Carl-Richard

I think he means that they don't exist (or in our big brain pragmatic epistemology: they're not useful).

Guys, let's stop imitating the Spider-Man picture, alright?

Never understood that either.

OMG there is no such thing as personality TYPES! Big 5 or no Big 5, this is the case. I've said this like 7 times now??? They all do correlate to some amount, but they're the categories that have been found to correlate the least with each other so far (probably weighing other stuff as well). You mean to say that the Big 5 trait of neuroticism alone, defined as the severity and frequency of experienced emotions, is what causes the variability in all other Big 5 traits?

Mutual blocking was just an idea I was floating, but I actually think it's impossible to enforce for moderators, because I don't think we're able to view or edit block lists of users, and I don't see a way around that. As far as things stand now, it's all up to you guys (of course within the boundaries previously stated). Maybe I'll have some other ideas in the future, maybe a more case-by-case approach, like making rules like "don't ... with/to/about this person", where breaking the rules gives warning points. The problem there would again be to find good rules with respect to maintaining the trust of the moderators (bias, simplicity etc.).

I reduced shyness to neuroticism. Introversion is not shyness (as explained in the quote I provided). I didn't reduce introversion to conscientiousness. I said why it was more likely to be conscientiousness than introversion. Not really. If you have 50 situations where you're conscientious and 50 where you're not, then you're in the middle of the spectrum. Do you really think if you surveyed people, they would say that they prefer their boss to be a dick?

I can't find anything on that. Seems more like conscientiousness ? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Five_personality_traits

I remember learning about this definition of E/I: It makes sense, as shyness could be better explained by neuroticism. So E/I is not necessarily as pathological as you portray it. Nevertheless, I don't see the big issue with the normalization fallacy in this case. Do you have another example of this?

@Gesundheit2 Ok, so you're saying that so-called normal personality patterns are just various degrees of pathology? So essentially, anybody who is not enlightened or brutally self-actualized has a personality disorder? Normally, pathology is defined relative to the average baseline of society. If you're defining it relative to spiritual enlightenment ("society is sick"), then that makes sense, but then I guess you're maybe being a bit too idealistic? This is kinda what thisintegrated does with terms like "logic": make your own idiosyncratic definition and isolate yourself from the linguistic commons. I don't see much point in that, especially if you're truly a skeptic, because all language is merely pragmatic, even your own. Are you going to talk to yourself all day? ?

Fuck ? You said there is no such thing as E/I – it's just social failure and avoidant/internalizing coping strategies etc. Big 5 would have no problems describing those things as E/I. You only found some specific cases or causal mechanisms for E/I.

Omg ? I meant to say: "You seem to treat the E/I spectrum as the latter, but I don't think you need to interpret Big 5 that way (unlike say cognitive functions)." I mixed up "former" and "latter". Maybe that clears some stuff up.

There is no 100% scientific in your definition. It's a dispositional trait model. It's not a cognitive personality model. Dispositional traits are habitual patterns of behavior, thought and emotion. Cognitive functions are internal mental processes that cause behavior, thought and emotion. The former doesn't make a strong case for or against either a purely behaviorist or cognitivist interpretation, unlike the latter. In other words, Big 5 is in principle less concerned about the underlying causal explanations for one's personality than the cognitive functions.

16Personalities are confused. They can't decide whether to go for MBTI or Big 5, so they produced a bastard child. Carl Jung's personality typology was fine 100 years ago. Personality theory has moved on since then. I don't understand what you mean. Very Orange of you. What about the workers? I only used that word because you used it first Regardless, all discussions that touch on one's core principles (in this case epistemology) is at least somewhat about ego, which is not a problem if you recognize it. You've invested a lot of time and thought into MBTI, and you use it every single day, in every other comment you make. It's a part of you, just like my conclusions about MBTI and my general preference for delineating the empirical validity of whatever scientific model is a part of me.

I just think the science vs. pseudoscience distinction is useful. That is my main point. This goes back to whether personality traits are to be considered as pure descriptions of behavior or as innate qualities that cause behavior. You seem to treat the E/I spectrum as the latter, but I don't think you need to interpret Big 5 that way (unlike say cognitive functions). General scientific skepticism aside, an average test-retest correlation of 0.88 for all traits is a serious thing (0.80 is considered "good"). It certainly dwarfs any hints of empirical adequacy produced by MBTI or SD.

