Carl-Richard

??? You only staying in Oslo? If not, the only tourist spots I can think of at the moment is Preikestolen and Trolltunga. They filmed the latest Mission Impossible on the former. I can't remember ever having done anything interesting in Oslo, I'm sorry ?

If you see anything that is in violation of the guidelines, or if you truly deem it necessary to do so, then you use the report function. Threats are against the guidelines. I've just tried to give a general summary of what moderators can and cannot do, and that often what moderators do in these situations is to serve as a human block function, which is completely unnecessary when the block function is open for anyone.

Their mouths are, but their saliva still has anti-bacterial properties.

Cat saliva is anti-bacterial, which is why their fur smells good.

That further weakens the reasoning behind calling it personality types, because it starts to look more like a quantitative difference than a qualitative difference. I would be perfectly fine with treating cognitive functions as traits that all people have to varying degrees, and then go by a case-by-case basis, instead of subjecting yourself to the myriad of cognitive biases that are naturally associated with working with neatly defined categories such as "types". I just watched Jordan Peterson's quite embarrasing conversation (for him) with Richard Dawkins, but he made a good point in there: when looking at a large data set, there exists a huge amount of possible correlations and interpretations. The conundrum is: by which mechanism do you pick out the data you want to work with? That is a genuine problem for even the most statistically rigorous types of science. Now, to me, MBTI typing is when you take a virtually infinitely large and ambigiously defined data set (whatever behavior of the subject you're able to perceive), and while using no structured methodology whatsoever (self-admittedly), you project whatever intuitively derived conclusion you think is relevant for your running hypothesis for a particular type (prone to selection/confirmation bias), all while under the completely unconstrained influence of your egoic drives and the general flaws of the human mind (emotional states and attachments, faulty memories and reasoning, cognitive biases etc.). I'm immensely turned off by this process, and the times you will catch me engaging in it is because it's frankly addicting. You can avoid a large chunk of these problems by just abolishing the typology structure all together and let each cognitive function (maybe pair) stand on their own in principle, but even then, without any statistical methods, it's still just kind of a hobby. Anyways, I think I've said this a couple of times already, and it's not going to change anything, so I think I'll stop criticizing MBTI for a while. Just know that all this harsh critique is just me externalizing how I criticize myself when I'm trying to type somebody, and that when I see somebody like yourself who is apparently taking a more carefree approach, it triggers that process within me

? Haha thanks!

It's called adding points (hence the "and"). Not everything is a rebuttal "It's simply divine" is in a sense less articulated than giving a list of explanations for a phenomena (using "logic") just by how open it is. Articulation is about pinning something down, breaking it into bits and simplifying it.

Tradition and dogma are extremely appealing, because they're powerful technologies which have stood the test of history. Logic is something mere individuals do, and individuals are fleeting and self-centered. They're focused on their own little ideas that they've gathered over their short lifespans and that they try to preach to you with their full conviction because their minds are so great. The traditional dogmatist however looks back and is humbled by the massive wealth of wisdom that has been gathered over thousands of years and shared among millions of people. Your logic and your life is a tiny micro speck in contrast to all that.

Explain yourself.

What is a point?

Really just me being nostalgic.

The one size fits all system is the problem. Completely outdated.

RIP

and the cost of inarticulation is isolation. The Bodhisattva makes a compromise of engaging in the illusion with the hope of dragging people out. Here logic can be a tool, a limited one, sure, but apophatic theology (e.g. "it's simply divine") is also just another tool, limited in its own ways.

Notice how I said "but not limited to"? Calling it divine communication is perfectly ok. The divine is simply the inarticulated infinity that is being felt. I just gave a partial articulated viewpoint like you said. There is nothing wrong with articulating things, unless your approach is that of the silent saint.

But I reject your whole system ? For instance, you type Bernardo Kastrup as an ENTP (no Te), but he has read more than all of us ever will combined, and he actively uses external sources like "Jung said this..." and "top empirical journals" and "it just doesn't seem to follow the evidence". This whole typing business is a puzzle game, a hobby, and a cult, because nobody talks about it unless you're completely bought into it.

"Hehe your argument is invalid cuz MBTI".

I just think that studying something for decades makes it more likely that you've gone through whatever phases of learning that is supposedly mandatory for that subject, and that one or two PhDs is just a measurement of that, kinda like how a personality test is a measurement of personality. Now, I don't watch a lot of MBTI youtubers, but I don't see much interactions between different experts in the field, like interviews and podcasts, or MBTI being mentioned in interdisciplinary discussions (like I've mentioned). It's more like everything is just taken as a given, and one is immersed in the process of typing, which is an endless rabbit hole. It seems like a cult almost, or a hobby. I think JrEg knows what I mean.

or feeling into the depths of your being, which includes (but is not limited to) "current and past events, and states of your body and mind (perceptual data and even abstract reasoning)". It's the 6th sense, but it's not separate from the other senses. It's a meta-sense, and it works best when you're aligned with your higher self. A related phenomena is the voice of conscience.

I literally had this exact thought some days ago. I visualized it as a continuum from something like naive realism to naive skepticism. People who've just recently discovered spirituality, or did so very young, often jump all the way out to the naive skepticism side of "the mind is all illusion, you can't know anything, it must all be thrown out", and maybe later they will re-integrate some aspects of the earlier rationality more in the center of the continuum. The asleep sheeple are of course stuck at the naive realism side , but general construct awareness (irrespective of mysticism) can also move you out to the center. I think somebody like Bernardo Kastrup is a good example of doing the gradual path of construct awareness (no sudden jumps), which eventually ended up in mystical territory.

Bernardo Kastrup. I know about JP's stances on MBTI. I don't think that is what I'm implying ? LOL. The guy has two separate PhDs (got the last one in under a year) and has studied Jung for decades. Whatever phases exist in that realm, he is way past it. I just think it's interesting that the big boy Jungians I know about (basically just JP and Bernardo ?) do not seem to be very excited about cognitive functions or MBTI.

@Yarco Many young people think enlightenment is about them. They're trying to shoehorn it into their desire to be someone, or to feel safe; lower level desires in disguise. So they will either get stuck in that game of spiritual ego and spiritual bypassing, or they will have to backtrack and re-establish that foundation which they deeply desire.

@thisintegrated He has written a whole book on Jung's metaphysics, but I've never heard him talk about cognitive functions out of the maybe 5-6 interviews I've watched ?

It's tricky, because intuition has a processing component which relies on current and past events, and states of your body and mind (perceptual data and even abstract reasoning), which can be regarded as contextual. However, the subjective experience of an intuition doesn't seem to be subject to one's volition (it's like a feeling or perception; it just happens), meanwhile logic and abstract reasoning is felt like something one is doing. So in a way, intuition relies on preconceived notions just like logic, but in a passive sense rather than an active sense, as it's not directly subservient to the will of the ego as it's happening. You can't unsee an intuition, just like how you can't unsee an apple in front of you (unless you're in some superduper altered state), but you can use logic selectively to serve your own egoic needs (be it unconsciously or not), like picking out a line of argumentation that is the most favorable. I didn't feel like it ?