Carl-Richard

In what way has it been "proved false"?

I'm in this case using a very strict definition of science, but nevertheless, I would be careful not to compare something like MBTI with something like flat earth. You're losing a ton of nuance there. For a start, one is based on the genius of Carl Jung and the other is based on epistemic blindness.

MBTI maybe. Big 5 is pretty solid quantitatively speaking. There are many things science can't help you with within your own life. MBTI has helped many.

For me, somehow something like this feels completely genuine while a video of some professor dunking on mysticism feels like a parody. It's like somewhere along the line, Poe's law reverses itself, as if it's a type of horseshoe theory. It's so inherently ridiculous that it just has to be authentic. It goes beyond parody.

No what no?

Nice.

Wokeverine. Cmon, you made it way too easy

How normal people engage in internet conversations: Person 1: Makes points A and B by saying c d e f g. Person 2: "I disagree with A and B and I'm going to write it in a couple of sentences." How Orange debunk lords engage in internet conversations: Person 1: Makes points A and B by saying c d e f g. Person 2: "You didn't provide any evidence for your claim, therefore A is false." "B i'm not going to address because I'm going to gish gallop you with a bunch of tangentially relevant paragraphs without directly addressing the point, picking apart every little unimportant detail like some postmodern genius." "c is a logical fallacy." "d is not a valid authority." "e is pseudoscience." "f is not backed by peer reviewed studies." "g is irrelevant - my argument still stands." Of course you shouldn't expect anything when talking to these people in the first place purely based on psychology, but you can also make that conclusion by just looking at the structure (or shape) of the conservation. It's impossible to have a back-and-forth when all you get in return is a tedious deconstruction of 5% of what you're saying and endless tangents of self-important verbosity. This is one big reason why debates don't work. Even if the psychology allowed for people to change their minds, the format that arises and some people excacerbate the effects of just makes it impossible.

❤️ Nice Who would've thought that reductionistic behaviorist concepts like stimulus/response could be used for something this holistic Back at ya

Yeah. Using his logic, if we were to trust him as an authority, where is his PhD in mysticism? ?

Cuz colonization.

Anybody else simply playing it for fun? I would tend to agree with @EnlightenmentBlog regarding the type of strategic thinking you're developing. Even if it was highly generalizable, I think most people already have enough step-by-step linear logic anyway. Working on your intuition will supercharge your strategic thinking, which will be the kind of strategic thinking that takes you into Tier 2 territory: solid left-brain base with intuitive augmentations. There is nothing more strategic than letting God do the thinking for you

Yes. I did one game on Chess.com where I didn't have any mistakes or blunders and only 1 inaccuracy (the rest were primarily best moves), but other than that, I'm pretty noob

What?

If we assume reality to be everything that exists, ask to be shown what it is that limits reality, and ask if that limit isn't a part of reality as well.

What time period after taking it are we talking? All psychedelics disrupt sleep for some time.

This is the natural talent fallacy. If you look at anyone in any field who excel at something, they have all invested thousands of hours of practice into getting to that point. The only thing that is rare is to do zero practice and become a master. Most gurus had to do a lot of practice to get to where they are.

Yes, but usually at the cost of others. That is why Blue arose, because of the need for higher-order collective organization. It's not that Red cannot be ordered at all, but "higher-order" is order connected to a higher structuring principle or purpose above the individual. Yes, but realize what that really means. It's not like Red has no motivation to do anything. They have a strong drive and desire to do stuff, but it's limited to egocentric impulses. The highest principle is the individual self. With Blue order and structure, your drive becomes streamlined towards a higher purpose than yourself: the transcendent, the collective, the divine, the good. Behavior becomes more intelligent, thoughtful, considerate: "is this in alignment with my values?". Red doesn't have to think about that. It always knows what it wants, and it wants it NOW. Discipline and work ethic is not the source of your motivation and energy. Those things are simply the purposeful structuring of your work output. They are infact restrictions on your natural energy (your immediate impulses, short-term desires). This increases the ability to think long-term, to invest, plan, scheme.

That's not a nice belief to have.

...yes. I'm asking your limited mind about what it believes. Now you're unironically being the brown bear from the Advaita trap video

Man the grace is too strong

Thank you! For sure.

OMFG I forgot how good this one is ?

Ah... the Neo-Advaita trap. Such a feeling of nostalgia

I had this experience at the exact same date as you last year. My problem is I fear it too much. I still do.