Scientists*, not a bunch of quacks trying to sell you something No. It doesn't specify that, unless you can point to something specific. I only debate MBTI with you, so again, selection bias

I doubt it. I thought I would score pretty much the same as DocWatts, but our C and N differ by 27% and 34%: It's at least not pseudoscience

Considering I was completely crippled by anxiety, depression and existential despair prior to trying meditation, it certainly liberated whatever intelligence was within me. My first mystical experience completely changed my life. It was like I permanently lost a huge chunk of myself, and what remained was a light feather floating down the river of life.

Get up to date on the facets Again, combine the traits High C and Low N. Of course Low N is the most important factor in this case, but C is the best predictor of life success, which definitely affects your self-image. Again, an ideal leader, as opposed to say a tyrannical leader – one that has their subordinates' best interests in mind (a leader of people). Technology entrepreneurs are leaders of ideas, maybe someone you wouldn't like to work for (*cough* Amazon warehouses *cough*). Again, your mind is poisoned by typologies and their dichotomies. There are no "agreeable types" or "disagreeable types" in Big 5. You're given a standarized score of 0-100 for each trait. You can have a score of 50 – that's not a problem

Where are you getting this from? I was combining different traits (high C and low N) to explain confidence. Other examples: the combination of High E, High A, high C and low N makes you an ideal leader. High E, low C and high N makes you more prone to binge drinking and risky sexual behavior. It's relevant when it's literally what is being contested (the scientific validity of personality typologies). You're just appealing to more pseudoscience. Man, are you listening at all? I'm talking about the mental gymnastics associated with typing. Again; typologies.

That's just ridiculous. Perfectionism is more correlated with conscientiousness (subsets orderliness and industriousness). Think OCD. Neuroticism (subsets volatility and withdrawal) is about emotional lability and negative emotion, i.e. how frequent and extreme your emotions are. Think BPD (borderline not bipolar). Confidence and happiness are probably correlated, and they can be explained by combining high conscientiousness and low neuroticism: you tend to get shit done while also having a persistent positive self-image. So you trust your own abilities more (confidence), and you're more likely to be successful in life as well as being naturally happy. Yay, let's mention yet another pseudoscientific personality typology ? It's because it's not a typology (which is an outdated and empirically unsupported concept in personality theory). It's a trait theory: all people have various degrees of the same traits. It makes sense for the same reason that all people experience different levels of the same types of emotions. In broad behavioral terms, different humans are variations on the same theme. There exists no justifications (statistical, biological or otherwise) for the strong dichotomies postulated by personality typologies. It's very ambiguous within a typology framework ("Ti-user"). For example, you can appeal to moral values (Fi) as an argument in a debate and then give logical explanations (Ti) for why you did so or why you hold them.

@Razard86 Worst joke ever

@Oeaohoo I would say that the knowing of God's fundamental nature (God as Oneness, which is one form of revelation) is exactly that: it goes beyond constructs and contexts. However, the mind has a tendency to corrupt such teachings in retrospect (the moment they're put into language), especially when it comes in other forms of revelation like visions or voices from God (which are often inherently linguistic). (This may seem like a tangent, but it's related): With regards to say eschatological visions, a postmodern question could be: are you interpreting them literally or metaphorically? Are they literally about the end of the world, or are they a symbol for e.g. the general fight between good and evil? For example, I really like the story of the Fall as a metaphor for the origin of metacognition (or reflective self-awareness), i.e. the time when humans really became human (which probably happened as recently as 30-50k years ago): we ate from the tree of knowledge and became aware of the fact that we were naked. You could argue that such ancient myths were designed to be taken metaphorically, as they predate rigorous sequential reasoning and instead rely on the mind's innate quality of making associations as a means of communication. This associative quality, in that it's inarticulate and intuitive, is driven by the very roots of your being (archetypes, the unconscious), and stories like the Fall can therefore serve as a sort of deep memory cue for those aspect within yourself (in that you "remember" the fall into self-awareness of your ancestors through your DNA so to speak). Pre-literate mythic people would be much more attuned to this than we are, as they were again less burdened by the noise of the intellect. So in a way, the inarticulate or metaphorical ways of communication are both less corruptible and more amendable to the deeper truths of your being. (If this seems disorganized, it's because I first misinterpreted your comment and then had to rewrite some stuff, and also the fact that I just recently fixed a broken sleeping schedule and threw all my hormones out of whack ).

I know a friend from high school who has it. Haven't talked to him in years though

There is probably a coffee table in front of him when he is recording.

Based on what I've heard, it's only a relative increase compared to other brain regions, but the same area still has lower activity compared to the sober state.