Carl-Richard

This is the selection bias I'm talking about. You're making it seem like I only use Te because I like to use empiricism to criticize MBTI, a topic where speculation around cognitive functions are the most likely to come up in the first place. What about my 6500 other posts in other threads? Besides, according to thisintegrated himself, caring about Te is not indicative of a Te type, because apparently ENTP uses it all the time.

Outside the MBTI cult, it's called reading ? That said, stage models like SD and all the others work pretty good if you're white.

I just started thinking back to the last day of school when I was 15 where I felt that one of my teachers saw this extremely shy kid that I was, and identified with me, as he was just like me at some point. I've thought about this moment many times, but today I managed to see it from a new perspective, through his very own eyes. I was literally being him in that moment, looking at me, and experiencing what he was thinking and feeling about me. It was very emotional. I wonder if anybody has had anything similar, a very profound experience of empathy, either as it was happening, or retrospectively.

Based on a naive 1st person "I apply the model, it works" conception of verification, then sure... I'm talking about statistically rigorous empirical evidence. Jean Piaget's stage theory, the cognitive backbone of SD (basically 1-to-1 correlation with beige to orange), has been shown to not work in intercultural studies. Piaget carried out virtually all his studies in Geneva, Switzerland without controlling for cultural background, just like Clare Graves carried out most of his studies in America on majority white college students.

I feel that knowing the limits of various scientific models doesn't threaten my worldview. I don't know about you

I like to define spiritual growth as the gradual unwinding of the cyclical patterns of your being, which translates to distancing yourself from your physicality (and the associated mentality as well), as the physical is fundamentally based on cyclical movements, oscillations, vibrations, 1s and 0s. To be driven by the physical and the cyclical is the definition of compulsive behavior; of instinctive, animalistic or unconscious tendencies. Spirituality and consciousness is about breaking out of all that and establishing meaningful and streamlined behavior, and eventually transcending it all. Now, growth as a linear concept is pointing somewhere, towards the extremes, like the states achievable during seated/immobile meditation, ecstatic/delirious trances, or ultimately mahasamadhi. All of these are considered highly "dysfunctional" when you're identified with the physical, but they're also in a sense the peak of spirituality, which again goes beyond the physical. What you're looking for is more along the lines of the concession of the Bodhisattva, who chooses to return to the illusion and take on the burden of a physical existence in order to awaken the world. That requires a kind of balance which lets you keep one foot in both worlds, which can be immensely functional.

Looking at the empirical evidence (which is tainted by WEIRD bias; "Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich, Democratic"), SD has doubtful intercultural validity, certainly not cross-cultural. At least it has some empirical evidence though ?, considering it lines up with world history in broad strokes and correlates with other WEIRD stage theories (Piaget, Kohlberg, Loevinger, Kegan etc.). However, it's practically impossible to create a perfectly universal theory of human development (independent of contextual factors, i.e. culture, socioeconomics etc.) that isn't almost only descriptive (like Sameroff's transactional theory). Predictive models have to be specific on some level, and specificity is a trade-off for generalizability.

Haha I guess so. That is my hometown ? If you're ever there, you should try walking the mountain in the top-right corner (Ulriken) or the one in the center of the picture (Fløien).

??? 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.