with a crazy assumption like Karma. lol, what a dumb name tho.. Just googled Karma with a h and you WON'T BELIEVE IT... It came up with a salad. lmao,

You can never know the source of the data you receive, if you e.g. feel connected to people in some way, how can you know if it's actually some metaphysical connection of something imagined? You can gather evidence, but never know for certain. Everything is part of infinity. If you experienced something that wasn't, then it would've had to come from some other infinity.. except there can only be one infinity. So there's infinity, and then there's it being aware of itself—or its capacities to be aware of itself. When we say "God", unless you subscribe to some religious belief, we're generally referring to this awareness itself. Life typically involves getting immersed in some specific role; believing you're the character you're playing as is the norm. Becoming God is realizing you're actually some guy looking at a screen and holding a controller in his hands. But it's also realizing that this guy is actually the screen and the controller itself. It's just that instead of looking at a monitor of a certain type, of a certain resolution, etc., and being able to move your head back and notice the bezels of the monitor, it's like you're directly plugged in, seamlessly, so you have to work harder to realize this is all data. When people are born, they have to "learn" that this is their arm, this is their leg, doing this hurts them, etc., and they start believing that the body is them. The reason I'm pointing this out is because it's pretty simple to learn to ignore this conditioning. You may think you're deluding yourself, but believing you're the body is a pretty big assumption/delusion too. If we start with no assumptions at all, all you're left with is your experience. That's all there is. Just data in the formats you're capable of interpreting it in. You don't need to think/theorize/believe/feel anything, in fact, the only way you could deceive yourself would be by doing those things. If you can realize that you're just "the capacity to experience", and let go of what makes you human, you'll notice that universal constant that everyone shares. It's like how you can bond with people over shared interests, shared lineage, shared tastes, etc., you just both need to share x to understand each other at level x. If two people have nothing in common, they may still share the same language and can find some common ground. The absolute lowest level we ever go down is consciousness, that's why we can still feel a connection to animals. It's something we share with them. When you become God, your connections at this level strengthen, not weaken. (I should say: No one fully understand this. I've just got a decade of thinking/reading/listening from many sources & like to give perspectives no one else will. This was a very basic overview and I left the most interesting, but incomplete, ideas out. I should have all the details definitively figured out within.. 20 years or so..)

Your personality is just as much part of reality as everything else. Just as real as everything else. ..which is not very.. but it's as real as it gets. If it's part of infinity, it's you.

And what happens when all the men that had urges to "abuse young girls" but were satisfied with porn lose access to porn? Only like 0.001% of potential offenders act on their urges. If you take away their porn, they will find other ways of relieving themselves. What is it doing to the "boys"? I've heard pretty much every argument; I still don't see this as black and white. Testosterone levels peak around 7 days after fapping, after which they slowly start dropping (yes, no fap is retarded). And how do these "boys" discover their personal tastes when they just wanna fuck anything that walks? "Oh, but Nitramadas! Isn't that a wonderful thi–" NO IT'S FUCKING NOT! That's why >95% of people have have a shitload of poor quality genes. You fuck a 4/10, you have 4/10 kids ..fine, 4.1/10 kids. But the only reason you'd fuck a 4/10 is if you've got no access to porn and have no standards.. you just wanna fuck! We NEED people to suffer these dire consequences of p-pporn! We NEED them to lose all interest in locals and move to Japan after witnessing the wonders of Japanese porn. Fucking a 10/10 and having kids is the best thing any human can do for the race. We should definitely NOT be encouraging standards to drop, as this sort of complacency literally translates to higher rates of inbreeding due to . Disclaimer: I really don't care, I just debate.. With advances in research like CRISPR-Cas9 gene editing it's only a temporary issue anyway.

