Carl-Richard

There are reasons for specifically dismissing MBTI, but they don't have anything to do with experiences of no-mind. If anything, an experience of no-mind should make you dismiss all mind. No need to single out MBTI.

That would be spiritual bypassing, but ok.

Did he give a particular reason why?

What I meant is that the assertion doesn't make sense. However, the main point is that you cannot assert what can or cannot be actualized by virtue of merely asserting it, regardless of whether it makes sense or not. We agree.

@bambi ^If this was not intended as a way to defend MBTI against the fact that its standardized measurements are subpar compared to other theories, then that was a very unfortunate way to word yourself when considering the context of the OP posting this video as a part of a string of defenses for MBTI. If you were indeed missing that context, then that can explain the disconnect we're having.

Rather than saying there is no state of affairs that could correspond with that assertion, I would say there is no way to make such an assertion. The limitation tells you more about the assertion than the reality.

Reality creates minds which are able to think in logical terms. The thing is that the concepts "snow" and "frozen" and the relationship between them don't truly exist in reality as independent things. They're the product of minds capable of logical reasoning. Logic can make sense of certain regularities of perception, but the sensemaking is not the thing that is being made sense of. It's also possible to perceive things that don't make logical sense, certainly during altered states of consciousness. In fact, this is actually going on every single moment of your waking existence, because you can't make sense of it all.

Let's say I divided people into two types: winners and losers. You can only be one type. Is this a good model? Well, personality psychology as a field has generally come to the conclusion that so-called "type theories" (typologies) are generally bad models, because when you try to make a standardized measurement for them (i.e. a personality test), the tests simply end up not being valid (testing what they're actually supposed to test) or reliable (giving the same results over different times). The Big 5 solves this by being a trait model (each trait exist in all people, and you get a 0-100 score on each trait). You can argue that it makes the model ugly, but the test for it is at least valid and reliable. The problem when you don't have a standardized measurement is that anything you try to establish becomes highly prone to bias. This is why for example psychiatrists only give you a psychiatric diagnosis after they've given you a long and proper standardized test.

The MBTI test sucks, so you're implying that all personality tests suck.

@bambi Clarify what you intended to say then. That's what I did like 5 times.

Remember that logic is just logical reasoning; mind activity. It deals with limited identities which are projected onto reality by your logical human mind. A logical impossibility would just be a contradiction to that process. Reality as it is in itself has an unlimited identity, and it's not a projection of your logical human mind. As a bit of a side point, if you want to call other aspects of reality a projection of your human mind, then that projection goes much deeper (e.g. on the level of perceptual structures instead of higher cognitive structures). Logical reasoning is a very abstract mind activity, and it's certainly not fundamental to reality.

All logic starts with the law of identity ("a thing is itself, as distinct from something else"). Ascribing or projecting onto something an identity, ascribes it finitude. So infinity is already beyond the realm of logic. As all identities and all logic are fundamentally projections, a logical impossibility just describes a type of negation of those projections. Infinity doesn't intrinsically negate the projections per se. It just doesn't limit itself to such projections.

You came in with this "let me tell you how it is" attitude and then drew a sharp distinction between the test and the construct, and then you claimed that in fact all personality tests suck, which excuses the poor performance of MBTI in that realm.

I pointed out how you gave the standard MBTI defense.

You had to learn MBTI from somewhere, and sooner or later you had to adopt the core justifications (survival agenda) to keep using the model.

They taught you well. Every MBTI enthusiast thinks personality tests are useless, and it's the first thing they'll tell you.

This is what the MBTI cult teaches you, yes ?

Yup. It's a form of spiritual bypassing (hiding behind spirituality, using it reductively). Naive skepticism is a more general concept which can describe certain kinds of spiritual bypassing, but also more ordinary ways of thinking.

Dismantling the cooler brother of physicalism — panpsychism — in their home court (methodological naturalism). https://iai.tv/articles/bernardo-kastrup-why-panpsychism-is-baloney-auid-2214

Not if you look at the trait aspect vs. the type aspect, i.e. how any given trait has a score of 0-100 vs. how you can only be either this or that type. What is actually simple about Big 5 is the amount of conceptual entities, but not the amount of quantitative variation. You can think of it as MBTI doing a lot of work for free. The amount of conceptual entities is greater, and each entity is a simple yes-or-no value, so it's therefore easier to draw conclusions based on smaller amounts of data while still getting some reasonable answer: For example, let's say the CIA wanted to secretly gauge your personality from across the world. They can't give you a personality test and map out your exact 0-100 score on the Big 5, so therefore the model loses a lot of its power. However, with MBTI, they can do what you're so good at doing: draw vast conclusions based on limited data () by relying on the internal logic of the model. Even if it's not a very accurate assessment, it may have some utility in predicting your behavior, hence it can be a good solution if you're very pragmatically oriented.

Lol. He named mainly two things that seemed to be important: it's quick and easy (like I already mentioned), and he insinuated that it works independent of context (which is a dubious claim, but I get the point), and by that, he was referring to the typology aspect and its black-and-white nature, and how it's cognitive rather than behavioral. The reason scientists reject MBTI is mainly because personality typologies generally aren't valid or reliable. Trait theories are, and that is by the way my concession to MBTI: retain the cognitive functions and treat them as traits that everybody have to various degrees.

Is consciousness chaos?

He is making a pragmatic case for MBTI, as an intelligence specialist. Then the fact that it's simple, quick and easy becomes more important. When I'm arguing against MBTI, I'm taking a more restrictive approach, as a scientist, and then validity and reliability becomes more important. Everything he said here is consistent with this. That's why scientists favor it less than intelligence specialists. The CIA will use whatever they can to get the upperhand on the enemy, so of course they're less picky.

@AtheisticNonduality I was just going to deploy the "practice meditation" propaganda ;D

How do you get to Being without Doing?