Staples

@Marios Tsagoulis I don't think everyone shares this trait. 99% of people absolutely trust their beliefs, and simply suggesting that their beliefs are wrong will not cause the collapse of the belief structure. Not in the slightest. Try telling a stranger on the street that they are literally walking on themself because the footpath is them, because they are absolutely everything, including the footpath. See how that turns out.

Seems like the benefits you're experiencing are a side effect of becoming more aware. I don't think swapping brain hemispheres is the reason you're thinking clearer, it's because you're giving more attention to what you're doing.

God would stay silent in response to any question.

If you want to continue that line of work of being conscious of feelings and analyzing them, you'd like Vipassana.

That temperament is not unreasonable. It's okay to not be totally open to strangers you know. Find good advice that will help you not feel as uncomfortable as you feel now. Don't feel like you need to change your behaviour, but try and improve how you react emotionally to social situations.

Addictions to replace addictions, hmm?

The work is not different if you're a teenager. The only difference I can really think of is that you probably have more time to work on it.

@Slade Haha okay! Let me know next time you turn gravity upside down!

@Joseph Maynor MBTI is very limited by its own design. When that test presents results, it gives it to you on the basis of the character you get assigned. If you're an INTP, it will give you advice specifically tailored for INTPs, but it doesn't give you any extra nuanced information on each of those spectrums. There's a big difference in personality for the person who scores 1% compared to the person who scores 49% in introversion. But MBTI will give them the same advice regarding their introversion because they fall into the bottom 50%. Good Big 5 tests give you specific information based on each trait, based on how high you scored, which MBTI doesn't do, it lumps them all together as a whole. MBTI is a dumbed down big 5 score, and it incorrectly assume's that it can just create archetypes as a final result based on the pretty letters you're sorted into. No one is surprised when they're told they are an introvert or an extrovert or somewhere in the middle. You already know intuitively exactly where you fall there. I have a suspicion you'd be more accurate if you read the description of each trait, and rate yourself on a scale of 1-100, without going through all the fancy questions. Also, regarding OPs post, he mentions that MBTI varies too much in results, which is true. I have no data for this, but I also believe the big 5 varies a lot too, I've taken it 3 times and my conscientious levels have been estimated from 2% to 75%. Personality models do not work. No one (or no ego) is the same consistent entity and will have the same decision-making tendencies even on an hourly basis. They're regulated by food, exercise, energy, awareness, social status and many more factors that would be too many to list. If they get changed significantly enough, you're a different person on the spot.

Psych student here. Big 5 has more scientific reputability, MBTI is an easy sell because it's so simple. MBTI leaves no room for nuance because it is binary in nature. But they're both models for personality, one of the most complex things humans have attempted to study. No model is holistic enough yet, which is what I'm working on now.

It's a shame. There are too many negatives to list. There are also a few positives, though not necessarily ones that you would want if you want to lead an actualized life. For example, they won't have any responsibility unless it's forced on them or they choose to adopt some, they won't have any self-reliability either. That being said, it is also entirely possible for them to learn how to be poor, and build up the personality traits they never needed to develop, but it's very unlikely they'll put in the work, they've already got everything they think they want. It's also a shame to be so poor, you're never able to taste the rewards you might one day receive if you put in the work.

Sounds like you need two things; Self Love, and exposure therapy.

@brovakhiin its his delivery and target audience, they joke about the rsd cult, but it really has become a cult in a sense.

@art i used to watch these guys back in 2015, its so cringy to watch them now haha. Gotta give them credit for getting me into personal development though

@snowleopard it's possible for a non enlightened person to not be offended. In order to be offended you need to have a negative emotional reaction, you can still be attacked as an ego and not feel bad about it.

Don't try to be someone you're not, you'll bang your head against a brick wall and feel very inauthentic. I'm not sure if you're just highly introverted and feel like that's a problem, or you're just unsure how to be more articulate and explain yourself better. I'm practising articulation by writing a 750 world essay 3 times a week. I just pick a random topic and write. I use this PDF as a guideline to make sure my work comes out good; http://jordanbpeterson.com/docs/230/Hints on writing.pdf

Tide Pods. Just kidding. I'd say to develop wisdom and to continuously do so until I die.

@Ibn Sina Whenever you feel offended, ask yourself why? What values of yours are in conflict? What about that irks you, and why? Ask yourself is it reasonable for you to hold these values (maybe they're wrong) or to defend them so much as to suffer for it? Ask yourself if it's possible for someone to be told the same thing or witness the same thing and not feel negatively about it? Would an ant be offended by that? Would god? Why are you being offended then? This isn't a catch-all solution but maybe it helps.

Not really sure what you're expecting from anonymous strangers on the web with no real qualifications or experience in serious emotional problems. See a professional.

Leo criticises scientists and rationalists a lot. I'm taking a course in psychology with a focus on lab work right now and am curious how I can approach my work and present my results in the best possible way. Boiling down what I'm asking, I'd like to know how we can bring together the scientific method and the "enlightened" approach to research. How can we bring together statistically driven data and subjective, immeasurable experience?

I posted a similar question here with some good responses (before we collectively devolved into anti-materialists) if you didn't see it;

You might have also forgotten why you were doing these things. List out all the negative consequences of not getting back on track, then list out all the positive consequences of getting back on track. Try to get 15-20 reasons for positive and negative each. Print them out on pieces of paper or paste-it notes and put them everywhere, on every screen in the house, on your nightstand, in your car, on your bathroom mirror, on your door, keep one in your pocket. You won't forget the 30 reasons why you need to get back on track. This is what I did after watching the awareness is curative video.

@Ibn Sina We need people like that for multiple reasons. The first is that they'll catch us on our bullshit if we ever go down that route. The second reason is that freedom of speech is extremely important for the continual development of the community. If no one disagrees here, how will we ever develop? To silence them and the people somewhere in the middle would lead us straight into a spiritual circle jerk.

Do science and materialism prove anything either in your worldview? I can see why you think that. It makes sense to me too, and it is a little irk I have towards spiritual work too. But it can't really be any other way, it's literally the only topic I can think of that can't be explained because by definition in a sense it can't be explained. A common defence of it still remaining true even though it can't be explained is "spiritual experiences feel more real than real", I can't comment on that, but can you? Have you ever had an experience that feels more real than real? Are you willing to be wrong? Would you rather be wrong for the rest of your life and not know it because you never tried to test your assumptions? You say the line is used to avoid criticism, perhaps, but you're also avoiding the possibility of being wrong because you don't seem to want to open up to it just a tiny bit. You can't ever have the correct and unbiased viewpoint here until you dive into the unknown, then come back with your findings.

Sure, you can do that, no problem. Don't bother doing or being anything at all, and see how far that gets you.