You seem to be thinking that a person is just one single thing. That if a person = x, he can't be y. There's nothing stopping me from adopting a new religion every day, or every hour. People aren't fixed, not even for a second. The whole idea of you being you only works in a limited capacity, it's just a necessity for person-to-person interaction and should not be confused with reality. You're someone else every nanosecond, it's just that we ignore such detail. Without memory, this concept may be easier to understand. If some part of him doesn't believe in this "God", why would that matter? Becoming god just means letting go of your delusions, regardless of what they are. If you've put a label on yourself, be it "atheist" or "non-atheist", you're gonna have to drop them. DMT makes it very clear you're not some single thing. Whatever you believe becomes irrelevant at higher doses as it all just melts away; you're not even able to understand that you're human. Such experiences can make you completely transcend your humanity, along with everything you know. Does that answer your question?

lol, I just found that weirdly funny.. Well you've come to the right forum. To make this quick, I'll give just one piece of advice: Aim higher. Don't aim for "ordinary happiness", aim to become fully enlightened. Aim to become a billionaire if that's what you want, and know it will happen. Aim SO fucking high that nothing else matters if you achieve it, making the future over-compensate for the past. If Jeff Bezos had a shitty childhood, if he missed out on drinking in his youth, you think he'd care about that now? Being in his position, would you now be thinking those childhood years were not worth it?

Semantics. Word it properly and the answer becomes obvious. If someone asked me that, I'd just say "what do you mean?" and they'd tell me what they meant, and I'd easily answer it. I'd say "what made climbing Everest fun?" They might then say "I rather enjoyed the spectacle at rainbow valley, such vibrance!" In which case I might say "Well.. I know a place". Now, if you meant that purely metaphorically, trying to say "What's next after the best thing?": Humans are not so algorithmic. There is no goal/purpose; there is no one thing to achieve. Your question assumes that the climber is just a climber. That's a red herring. Umm.. how far has he come to mastering the piano? Mastering music theory? Plumbing? His identity as a climber may die, having achieved its goal, but that's irrelevant as he's not a climber, he's human. Life is the birth and death of your many sides. He could also just continue climbing, either for the same reasons or not. Maybe he liked the process itself, in which case it doesn't matter if he's already climbed Everest, he never cared about the height in the first place. If he did climb it for the height, there are easier ways to get high.. or he could just pivot to a new approach for his mountain obsession and.. become a geologist or something? It all depends on the climbers motivations, as I mentioned at the start.

Considering it's unlikely you're still a child (with your 2k posts on here), I'd say there's less than a 0.1% chance your type changed. Considering you rely on "tests", your understanding of the model is unlikely to be advanced at all. I'd say there's around a ~99% chance you mistyped at some point. T vs A is so subjective and simple.. Just read the descriptions and you'll immediately know yours FOREVER! (not that it's a credible enough to matter much) ISFJ = SiFeTiNe ISFP = FiSeNiTe Using the letters alone is fine, to an extent (e.g. with Keirsey), but you will never switch from SiFeTiNe to FiSeNiTe. The only thing that could've changed is the development of one of your weaker functions, OR you've switched from/to using your unconscious side. But both normally require years, so you probably just mistyped.

I love to argue! Though, by "argue" I mean "debate in a friendly and civilized fashion" : ) You refer to this as a "non-dual" forum. That's what I assumed it was, too, when I joined. It's actually ~50% about "stage Orange achieving success"; ~35% Green ideas about spirituality; ~15% other. Just pointing that out as it's easy to misunderstand this place when coming from videos on non-duality. Actualized was (and maybe still is) a "get your ass to the gym!"; "If you're not rich, you've only got yourself to blame!" type of channel, originally. This forum hasn't fundamentally changed since those days. It can be, in theory, but that only really applies to upper Turquoise. Complete mastery of emotion and zero attachment to egoic desires are pre-requisites for what you describe. Eg. if x makes you happy → someone gives you x → they take x away → you suffer. If you eg. wanna play video games, that's fine, but if losing access to video games causes "boredom", that's not an expression of your happiness/excitement for video games, that's an egoic pull towards satisfying some need. Unless you've already spent a good chunk of time in Turquoise, you'll be getting "needs" outside of your control. You'll justify them as they arise at random with superficial logic, and say something like "boredom = incentive to play", thinking no more of it. And why would you? The ego gives every incentive to avoid going towards the pain.. Though, it's simple really. Just ask yourself: Would you be able to go without x, forever? And I don't mean deciding: "I'll put some effort in for y months, and then I can relax" but: "I can live like this, or under any other conditions for trillions of trillions of trillions of years". Would someone without fear, someone who can live unconditionally, have trouble with this? Would someone with conditions/requirements have trouble with this? Enlightenment is kinda like receiving an unconditional offer to study what you always wanted at a top university, except, to be given an unconditional offer at the top "quality of life" institution, you have to be the one to give it to yourself, you're the only one who can. If you, instead, say: "In life, I have to be entertained at all times; all my needs must be met.." You're only giving yourself a conditional offer, and, if you don't start doing well enough academically, well, I'm sure there are plenty of perfectly nice local trade schools for you to choose from.. So, sure, you don't have to be content with simply nothing, you can continue to have strict requirements for what's needed for you to be happy, but your quality of life will be severely limited in comparison to what it could be otherwise. If you want the biggest selection of games to choose from, you're gonna need 'em quad-SLI® RTX™ 3090 Ti™s, you know what i'm sayin? I mean, even if you don't wanna play Watchdogs™, having a good setup is always nice and opens up possibilities. You could even say you can play.. unconditionally. I sure do hope you know what I am saying : ) ..as I've already written too much.. wish people could give me more concise questions..

