Gesundheit2

I don't know, seems completely staged. The vibe is off, like it's forced and unnatural. Also, a bit too slimy?! Apparently, there's so much psychological trauma in there.

Post before lockdown.

Normie, The First.

Yeah, but the point is that you're using the Big 5 model to explain the things I'm saying. And by definition, Big 5 defines introversion as something different from conscientiousness, and both different from neuroticism, since they're all different parameters that don't have to be correlated at all. I'm suggesting that all 5 traits stem from neuroticism alone, and that the model is based on false assumptions/dualities that don't have any reality to them on their own without neuroticism.

And that would be Circular Reasoning, which is exactly why I used the word "chaos". I anticipated you were going to think that way, so I preceded that objection and answered it right away by telling you to generalize the principle I'm suggesting, which is that all of the 5 traits can be reduced down to and explained by neuroticism.

Of course. But that's not the same as casual. Think Sadhguru vs. James Bond.

Introversion can also be explained by neuroticism. Introverts don't enjoy it when things are out of their control so they opt out for less stimulating environments because that makes them feel more in control, while extroverts are fine with loss of control, and don't have a problem with chaos. I'm using the word "chaos" intentionally to trigger your thoughts to generalize what I'm saying to the rest of Big 5. Not currently. I will give more examples whenever they come up.

@AtheisticNonduality I don't think intellectual interests and inclinations are mutually exclusive with being a social human being. You can do both. A lot of people do both. The thing is that you can't ignore society, regardless of how you may judge it. Stupid or otherwise, it's the reason why you're alive pursuing whatever you are.

That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying the models are false relative to normal people, because they are a misinterpretation of the data. The data comes supposedly from observing patterns of behaviors, but how these patterns are collected affects the final data, which affects the interpretation. When we come at a scientific study with predefined terms and beliefs, we're automatically biased. All models of reality come with a bunch of cultural distortions based in language. But if we are not aware of those distortions, that can become a problem. And to me, it's obvious that these personality models are not aware of the distortions at all (Thank you, Jung). Like I said with my critique of introverted people, the introverted person/pattern = someone who does not go out and socialize "enough", does not initiate contact most of the times, does not engage with high enthusiasm, etc. But the reality is that this person actually does all of these things, though in their own "perverted" way so to speak. So this "introverted data" is false, no matter how it is sliced. There isn't an introverted person. There is rather a human who wants and needs to socialize with other humans, but can't do it properly/effectively for some reason (that can be corrected, and that's the important part), so they cope with loneliness and isolation instead because it's safer and easier on their egos. Note that not a single introverted person would not like to have sex with the hottest person of their preference, unless they're somehow asexual. If you randomly take any one of them and ask them if they would like to become social superstars, they will all say yes. If you ask them about their ideal world, they will describe a certain Uptonian world where their fantasies are actualized. If all of that doesn't prove my point, I don't know what will. The thing is these introverted people are not abnormal in and of themselves/from birth. They were normal, but got polarized by trolls and bullies, which are the abnormal people (basically devils). See, in my view, trolls and bullies split people into two categories: those who can deal with them, and others who can't. Then polarization happens and after that, it gets complicated. So introverts and extroverts are not typically "sick". They're rather exactly normal. But the pathological people who are actually sick create them through trauma. That's what the models are ignoring with their normalization fallacy.

@Carl-Richard Big 5 would then fall into the “normalization heuristic” or the normalization fallacy. I don't think being either an introvert or an extrovert is normal or healthy by any means. I was mostly focused with my critique on the concept of introversion, but I could as easily critique extroverts for being co-dependent and easily distracted. That's not normal nor healthy, either. I could probably potentially make similar critiques to any personality traits that any model proposes. A normal/healthy human being is balanced and well-rounded, and capable of exuding any behavioral pattern without much force or struggling. They are not stuck within one mode of being. You can observe, within yourself and others, that all modes of being exist simultaneously, and that the models are just applying false distinctions based on false dualistic thinking. So, non-duality is most useful here. Though, I'm not even talking about an ideal enlightened sort of human being, really just a normal one. An ideal enlightened human being knows when and where to exercise any behavioral pattern. They have a perfect understanding and are perfectly-attuned to all the inputs they get from the environment on a moment-to-moment basis, so they basically don't exist, and I'm not talking about them. I'm talking about the normal/average person who is confused and addicted to certain patterns. The models, in my opinion, only serve to add more confusion on top of the original confusion.

@Proserpina Sorry. Comment removed. I was mostly talking about myself, to be honest. You are a great person.

