Gesundheit2

@Zeroguy Don't criticize SD. My whole identity and worldview depends on it ???

I clicked it by mistake and thought it's worth rehashing here. I should read it more often to remind myself of why I'm journaling to begin with.

@zurew Absolutely! On a different note, the MBTI system and others that try to type/categorize human consciousness, like the Enneagram, etc. remind me of the zodiac signs. They're like the modern, sophisticated, smarter, and allegedly scientific version of that old naive mythological nonsense. It's almost like stage Green mythology vs. stage Purple mythology. And basically any criticism of Purple's myths apply here as well, but Greens are still biased and don't have enough self-awareness to see this.

Don't act entitled. We're lucky that he's even participating here and engaging with all this nonsense.

I have a few select people that interest me and I like, so I do read some of the journals here, but rarely comment. And when I do comment, I try to be as supportive and positive as possible, while keeping in mind that the outcome can be counter-intuitive, so I always anticipate a backlash regardless of the nature of my comments. I have no problems with anyone commenting on my journal(s). To be honest, I don't even mind personal insults and whatnot, especially in this section, because I understand that people are generally experiencing hard times in their lives and in need for a safe venting space. I'm of the opinion that everyone should be allowed the space to express themselves freely, sometimes even malignantly. I don't believe that people are inherently bad or evil, but that hardships can veil the goodness even of the best people. I treat and think of this section as a more high consciousness variation of Facebook, and I don't use the blocking functions on either sites. I don't use the ignore function here, cuz I'm interested in any input whether it concerns me or not, but I am very specific about the people/content I follow. I also rarely, if at all, use the report function for guideline violations, but absolutely never for personal reasons. And I'm pretty comfortable with rejection and criticism, even if they're not always accurate/justified. Though, I have to admit that they used to get to me easily before, and therefore I used to get triggered a lot. Gladly, I'm now over such issues, and hoping to share that with others. Let me know if anyone wants me to adjust how I interact with them here, or how I carry myself around the entire forum in general. Feedback is most welcome and encouraged, and being direct/blunt is preferred. Wishing the best for everyone.

@zurew I guess that's partially why Leo says debating pointless and a waste of time. Debaters are often ideological, and so the're inherently biased. At least at tier one, that is.

That might be true, or not. It doesn't matter much in my opinion, because it seems more like a labeling problem than a practical one. It depends on the kind of data they're talking about. If they're talking about statistics, then chances are they're right but being slick with their choice of words. Otherwise, the data mostly suggests rather than "say" anything, but this latter type has to do more with the body of the research and not much with the statistics, so normies don't usually get exposed to this kind of information. For example, let's say 90% of tobacco smokers develop lung cancer at some point in their life. That's data based on reliable statistics. You can play around with how you state and share this data. You can say that smoking kills, or that many people don't get cancer despite being heavy smokers. Notice how vastly different it hits in either statements, even though technically they're both true. So, it's not the data itself that is corrupt, but how some people are able to twist it with their use of language, and how naive/uninformed the recipients might be. Notice also, that researchers do not say that tobacco causes lung cancer or that the data says so. They say that the data shows a correlation between these two findings, which suggests a certain kind causality (it's called a risk factor), which is information that can be peer-reviewed and further studied/tested, then published as theories or statistics, and ultimately used for improving our lives. It's not up to me or any normie to claim anything about any drug. There are professionals with integrity and a reputation to uphold that are careful not to make such mistakes. And there's a community that peer-reviews everything before it is published. Science isn't one person that creates a narrative, controls, and maintains it. Science is a complex structure that works exactly on preventing such things from happening.

Enlightenment aside, I don't think I've ever experienced better times than 2010's World Cup. It was literally my absolute peak experience before things went down to hell.