Umm, you do realize boredom and irritation are literally fear? The present moment is pure existence. If you're feeling bored, that's an egoic response to fear. It mostly happens subconsciously and you aren't aware of this. Why would you want to be rid of boredom? What if you had to endure it for millions of years? The desire to be rid of it is a desire for change.. I left a deduction in my initial post. You really do have deduce, can't just stop at the first emotion.

I see you failed to understand what I was trying to say.. Of course, I did not mean that literally. But since I have to spell it out now, what I meant was: "become comfortable with discomfort". If you're comfortable doing x, but not y, then learn to be comfortable doing y. You don't have to literally do y, but you do have to be aware of your discomfort for y, and work towards no longer having this discomfort. You just have to reach the point where you could do y (e.g. you could go homeless) and be 100% fine with that. If you can't do that, then you've identified an egoic limitation. It's that simple. I didn't think it's such a difficult concept to grasp so I didn't bother spelling it out initially and went for a more attention-grabbing approach, as I tend to do. I'm still waiting on your "very good advice".

Have you not seen the video on Green? Most of your points make it seem like you haven't studied SD much. You think Greens are incapable of self-deception and falling for beliefs? You think SJWs / anti-SJWs are Blue? What about the "Black Lives Matter" thing? The "veganism movement" falls under the same category. Yes it is. It doesn't get any more basic than this. Green is one and only stage which sees injustice, becomes convinced of its perspective that this is wrong, and thinks fighting back will fix the issue. You see, Yellow would be far more interested in finding the root cause of the issue. Turquoise wouldn't even see injustice as an issue. Orange would not care enough. Blue would typically side with the greater power, e.g. do nothing, or say the police/politicians will take care of it. No, this is about human rights. Are you telling me you think Orange is more anti-authority and pro-freedom than Green? Orange wants to play within the system to win. Green wants to tear the system down, even if it hurts itself by doing so. Yes it is. You think Green sees both sides? Sees the full picture? If it did it wouldn't be Green, it would be Yellow. Green would, for example, want people to stop using planes (for environmental reasons); would slow the world economy down to a fraction in a misguided attempt to slow climate change; would travel in a yacht rather than a plane to make a point; etc. Whereas Yellow would, instead, see that maybe we need to pollute even more! ..if that means faster technological progress which results in us having real solutions sooner. Yellow thinks strategically and understands the importance of balance. Green just gets angry at what it perceives to be the problem and demonizes it. Yes, Greta Thunberg is the perfect example of Green. ..wtf On top of all I said above, an interest in capitalism and companies starts at Orange. When you imagine an ordinary, Blue primary school teacher, you see someone who's up to date with the latest business news? Knows the difference between Apple/Google/Microsoft? Knows who their CEOs are? Apple does all it can to attract Greens, because they can. Greens know what Apple does, so Apple makes an effort for them. Apple makes no special effort for Blue though, as Blue doesn't know shit. Blue only cares that it's popular. That's it. (Orange cares about what they get from Apple and how their products may elevate their social status.) If you're gonna challenge me, please try a little harder.. this is getting boring. Are you saying equality, sharing, service to the community, etc. are "Clearly a Blue thing"? You seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of every stage, I'm afraid.. Blue is all about hierarchy and sacrificing yourself for it. If you don't do your part, you're just seen as a "loser" by Blue. Blue is like a kid that's been yelled at by a parent for "running outside" and now feels "bad", and when he later sees another kid getting yelled at for the same thing says: "haha you got yelled at by mom!". Blue doesn't care about the reasons behind things or if they're just or not, solely "are you following the rules?". To Blue, simply following the rules is a big achievement worthy of respect. That is, generally, their motivation. Green wouldn't see a homeless person as a loser who's worthless to society, it would see him as someone in need. Anyone who disrespects people in need would be seen as a heartless, awful human being. Make sense now? Oh yeah.. cause Blue is known for its obsession with yoga, crystals, meditation, chakras, kundalini, awakening, enlightenment, etc. Just type in "energy healing" on YouTube and listed to all those Blues.. .. Yeah Green totally doesn't care about spiritual branding and is very analytical about all claims from spiritual gurus. I couldn't imagine a Green being told that Pranayama will raise their kundalini and them just doing Pranayama as instructed, without any further research. Greens always get to the bottom of the issue and find the fundamental mechanisms at play. lol, what's even the point of Yellow? ..the news. Well, I hope this was educational for you, it's as if you only discovered SD no more than a week ago. Please do a bare minimum amount of research before starting a debate. This was not worth my time. lol, no. Since you've probably never heard this before: "One of the most common traps people make in SD is seeing themselves as 2 stages above where they actually are". Even if a Green doesn't see himself as 2 stages higher, he will be blind to Turquoise and believe it's the same as Green, just "more sparkly" or "more mystical" or "just an older Green". This is the SD forum, after all. The one and only in existence (.. + an Orange "success" forum). Whatever people ask me about is what I speak. See, you're doing it now too.. That's because there is no dedicated Tier 2 board on here. If I write from T2, it's gonna sound weird to T1. I prefer writing from T2. I've explained in more depth in other threads, if you need a thorough explanation I need a concise question. Yep, making all this 100% relevant.

