Carl-Richard

You don't watch Twitch/YouTube politics? He basically started it all.

- filtered through your own mind. It's a dodgy website where people don't even agree what an ENTP is. If 10/10 voted the same type but gave 10 incommensurable answers for why, then that tells you nothing. But you don't know that, which is all I'm saying. Jung's clinical patients were not cross-cultural, and your experience (like Jung's) is not universal. Cognitive biases are notorious for being involuntary and unconscious. Peer reviewed journals, statistical methods, standards of validity and reliability etc. Despite all that, there are still subpar articles being published every day (and excellent ones being rejected). It's not an unknown phenomena of scientists tinkering with the numbers to further their own careers. People are also invested in maintaining the current paradigm (their careers and worldviews). Even for the mightiest of geniuses, toppling that is an uphill battle.

All Glink needed to say is that it's an atypical drug (meaning it doesn't work like other hedonic drugs), and that porn is arguably more similar to hedonic drugs than psychedelics. Though, I don't think he knows very much about drugs by the way he talks about them ?

I've also gone through the same process, and it's one of the reasons why I've been so insistent on focusing on the empirical side of things here. The whole premise of applying the model to see if it makes sense is highly questionable. It relies on so many assumptions, it makes your head spin. For one thing, it relies on nothing but your own mind, which is a product of your genes, your environment and your unique life story. Even if similar people agree on something, their environment is often shared and limited by cultural biases. Your mind's existence is wholly dependent on self-interest, emotional desires and survival needs, and is prone to biases of belief, data selection, and flawed reasoning, memory, perception etc. Even the scientific enterprise with its multiple-party oversight and structured methodologies, struggles to keep all of this in check, so to assume that you yourself are transparent enough and responsible enough to hold yourself to account, well that's rich!

Once something gets destigmatized enough, it starts getting seen as edgy or cool, and then over time, it just becomes normal. Another example of this is skateboarding. It went from being outright illegal to being edgy, and today it's normal.

That's great! Now you don't have to walk it alone

I read that one as sarcasm ?

It's a nice way to come off as a weirdo

1.5 hrs in, I actually prefer listening to Mr. Girl's dry materialism over Glink's butchered explanations of spirituality. The way he phrases things is so clumsy and dull. What Glink is grasping at is what I've articulated in Intrinsic Health (IH), but I believe he takes it too far when he says any amount of porn is bad for any person. From the IH perspective, Mr.Girl's stance of not repressing your fantasies or sexual urges is actually an important and necessary starting point, and then over time (given the right focus and techniques), you'll naturally evolve (a.k.a "burning karma") to not prefer high levels of stimulation by refining your sensitivity. If you're repressing parts of yourself, you're denying your full potential/expression/unfoldment/development, and it's extrinsically rather than intrinsically motivated (it's focused on future outcomes – "what I want later", rather than immediate benefits – "what I want now"). Doing what you want/crave is not what is "bad". It rather depends on what is being craved, and what you crave will change as you develop, and you can only develop through affirming your cravings.

You're talking about the West. Look up gender fluidity in Hinduism. Echoing Roy's point, even homosexuality was considered a psychiatric illness by the American Psychiatric Association until 1973. And that's only homosexuality.

Same with aging. But that doesn't mean aging won't affect your physical body.

How did you arrive at this?

Nooo I'm just interested in the empirical aspect of all this I'm not making any statement like "cognitive functions ARE false" or "Big 5 ARE true". It seems like we're on the same grounds. It's just my prior misunderstandings (mixing up typology, MBTI, tests etc.) messed up the discussion.

Maybe you did there, but if we're indeed talking about the same typology, it's claimed that specific functions go together, i.e, correlate, like I stated earlier (e.g. Ti and Fe etc.). It's these functions that will occur in different proportions.

I know you're going to address this at the bottom of your post, but I'll just repeat it: These are intuitions about correlations of behavior. If they make intuitive sense, that means they should be tested to see if the intuitions don't contradict the empirical "reality". Yes, generally speaking, psychology is a fluffy science, but we still choose the least fluffy models when we can. Just with cognitive functions, you have to learn what the traits mean (descriptions of behaviors and correlations between behaviors). Each 5 traits contain 6 sub-traits within them (for a total of 30). This means you can get 30 scores to describe your personality. Somebody who gets a similar score to you would have to answer the same things on the test, and those questions are supposed to represent the constructs in question (traits/sub-traits). It's crude and limited, but according to the experts in personality psychology (yes, this matters), it's the best thing we've got. ? I'm not saying absense of evidence is necessarily evidence of absense, but maybe it is in this case? ?

@thisintegrated I appreciate the openmindedness #Big5lingo ? I might be critical of it, but I truly wish there existed a perfect typology.

There are in-built claims about correlations between behaviors that need to be justified somehow: For example, Ti users will also use Fe, like Fi users will use Te. Ne users will also use Si, like Ni users will use Se. Frequency of one determines the frequency of another. This goes beyond pure descriptions and into predictions. It's fine to say "this guy is thinking about zebras right now", but to then say "that means he will think about unicorns later" is a step up from that.

I don't think we're talking about the same thing. I'm talking about a sheet of paper.

You sure? if I were to take your previous post as something more than just virtue signalling, you seem to not understand the basic distinction between criticizing cognitive functions and typology (I'm only doing the latter).

I have nothing against the cognitive functions as standalone descriptions. This was mentioned in my first post on this thread. I'm critical of the typology aspect.

MBTI has a test. This test is what is unreliable. They're merely descriptions that have to be operationalized using some alternative measurement (e.g. a questionnaire/test, physiological measurements, brain activity etc.) in order to become "empirically useful" (predicting behaviors etc.). You do this by seeing if these measurements correlate with the behaviors you want to investigate (e.g. "does depression correlate with lower work performance?" "Depression" can be represented by say a measurement like serotonin levels in the brain. These measurements are often crude and limited, but at least they allow you to find correlations that can help predict future behaviors. That's also my view, but this changes when you start talking about typology (and claims about the frequency one uses the functions). Once you start talking about correlations to behavior (and correlating the functions with each other), you're in the realm of science. What are the justifications for combining these functions into types?

No I've proved to myself that I guessed two people's types correctly.

How do I know I'm not talking to one right now?