Actually, it doesn't. I'm more confused now than before.

There's a difference between force and utility. You can utilize any information in the way you want, that's not unscientific, as long as your interpretation is done according to the scientific method. https://www.visionlearning.com/en/library/Process-of-Science/49/Data-Analysis-and-Interpretation/154 "Interpretation involves constructing a logical scientific argument that explains the data. Scientific interpretations are neither absolute truth nor personal opinion: They are inferences, suggestions, or hypotheses about what the data mean, based on a foundation of scientific knowledge and individual expertise." So in other words, Big 5 suggests that change is possible, while MBTI suggests the opposite.

...

That's what happens when God takes awakening personally

Yes. There is data, but it's forced into a certain interpretation (I'm guessing for business agendas). And that's not 100% scientific, so it's pseudoscience. Why? What's special about Big 5? Awesome going for meta-analysis here! Just because some people can cope with lack of social skills better than others does not make it a normal thing. I think attempting to normalize introversion is part of the problem. It does not address the root problem that needs to be fixed. "You don't lack social skills. You're just an introvert." More like: "You don't suck and can't improve. You're just born that way." I'm all for loving oneself, but that's misplaced self-love and also a bit extreme in my opinion that it becomes harmful.

@Carl-Richard I don't know a lot about the big 5 model either, but I still don't consider it a correct model, let alone useful. In fact, I think it is in a sense harmful to whatever extent people might believe in it, probably just as much as other personality models can be. Just to give one example, I disagree that there is such a thing as introversion and extroversion. I think that's a false assumption, and the reality underneath introversion is rather a group of people that is typically incapable of passing the social tests (they lack social skills, are incapable of dealing with criticism, they get trolled/bullied easily, etc.), and therefore end up isolated from their peers (age-group) and self-hating. They basically haven't learned from an early age how to cope with their existence among other people. And of course, the opposite is true for the so-called "extroverted" people. My reasoning behind this is simply because introverts are not really isolated from people. You can verify this by randomly picking anyone who labels themselves an "introvert", or anyone who is classified by any typology model or definition as an "introvert". You will find that all of them will exhibit social behavior in one way or another, with one difference is that it will be in isolation from people's judgements. For example, someone who calls themselves an introvert but then spends most of their time watching YouTube is simply someone who is socializing from a safe place/distance, so that nobody judges/criticizes/trolls/etc. them so their egos can remain intact. So it's not that "introverts" don't like socializing with other people, but rather that they aren't really successful at it, and prefer to cope with that fact through isolation instead. Other behaviors that indicate extroversion in introverts are reading books, listening to music, following sports, following politics, stalking, active social media life, etc. A truly introverted person would actually spend most of their time meditating, and naturally so, without any force or will. Because that's what introversion means. And anyone who does the opposite and claims introversion is full of shit. But notice the difference here. It's vast. True introverts are not the same as those "puppet" introverts. And all those models fail to even see that. That's just one thing I disagree on with these models. The truth is that I don't even consider any of them to have any sort of truth to them at all, and that they mostly fall under the self-fulfilling prophecies category, where they only become true if you believe in them and to the extent of strength of that belief, so basically placebo. The good news, though, is that since all these models are false, then nothing is really set in stones, and everything can be changed/corrected with some willingness and effort. But first, those who want to change need to drop the models, as they are literally a variation of limiting beliefs that is masked as "scientific truth", which doubles the trickiness. Believing in those models actually rather cripples down the individual and removes any real chance for them at reintegrating themselves back into society.

This seems to suggest that there is an objective truth out there somewhere that the brain is actively trying to avoid looking. At least, that is if I'm using your lens correctly

This one is for me. And this boring version for @AtheisticNonduality.

I don't know you, but I think you're being harsh on yourself and sacrificing your authentic self by somehow caving in for culture. What you're calling mental masturbation is clearly your passion for philosophy. And your desire for marriage seems in some way like an escape from facing and accepting your sexual desire, your dirty side (don't worry, everyone is dirty). I agree with you on getting rid of bad habits like smoking and eating junk food. But the rest sound like they can be recontextualized into a more healthier frame. For example, porn and masturbation are not a substitute for the real thing, but they might be until you get abundance of the real thing.

Lol. What the hell?! That's what you get when you skip steps. Though, in my case it's normal, cuz I'm self-learning and don't have a mentor or anything. Anyway, the concept I was looking for was "memory pointers and (reference-types vs. primitive types)". I've learned about it earlier this year when I went back and studied some of C language. It all makes perfect sense now.