Hmm, that does sound temping.. I explained more thoroughly in that massive post above. I can explain anything in as much detail as you need. Question quality/conciseness is important. And.. wow, you seem much more vibrant, less Orange compared to my recent conversations. : ) Seeing flaws comes first. That's how you know what questions to ask. I've studied a lot of them; still do. "objectivepersonality" Hmm, that does sound familiar for some reason.. Integral theory? You mean this? http://kosmosaicbooks.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/spiral_dynamics_aqal_BIG.jpg According to this, I'm just another pathetic, commoner ..Turquoise. I'll investigate the link later.

You seem to be forgetting what I said. iirc, you yourself said you go by the "vibe" to figure out the type. The vibe isn't the function-based model, it's its own thing. Trying to make everything fit to the functions isn't some "true" way to type. Just like language evolves, so do models and everything else. Regardless how it was originally intended to be used, people have learned to make use of the 4 letter system; now it's a coherent model of its own. If someone can reliably make use of this "misunderstanding" of the original model, it's valid. Whether they can be considered to coexist as part of the same overarching model is a whole other discussion, but to quickly determine if someone's more sensing or intuiting it can be useful. I'll also point out that there is a need for such a model. Psychological models are, generally, too esoteric for the general population; a low barrier to entry is important. You seem to hold bias against 16personalities.com, believing that the more obscure, lesser-known models are inherently superior. ALL models are still highly theoretical and young; discriminating like this isn't helpful. And no, my understanding isn't "shaped by 16personalities.com" it is, however, influenced by relevant data I've accumulated over the years from all sorts of sources. There's value in everything, and any model that's coherent is worth investigating. If 16personalities is able to model people consistently, it's not without value. Did I dismiss how functions work? I was just making a simple point that the fact the INTJ & INTP types don't share any functions doesn't necessarily mean anything; and the fact they are both INTx may hold more weight than whatever your reasoning for incompatibility was. The more detail you ask for, the lower the probability of being right. I identify strongly with "INTP" as I identify with what those letters stand for, as well as the MBTI descriptions (& the hundreds of personal descriptions) I've read. I also identify with the MBTI functions of INTP. BUT.. I identify with every description of INTp too, even though according to the functions I should be an INTj. (Which, if I was , I'd be an INTj-Ne, which I thought for a while, but then remembered that a while back I decided to ignore the trite advice of INTP to INTj conversion.) What I'm saying is, human understanding of psychology isn't advanced enough to pin point functions to that degree of accuracy. When you consider the fact that the Socionics system is superior, yet the MBTI system also seems valid, and then that Socionics introduces two subtypes of different levels each, and that there are other interpretations of subtypes, and that you'd have to take into account how the functions from MBTI would impact your results, and which system is more worthy of being given bigger weight in the final conclusion.. Do you somehow combine them? Throw one out? How did you decide that this version of this near identical dichotomy is superior than that of MBTI's? It would take 10000+ words for me to make a short, comprehensive analysis, taking into account every model and their subjective interpretations to give an adequate answer. Yet you're so quick to decide I simply "don't understand the system". There is no definitive system.. not yet. I understand the functions well enough. Maybe you're not aware, but there is no universally accepted interpretation of I vs E or J vs P.. The systems have many subtle differences between them. It's not like there's anything special about MBTI functions, they're about as reliable as the 4-letter-only system, just more ambitious and take 100x longer to properly learn. Huh? How is your "openness" / "agreeableness" / etc. the same as MBTI? Are you trying to say they're run by the same company or something? Ugh.. Did you end up taking that literally?! You see, types are extremely unlikely to change. So INTJ will not