Carl-Richard

Not having a close family can be considered a disease in itself considering its overall impact on health. Some people only have their kids. Now imagine adding coercion on top of that.

Do you extend this to psychiatric conditions like Bipolar type 1? Then I wouldn't have been born. In fact, I doubt I would've had much of a family at all on my father's side ?

Oh yeah definitely ? Btw, I was going off of these: It's what popped up when I googled "MBTI stereotypes ENFP/INFP".

? ?

I have no pile of abandoned projects or quasi-hyper-social patterns to point to as a supposed Duracell Bunny ENFP. When I think about it, my dad is much more likely to be an ENFP (but he also has bipolar type 1). He has had like 10 different variably skilled jobs and a dozen businesses, met tons of people, runs a Facebook page etc. Other than that, he is pretty much like me.

INFP by far ☺

Yeah yeah, you and your cognitive functions reductionism. It's obviously the case that extroverted MBTI types correlate somewhat with trait extroversion (we talked about this before with ESFJs), and I think that applies to ENFPs as well, certainly if we go by stereotypes on personality database.

REEEEEE Then a sea sponge or amoeba uses logic. This also becomes weird when you start talking about how sensors (ESFJs) aren't logical. I think a better word you're looking for is "order" or meaningful behavior. Organisms have to behave in a particular way in order to survive: their bodies are ordered (homeostasis), and they interact with the environment in an ordered fashion to maintain that homeostasis. However, most people tend to reserve "logic" for higher-order survival behaviors, like high-level cognition, abstract reasoning and narrative-making. I've written about some of this before (which you don't have to read): Generally, I think you're using "logic" in a very loose way, and it's confusing.

Maybe, but when that entails using whatever hyper-abstract formulation you desire, you also risk people falling off completely and not engaging at all. You're just generally very hard to follow. I've noticed this in myself, that over the years as I've started assessing clarity of communication through the lens of simplicity (concreteness, conciseness) rather than complexity (abstractness, detailedness), people generally engage with me more, and the discussion is able to flow for perpetuity (and a lot of good can come out of that). True

That is a great point. Both Jordan Peterson and Trump rose to power by using the reverse-uno victim card: "look at all the people who disagree with my victim blaming narrative; I'm a victim!" It's quite, shall we say, postmodern ?

Well, maybe it's a larger problem of communication itself. It's inherently ambigious and imperfect. We each carry different internal dictionaries, different contextual interpretations, generally different ways of thinking, which is why good communication is dialectical rather than an exchange of monologues. We need to piece it together bit by bit, tease out the points, approximate etc. Being overly abstract and wordy and wanting everything to be delivered in a neat package can be detrimental to this process. If I were to use the forbidden MBTI: you need to work on your Fe and Ne blindspots ?

Agreed. I feel this is one big reason why I disagree with him typing me as an ENFP rather than an INFP. I used to be so introverted, it bordered on selective mutism. In high school, I would virtually never initiate a casual conversation with anybody else than my closest friends. Just because I write a lot, that doesn't make me into a Russel Brand ?

So you were the Devil all along. Go figure ?

? Chomsky would shoot you. In the beginning, language acquisition looks nothing like logic, more like basic imitation of sounds and movements. Children start by acquiring single words and phrases, and only over time, after learning thousands of words, they start to develop advanced grammar. It doesn't hurt to read some books just because you label it Te or whatever ? For a common definition of logic, I would recommend Kant's "analytic vs synthetic" and "a priori vs a posteriori" distinction. If you miss out on common definitions of things like "logic" or "emotion", communication will of course be hard.

You should maybe study some Piaget (maybe that helps to clear up some confusion around SD as well while you're at it ). Notice where "logic" arises:

...as I thought. You're inhabiting a different linguistic framework than dare I say most of mainstream academia, be it emotions or logic. No sane biologist would ever say insects use logic, or that animals with complex limbic systems can't feel basic emotions like anger. I learned at least that much from wasting a year in college on things like zoology systematics ?

Evil arguably also involves concepts like will and self-awareness, something that goes far beyond emotions, but of course emotions underlie all of it, because they're more fundamental. You're putting the cart before the horse. "The cortical areas evolved before the limbic system teehee", "sapience evolved before sentience", is essentially what you're saying... or maybe it's your idiosyncratic definition of "logic" as well that is pulling the strings here.

Is evil an emotion now? ? Cmon man. You're using a very idiosyncratic definition if you think that a cat can't experience anger if it isn't able to plot the kitty holocaust. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anger I'm talking about 1. and you're talking about 2. 1. is more fundamental and doesn't exclude 2.

@Razard86 Finally somebody else than me who thinks that Reciprocality has a case of word-itis. I watched this earlier today, and it's somewhat related to the predicament which adheres to the current progression of the situational state or the localization of the unfolding of current events :

I think trying weed at 17 shifted my baseline consciousness.

I think it is. Emotions evolved much earlier than cognition, and we share many basic emotions with many other animals (we share a limbic system). I think your definition of emotions is in fact reliant on cognition, i.e. cortical areas, rather than limbic areas. Now, what is reliant on cognition, is... you guessed it: cognitive emotion regulation (e.g. inhibition).

Why do animals get angry?

At the most fundamental level, anger is a response to a hindrance of movement. Is Sadhguru a plant?

What, so he can cure cancer as well? Emotions are just as much a part of the human experience as your body. For some people, again, they're either infrequent, or they last a very short time, or they're easily inhibited, or they're experienced in a more subtle way. These factors may lead to the appearance that somebody is in fact not experiencing any emotions at all. However, if you're claiming that the most conscious beings on Earth are unable to register emotionally salient stimuli, that would in fact be a severe disadvantage, and if anything, a lack of consciousness. I don't believe that enlightenment involves the subtraction of basic human processes. It's a transformation and recontextualization.

I was using "triggered" in a less loaded way. What about "activated"? His emotional system is certainly not inactive. You're talking about emotional inhibition. The emotion has to first arise for it to be inhibited.