Carl-Richard

Things start to get a little fuzzy when you start blending spirituality, hermeneutics and dry quantitative science. The fact of the matter is that MBTI presents itself as a rigorously scientific personality model with all the modern chops of quantitative measurements, but it simply isn't that. It's a very specific thing I'm saying. It's true that science often progresses through things like sheer luck or happenstance (like suddenly discovering the therapeutic potential of meditation), things that have really nothing to do with structured methodology, but this still doesn't devalue the very way which we evaluate our current scientific models (which is what the criteria around reliability and validity of measurement instruments in the quantitative social sciences are about). When I say that a model is outdated, it has to have been through the scientific machinery first and then deemed insufficient. That doesn't apply to meditation, as it was just recently discovered by science and then given a warm embrace.

The official MBTI assessment on the Myers and Briggs website (the one you have to pay for, not the quack knock-offs), has among other things poor reliability and validity. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myers–Briggs_Type_Indicator#Criticism This is how you do quantitative social science: you take a concept or model, and you create a standardized measurement for it (a.k.a "operationalization"), like a self-assessment test. This is the bottom line of modern personality theory. If you've gone through the effort of creating such a measurement (which MBTI has), and it doesn't hold up, then it's by definition pseudoscience. You bringing up examples that "make logical sense" doesn't change that fact, because again, it's an appeal to postulated explanatory power, not standards of empirical research.

That which is considered pseudoscience today could revolutionize science tomorrow. However, you're not going to do that by simply clinging to an outdated 100 year old model, unless you're able to develop it.

What ? Even under an idealistic ontology, you would still distinguish between sentience and non-sentience. A rock under idealism is made out of consciousness, but it's not sentient (experiencing pain or pleasure), as that requires at least sensory organs, which are survival tools given to animals.

But you're not. You would be lying if you said that.

Yup. Intrinsic motivation is one of the most stable drives of behavior. I guess the challenge is to get somebody to actually change how they think or feel, because I suspect it's not just about one belief. It's a whole system of beliefs that needs to be deconstructed. One belief gets justified by another which gets justified by another etc. It's not a coincidence that veganism is sometimes called a lifestyle or a worldview.

Are you faking it?

Wooo part 2!

Great crossover of non-duality and analytical idealism.

@thisintegrated Here is our disagreement in a nutshell: you're placing value on postulated explanatory power over validity/reliability, while I do the opposite. In other words, MBTI seemingly is able to explain a lot of things (arguably more than Big 5), but when you actually test it through statistical methods, it doesn't add up. Therefore, when I look at it, I see a broken model. When you look at it, you see a broken statistical method. I'm at odds with one model, and you're at odds with the fundamentals of quantitative social science. You don't care about this, because you value the abilities of your own human mind over the statistical methods that are designed to eliminate flaws of the human mind. You also value your own individual abilities over the abilities of a thousand scientific geniuses.

100 years ago, we had horses and MBTI. Today, we have Teslas and Big 5. Yes, science vs. pseudoscience is defined relative to the current scientific paradigm, so it's constantly changing. It's nevertheless a useful distinction, because it tells you how to best explain and predict how nature behaves.

It's a meaningful correlation. It's just not as black-and-white as you prefer it to be. That is the cost of eliminating pseudoscience. I'll continue to call it that because it's an accurate term, not because it's demeaning.

When or if I ever re-open this again, I want you to recognize the excruciating irony of this thread becoming derailed by drama.

After having had to deal with reports from the journaling section for about a year now and having tried repeatedly to find adequate solutions to these problems, I've come to a few conclusions: 1. Moderating personal feuds in the journaling section is nearly impossible to do from an unbiased point of view, both from a technical standpoint and a purely practical standpoint. 1.1 Technical It involves the same people over and over again; long-term and recurring interpersonal feuds with no definite starting point. This is a known phenomena, and there is no simple solution. Communication theory teaches you this. 1.2 Practical It involves scanning through pages upon pages of walls of text in multiple journals, often many hours, days or weeks back in time, and frequently changing between tabs and cross-referencing statements, all while holding two or more conversations in PMs. 2. Moderating, as in giving out warning points, should ideally only be done when there is a definite cause of blame. With complex issues such as these (as stated in 1.1), this is generally not possible. Often, the only valid course of action is manually talking to people, trying to de-escalate tensions, and finally making said people leave each other alone. This is of course ultimately futile when said people like reading other people's journals, and sooner or later, the cycle continues. 3. Personal feuds in the journaling section generally happen in a grey area with respect to the guidelines. These feuds are often fought using covert, subtle and ambiguous language which is not in direct violation of the guidelines. The intended meaning of such language is also hard to decode for a moderator who is not immersed in the same context as the people involved, which goes back to the technical and practical problems in 1.1 and 1.2. Summary and solution: Personal feuds in the journaling section should therefore be regarded as generally not a moderating issue. That said, moderators are still able to take actions against you the way they see fit, the same way they always have (you're not granted some special protection because you were posting in the journaling section). You should only use the report function if there has been a concrete violation of the guidelines, or if you deem it absolutely necessary to do so. It's up to the individuals themselves to decide whether they want to start using the block function, stop reading other people's journals, or leave their emotions aside. Blocking other people keeps you from reading their journals and posts in general, which is the safest option. Please voice your opinions below.

✌️

@Benton @Preety_India Shall I lock this again?

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? ?