evolve into an INTP, correct. BUT, if you read between the lines a little.. someone who matches the description of "goal focused; judging; quick to reach a conclusion; has strong fixed opinions about everything" may becomes less so. A stereotypical INTJ can become less stereotypical. In other words, more in line with the behavior commonly associated with INTP. Did I say they were arbitrary? I actually don't recall.. But yes, in a way they are. There are a number of different ways you could divide up cognitive functions, though I think this may be a Yellow level ability.. (Radical relativity / multi-perspectival-intuition). A very rough example: There's the left, logical brain; there's the right, creative brain. ^ That's a cognitive function model. A very very simple one, but if there's nothing else, it does a good job. You have 4 brains: The head; the heart; the stomach; the.. ^ Can you imagine someone ever reducing the human body to just those 4 parts? Any reason they would do that? Slightly more advanced and less common: The 5 Types of imagination: Centred; Uncentred; Referenced; Fixed; Fired This was then developed into further sub-categories of: Strongly or Weakly Centred/Referenced/Fixed And Quickly or Slowly Fired. Uncentred is just its own, self-explaining type. Imagination is always either centred or uncentred, and can have any combination of the other types. Can you figure out what each type might mean? ^ a quote to slow you down.. So did you figure it out? Of course, I just made all that up. It's all complete BS. Except it's not. You could legitimately make use of that BS model I just made. If you couldn't think of a use for each and every one of those types of imagination.. I'm sorry.. You've got.. a low IQ. Some random text for.. reasons. ^ a quote to slow you down. To all the lurkers reading this.. That above.. was a joke. No need to report me.. Erm.. D-Did you even study intertype relationships? The existence of identical, comparative and mirror type relationships disagrees with you. They're some of the most compatible relationship types and it's all thanks to FunctionSharing™. The only types more compatible are dual and semi-dual, but there's only 2 in total. That's evolution. Jung was wrong about many things, you could find many examples if you felt like looking. Depends on your interpretation of "judging". Pretty accurate ime. 1. That's purely your misinterpretation of what I meant. 2. That's your interpretation and belief. If an axe was made for chopping trees, people using it to kill doesn't make it "the wrong way to use it". Especially if there's now generations of axe killers who've adapted it continually for what they do. I mean, this is simple evolution stuff.. Like in my model examples, it's just a simpler version that has its use. I can almost immediately tell at least 2 letters from anyone, accurately. If you only use functions, you'd probably just not bother working anyone out as it's orders of magnitude more demanding and time consuming. T-That's what you're doing with functions! You're like someone who's found my "imagination model" and think's it's profound. Models and theory won't help be grow much. That's only really useful for pre-Yellow. I just really love figuring stuff like this out! Yes, I sound arrogant a lot on this forum; I have no intention of "acting" or avoiding investigating whatever I feel like because of imaginary social expectations. I try to be an example to all. Everyone seems too anxious and serious about everything. Someone has to be the balance. I want others to be be unfiltered. If you don't, you have to ask "why do I want people to be filtered?". I just want a world in which everyone's genuine, and no matter what anyone talks about, unconditional love is always assumed. This how you be part of the solution. Projecting? Unfiltered Yellow = spontaneous/random objectivity & truth. Not everyone likes that. I treat everyone like Yellow. I've no reason to do otherwise. There is little point in entertaining Orange conversations I find, but I do like testing myself and do enjoy using the intellect to an extent. "The standard for worth" Hmm, that's a nice way to word it. I'm not new to SD, the novelty wore off long ago.. Being Yellow / Turquoise doesn't excite me or anything. It's just that it's, basically, impossible that I'm anything lower than Yellow, by any standard. You may interpret my actions as arrogant, that's fine. I remember being at all the stages, from Yellow/lower-Turquoise down to Beige, I remember being you. : ) ..weird of you to say. Love (づ｡◕‿‿◕｡)づ

