Gesundheit2

@Preety_India The only cure for neediness is abundance. It breaks my mind every time I think about it. That the people who need love the most are the least likely to get it. Super counter-intuitive. But that's the way of the world. It's similar to money. The people who need money the most are the least likely to get it, just because they don't have it. And those who have it will get a lot more of it effortlessly, just because they have it. It's because people like being around abundance. Nobody likes to be around scarcity. Even the smell of scarcity repulses people, including the poor and the needy. The problem with poverty is that no amount of donations will solve it, because most poor people don't know how to generate money out of whatever amount of money that they might have. So even if you give them all the money in the world, they will waste it in a blink of an eye and return to being poor. It's a problem of mindset. Poor mindset leads to poor finances. The same here with you. You have a lot of traumas around love. So you are left broke and needy, and no amount of external love will cure that for you. It will only make you crave it even more. Because you will get this close to having it, but it will slip from between your fingers, every single time, like water right when you're about to drink it. What you need is you need to develop an abundance mindset (it takes time), and then you will witness the snowball effect of love accumulating in your life, growing and glowing in front of your eyes. Part of the abundance mindset is letting go. So I'm glad that you started this thread. Follow it and see where it will lead you.

And humans suffer. ?‍♂️ Did you not expect that?

You don't get it because you never truly let go. You always let go apparently while secretly wanting back in. That's not letting go. It's not pure. It's polluted with ego, just like when pure water is polluted with ink. It's easy to see. Letting go is about leaving things that aren't in your control up to the universe, and losing all will and care in those matters. Maybe you don't hold grudges, but you still hold expectations. Let go of those.

It doesn't matter who made the model or contributed to it. See: Argument From Authority. I'm not saying that you are necessarily making an argument in this comment, but just to be aware. Also, seriously, JP? Is he like the most developed thinker you know? Lol.

Public transportations here be like: 24/7.

Knowledge comes from information. Wisdom comes from experience.

Growth is always good, and it always feels good.

@Carl-Richard What would Mr. Big 5 say about this?

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.

@Ayham I think it's called "Aerial Tramway" or "Teleferik": Never been on one before, but always wanted to know what that would feel like.

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.