That's not quite the point, though. It's one thing to say that the raw data doesn't suggest one thing in particular. And it's another thing entirely to say or assume that all interpretations are at the same level of validity or "weight". The subjective factor does not automatically dissolve the validity or value of raw data, because the objective factor is still there. The data is data for a reason, and it can't be manipulated or misinterpreted except to a certain degree. The data points to actual happenings in the real world, and it's unbiased within/under certain predefined conditions. It can be reproduced and demonstrated to be consistent under those conditions. It's not like the postmodernist view on language. These are two different things. What you said applies perfectly to language, but very little to scientific data. Now, the data pertaining to personality types and psychology in general does not fit in either categories, and imo it's like in the middle somewhere on the spectrum between fluidity/subjectivity and validity/objectivity. There are also known psychological factors that might be involved that might skew the data, such as self-fulfilling prophecies and others, let alone other unknown factors that we still have no clue about. It's almost impossible to define psychology within one human, never mind 7 billion, there's just so much complexity there. So it is especially tricky in this area, but otherwise, it's not really. In most other areas, it's often easy to isolate the thing you wish to study and make experiments in regards to, so that makes collecting data a very objective process, and that's exactly why science is so powerful.

According to the dictionary, logic and intuition are polar opposites. They're both relative terms that are defined in contrast with each other, so they define each other, and neither of them can make sense without the other. Logic and intuition are two distinct ways of "deriving knowledge", or at least they're two different modes of thinking (conscious vs. subconscious). To know something logically, no feeling is required. And to know something intuitively, no reasoning is required. At the same time, there are no clear distinctions between logic and intuition, they basically share the same core (knowledge), so non-duality applies, and language collapses. That being said, it seems to me like when you say intuition that you're talking about something else entirely. It sounds like an absolute thing that exists independently of everything else. This can lead to problems because then we will be communicating past each other when in fact we're talking about different things to begin with without knowing. So that's why having shared definitions is crucial, and we can't really progress positively without it.

? I'll just call 911 ?? I like how articulate this post is and the angle you chose to make the critique from. Seriously, it is mind-blowing! ? Personally, I was never able to type myself into any specific personality type. And almost every time I do a test, I get a different result. Now, it makes sense why.

SD is a scientific model that is based on real world data.

From the dictionary: noun: logic: reasoning conducted or assessed according to strict principles of validity. noun: intuition: the ability to understand something immediately, without the need for conscious reasoning. noun: dogma(s): a principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true.

You're on fire these days! ?

@Razard86 You seem to be dogmatically conflating logic and dogma.

@PenguinPablo Craving and ignorance are two different things. Your claims don't make any sense.

No self, no problem. Yes self, also no problem.

Why am I writing? How am I feeling? I don't ask too often. I just follow the instructions. I don't do anything seriously these days. Half-assing through life seems to work. Better than assing, I guess. But not really. Turn your back, your ass. Nobody cares. Exist, or don't. Still nothing changes. But you're here. Doing what you're supposed to be doing. All is well. Hippy nonsense. All is hell. Ask anyone. Ask yourself. How are you feeling? Now? I guess I don't know. It's starting to come together again. Making sense. Oh, yeah. It's me! That's it! Why am I writing? Huh?

The gates opened for me once. It was anger. I keep it in my pocket. Sometimes I lose it. Find it, then lose it. Bigger plans in background, should not overthink. Bitch you don't even think that much. So then what is the point? Tautology. Enjoy the grind. Words coming in. Not my choice. Vessel. Whatever. It's never been otherwise. Dadadadada.

It is literally upside down. How things work vs. How they should be. And yet somehow things still work. Maybe that's the only way. Maybe it's the best way. And duality is crazy. To get something, do the opposite. But you can't desire a thing if you like its opposite. So you can't desire, and you can't hate. You're a soulless bot. Flat. Left to grow. Where? Not exactly sure. Lost clarity. It doesn't make a difference now. Nothing works the way you want. Even when dead. Teletubbies.

Routing should be automated through a UI application. Coding everything from scratch is stupid and time-wasting. There's nothing creative about writing the same code over and over again.

Blue is authoritarian and will ignore and even demonize logic for the word of their holy book, or whatever authority they subscribe to. Logic does not work on Blues, and it's always a bad idea to try to logic with them. But it might work on Oranges.

Actually, you can. Premature access of lofty spiritual wisdom and questioning of logic is possible because philosophers/spiritual teachers exist. That's not the limits of logic. At best, it sounds like the limits of dogmatic thinking without it being applied to itself.