An uncharacteristically good title question. I love threads that make me think!.. : ) *Ahem* *Clears throat* Ok, got an answer: Fear is who wants to awaken. Deduction: Desire to awaken ← Desire for positive change ← Desire for no suffering ← Suffering ← Fear/Belief ⇿ Limitations Fear = Awareness of fear. (Awareness is the same as existence). Fear is the motivation behind the desire for change. You are aware of fear = You are the fear. You want death (as you're fear, the motivation for its own death). Death = Awakening. Without limitations, there could be no fear as you could make yourself feel as happy as you wanted. But the Limitations themselves don't cause you to do/feel anything, they just enable fear. To lose suffering you could lose your limitations, the only other way would be to lose the fear response you have to those limitations. So, you as your limitations want to die, but only because of the fear. Kill the fear, and the limitations don't matter anymore. You could say the problem is the limitations OR the fear. Both equally valid, but the requirement for life is that you choose the latter.

I'm sure you already know. I've probably already said, or maybe not.. don't recall.

Should put the quote at the top, wasn't sure who you're referring to at first. I realized it sounds a bit Blue at the time, but decided to post it anyway as it does describe Green very accurately and it's good to remind people that Green can look Blue at times. This isn't even an edge-case or anything. You see, Green tends to believe things like: Veganism will save the world. We must protest if we want change! All drugs should be legal, it's your body, do what you want man! Companies are greedy and evil, if they only gave back to the public.. If you support [insert company here] you're evil! If you're not far-left, you're dead to me. "My Online-Guru-Prahamahalashamaganayalamaya said this crystal will clear me of all toxins! Isn't that cool! "I read a FaceBook post that this Ancient-Chinese-Himalayan-Dragon-Natural-Mineral-Mountain-Super-Tea will open my Chakras!" "Hey, guys, wanna go 5G-mast hunting this weekend? I hear them waves block your chakras!" .. what? ir = infra red? "infra red is literally the color of relativism?" (Why do I even bother with these low-effort posts..) Yeah, like I said above. Overly credulous. Believe it or not, even I used to be Green back in the day.. : ) You guy are the most ★~(◠﹏◕✿) stage.

You mean this? It's more than a little arbitrary and Ken has a some questionable ideas about SD. E.g. like a bunch of non-sensical stages above Turquoise. Morality? Aesthetics? Kinesthetics? You might as well just list like 1000 different things in there. And it's not like Aesthetics is something everyone's gonna develop. And then there's 100s of different types of aesthetics.. It should not be be considered as part of the model. Even if you decided you're gonna track the SD of all your hobbies, how is that even SD anymore? It's just a completely arbitrary ranking system. Each SD stage has a complex set of connotations. E.g. Yellow is multi-perspectival and is able to understand all the stages below it. How tf would you apply that to the evolution of your ..K/D ratio in CoD Cold War? Sure you could rank it some way, but you couldn't just apply stages with their connotations. The SD stages have evolved to have a primary definition of "level of awareness", at least imo, but not just that, all the connotations too. Not sure what I missed.. Yeah, through INTP thinking habits tend to not be dissimilar to Yellow's. INTP = tries to understand the big picture, how things work just for its own sake. Yellow = tries to understand the big picture, how things work just for its own sake. Except that INTP on its own makes no guarantees of objectivity/wisdom/quality/multi-perspective/etc. Yellow, in every personality, guarantees: Seeing many perspectives, spiral wizardry, theorizing, intuition, making connections between seemingly unrelated things, seeing the big picture, etc. hah, that's pretty funny. Confirms my suspicions from previous reply. Don't forget Ken's best SD catchphrase: "Transcend and include". I included Green years ago. To those who've not yet gotten past the GreenGate™ / GreenBarrier, anything past Green will remind them of Green. So, 2 stages up tends to look like your own stage, e.g. Yellow look like Orange to Orange, Turquoise looks like Green to Green.. But since the, aforementioned, Ken'sLaw is in effect: To Orange, Yellow will seem the same as itself + Green. Yellow is like a more refined Orange, so it's easy for Orange to not see anything different and just see itself when seeing a Yellow's Yellowness, but the the Green halfway between Orange and Yellow is not as easy to ignore and stands out. Potentially confusing the Orange, not knowing just what the hell it is they're seeing. If an Orange sees a Green, it's simple, as they can brush them off as either a Blue or a Green, nothing of interest. But a Yellow, to Orange, just seems like a confusing Orange, but maybe still an Orange. To Green, Turquoise looks like itself, another Green. Turquoise is like a more refined Green, so Greens often mistake Turquoises for themselves. But that Yellow in between Green and Turquoise stands out. The only way Green can describe this Yellow thing is as "Orange", as they've not yet learned the difference between Orange and Yellow. "H-Hey! I was expecting to see Green [Turquoise], what is this.. Light-Orange? [Yellow] thing in the way?" lol. Yeah, I'm sure. I've had a bunch of mini-enlightenment experiences and have done psychedelics dozens of times. I know what Turquoise feels like. In response to your next question: Yes, they actually do work if you're bordering Tier 2. I've had periods of weeks where I seemed to be defaulting to Turquoise. With and without psychedelics. And I feel I can drop into it (or what I can only describe as Turquoise) almost whenever I want. That involves dropping all ego and most of what I consider my "humanity". It can take a few minutes, and my subconscious has to also be in agreement with the decision. I don't do it often though, as whenever I do I can't interact with anyone for maybe an hour. This also tends to bring on intense euphoria at the back of my mouth; I get an intense urge to spasm/roll on the floor; intense urge to shout with all I have with that euphoria feeling. Just thinking about it now I have to be careful not to bring it on by accident.. They don't reveal everything. Like in the example I gave, if it's called a judging type, but it's not a judging type, that's a problem. Like it or not, it's evolved as 2 separate models. 1. "Basically meaningless names that refer to functions" e.g. Ixxx = introverted extravert who's an introverted extravert when condition x½³ = true, but when N J, x+=x³..— might as well just give it a whole new name. It's a mess. 2. Ixxx = More introverted than extroverted. xNxx = more intuitive than sensing. xxTx = more reliant on thinking than feeling. xxxp = more exploration focused than achievement focused Years ago, when I first discovered MBTI, I just assumed there's only system 2 like everyone else, and rightly so, ambiguity shouldn't be allowed, that's the assumption I expect everyone to have made upon first discovering MBTI, that's the intuitive way it should work, after all. I had to research Socionics in depth before discovering the 4 letters are pretty much meaningless for telling you the functions, unless you've memorized the code. The weird thing is: Using system 2, my accuracy is still extremely high. I am more I than E, more N than S, more T than F, more P than J. Then try to figure it out by functions, and I get the exact same result. Also, I've noticed, every single S type bores me (compared to their N counterparts). Every F type has that specific F vibe. Every J type has that J vibe.. I sometimes check the functions, and somehow I'm always right using a system that, supposedly, shouldn't work. You didn't like how I compared INTP to INTJ as they "have no functions in common", so I gave an example of a type with every single INTP function, just in a different order. Although the priorities are different, they should still be able to understand one another, right? Well that doesn't work. The other example I gave sharing the two strongest functions, sure they're flipped, but how many types, if any, would be more similar? They should at least understand one another, right? NeTi vs TiNe, they both use the Ti and the Ne functions extensively, right? Some degree of mutual understanding? Well, no. And TiSe is even worse than those two, being heavily Sensing. So who would I have something in common with? ime, it's been INTx types, yet, according to the functions, that's impossible.. Umm, F, S, and E types are gonna have a weaker intellect. Can you really deny that? Ok, thinking types are gonna be better at thinking, can everyone agree that's just an indisputable fact? Would it be an insult to the thinking types to say that the feeling types are better at feeling AND thinking (which they don't even engage in as much)? S vs N: Depends if you value understanding and seeing the big picture as more valuable than being good with attention to detail. It's really down to lab technician / scientist / mechanic / data analyst vs CEO / revolutionary scientist / car designer / revolutionary data analyst / genius.. I vs E: Do you come up with ideas yourself and see future trends before they even happen? Or do you see what's popular, bounce ideas off of others, and decide on the outcome based on people's responses? I hope you enjoyed my completely unbiased compassion, may it help inform your opinions. lmao. Did you forget it's called "16 Personalities"? Big 5 is basically useless, if I told you someone's Big 5 results, what would you know about him? You might feel more/less confident approaching him, but that's not really anything..

So.... INTP = the hungry hungry INTJ? But good to know you agree that INTP behaves more Yellow than INTJ. Why do I feel like I'm reading the transcript to a nature documentary.. But yes, of course, any stage can be intellectual.

I just had this exact discussion earlier in this thread. Yeah, they don't share any of the exact functions, but they share INTx. That's significant, even if they don't share any functions. I used to score INTP and INTJ equally as often. And people often have trouble deciding if they're one or the other. Many see the functions and the types as 2 different models, it somehow seems to work. If someone's INTx, even if their functions are all different, they're introverted, intuitive, and thinking. According to functions, an INTP would have more in common with ISFJ than INTJ (as ISFJ has every INTP function, just in a different order) yet, somehow, I know I'll always prefer INTJs over ISFJs. INTJs are just gonna be smarter 90% of the time, and that makes them more fun to talk to. An INTP might also find INTJ more intellectual and relatable than ENTP (which shares the top 2 INTP functions but flipped) as INTJ is gonna be thinking for himself (introvert). Consume mode? Blast mode? Huh, never heard of such terminology. I wonder.. what would you call a TiNe that's become judging? Or, what if there are 2 TiNes, one of them is extremely judgemental, focused, and motivated; the other one not at all. How would you type them? lol. Well, suddenly, the functions aren't so important anymore, they don't give you the relevant information. Mark: "Hi, I'm Mark! I'm the perceiving, non-judging type!" Mark: *judges you* You: "I thought you're the non-judging type!" Mark: "Yep!" You: *Does some research* You: "Hmm, all checks out. Guess non-judging types can be judging after all!" haha. That's a funny thing of you to say! I spend a good amount of time in Turquoise, and it's the least serious stage of them all. Actions don't need reasons, you just let life happen, and you love it. That's it. There's nothing else to it. It's the process leading up to Turquoise that can be serious, as serious are the fears that are present in every stage below it, whether acknowledged or not. Turquoists are still human and they have no reason to be a specific way or go against human nature. They're just not bothered by anything and, so, are completely emotionally open, feeling far more love than any other stage. If a Turquoist's wife wants kids, why not? There's no reason to refuse. And if your kids learn from you, you're helping the world grow up through the actions of your kids. Spreading your love. I really didn't expect you to say that for Turquoise "To have more children makes little sense".. hmm, now that I think back to your earlier posts, it does make sense. It should've been obvious with the writing style too.. I guess INTPs really can be misleading, initially. (sorry, just analysing to myself). Yeah, stage is important. May sound discriminatory, but this is no different to "dating in your age group". Plenty of exceptions, but generally you want to be in a relationship with someone at around the same stage.

I honestly don't. As I've said, I've really tried to see how I'd fit as a lower stage, and I don't. I'm a textbook Yellow-Turquoise™. You have heard the phrase "transcend and include", yes? All my Orange has been consumed by Yellow, or maybe "evolved" into yellow. I do wonder what made you think I have "repressed Orange" though..

I don't mind people trying to figure me out, but I agree that Opo doesn't have a good enough understanding of the model to type me (or to type anyone else really).

go on..

u wot m8 *pictures a judgemental, narrow-minded, materialistic ascended master*