Carl-Richard

Puer aeternus and existential OCD are two sides of the same coin.

Synchroncity: http://youtube.com/post/Ugkxhb44-s5FuKii1d1duEnhocQaQBMA1l_P?si=kqFpEEeQRa64p2jd

Here is a ChatGPT o3 prompt I developed (together with ChatGPT o3) for typing your MBTI type based on your posts on this forum: Why is this good? Because it avoids the biases associated with self-report, the bane of all self-administered personality tests. Now you can get a highly data-driven, third person testing of your personality type with just the click of a button. Feel free to feed this prompt to ChatGPT o3. Also, somebody try toggling the deep research option and increase the sample size by 10x (simply 10x all the relevant numbers in the prompt). Please share your results and your thoughts. Also feel free to provide your own prompts and develop the promps further by feeding it back to ChatGPT and cleverly asking it for help on how to improve it.

There exists lots of valueable non-vertical, non-construct aware stuff. I'll take massive dumps on theories any day but I'll also acknowledge their value.

What's that?

@aurum I have problems with necessarily tying functions together into 4-function clusters. But it's fine if you treat all the types/functions (only functions if you want to be rigorous) as statistical traits, so e.g. I'm x% INFP, x% INTP, x% ENFP, and so on (or x% Fi, x% Ti, x% Ne, x% Te, and so on). Other than that, MBTI's "type" aspect is really no more problematic than the diagnoses in DSM-5. If you e.g. have 7 symptoms of schizophrenia, not 6, then you "have" schizophrenia (or you "are" a schizophrenic). Like the diagnoses in DSM-5, MBTI is useful for describing and predicting behavior. They might not capture the entire complexity of a single individual, and indeed one individual might have several diagnoses at one time (or be just below the diagnostic threshold).

Is there one spiritual teacher you're not paranoid about?

*Somebody starts petting Reciprocality* — "I've calculated the emotional entailments of the situation and dissimulated it".

Spontaneous orgies during UN council meetings. That would be something.

I fed the prompt in the original post to the deep research ChatGPT o3 and told it to type @Leo Gura with a ≥1000 post sample size. Here is a summary and a link to the enormous ~7500 words research paper it generated: https://chatgpt.com/s/t_6863583b5c588191a59bb26dfccec267 I might be misremembering, but this "INTx" answer was something I argued at one point when discussing Leo's MBTI type with @thisintegrated some years ago where he insisted he was INTJ. I should probably tell it to not weigh any previous test results though, but it didn't seem to weigh it that much according to the report.

One of the greatest things you can do is to sow the conditions for people's self-expression.

We usually focus on other ways of giving humans attention, like talking. But we do "pet" each other, e.g. to show physical affection or to communicate, e.g. patting somebody on the shoulder when they did a good job. It's just more likely between people who have strong bonds.

I've noticed I should try to force myself to learn certain things related to my work (using programs like MATLAB) rather than get GPT to do the work, as that would actually speed up my work, because sometimes GPT gets stuck and neither of us knows why. If I have just a little more knowledge of certain things, I can probably help it get unstuck a few times more where it really matters, and then the work grows exponentially.

Below is a **re-engineered version of your original prompt**. It keeps every substantive requirement you listed but applies the five fidelity aids we discussed: * **Chunk & nest** → Major sections and sub-bullets * **Explicit priorities** → Numbered “override order” up front * **Self-check** → Checklist the model must output before final answer * **Two-turn structure** → You send Part 1 (spec) first, then Part 2 (question) * **Clarification invitation** → Model must ask if anything is unclear --- ### 🚩 PART 1 — SPECIFICATION (READ-ONLY) *The assistant should not answer yet; it should only acknowledge understanding or ask clarifying questions.* #### 0. Override-Order (Priority Rules) 1. **OpenAI policy & safety** 2. **This specification** 3. **Any future user follow-ups** --- #### 1. Context You will analyse the forum contributions of *Carl-Richard* (Actualized.org) to estimate his probabilistic MBTI type using peer-reviewed standards only. --- #### 2. Deliverables & Format Provide your answer under **exactly seven numbered H2 headings**: 1. **Methodology** 2. **Linguistic Analysis** 3. **Evidence Excerpts** 4. **Typological Reasoning** 5. **Results Table** 6. **Bias Checks** 7. **Limitations & Ethics** *(Do **not** add or remove headings.)* --- #### 3. Core Requirements (“Must-haves”) **A. Sampling** * State sampling frame and page-interval method. * Collect ≥ 100 unique posts; list count per calendar year. **B. Linguistic Corpus Metrics** * Compute per-1 000-word rates for: * mean sentence length * type–token ratio * jargon density * hedging frequency * metaphor density * rhetorical-device count **C. Evidence Excerpts** * Quote ≥ 10 passages (≤ 40 words each) with thread titles & dates. **D. Typology** * Map observed behaviours to cognitive functions using recognised functional models. **E. Bayesian Inference** * Show priors, likelihood cues, and posterior probabilities for the **four** most plausible types. **F. Trait Triangulation** * Cross-reference findings with Big Five **and** HEXACO literature. **G. Bias & Rigour** * List specific cognitive biases checked + mitigation steps. **H. Citations** * Minimum: three MBTI validity papers **and** one personality-language corpus study (APA style). **I. Misconception Guardrails** * For each of the 11 misconceptions supplied, include the ✗/✓ bullet exactly as provided. **J. Closing** * End with practical next steps to improve reliability (e.g., LIWC pass, Form M). --- #### 4. Secondary Style Guidelines (“Nice-to-haves”) * Keep tone scholarly and neutral. * Avoid anecdotal claims and pathologising language. * Refrain from definite diagnoses; phrase in probabilistic terms. * Use tables **only** where they improve clarity (metrics & results). --- #### 5. Self-Check Checklist At the very end of your response, output a short checklist confirming you have: | # | Item | Yes/No | | - | ------------------------------ | ------ | | 1 | ≥ 100 posts sampled | | | 2 | Metrics table present | | | 3 | 10+ excerpts with metadata | | | 4 | Bayesian table (4 types) | | | 5 | ≥ 4 scholarly citations | | | 6 | Misconception bullets included | | | 7 | Ethics note present | | *(Populate the “Yes/No” column yourself before sending the final answer.)* --- #### 6. Clarification Protocol If **any** part of this specification is ambiguous, ask follow-up questions **before** attempting the task. --- ### ➡️ PART 2 — QUESTION / GO-AHEAD *(You will send this as a separate message after the assistant acknowledges Part 1.)* > “Proceed with the MBTI estimation of Carl-Richard per the above specification.” --- ### How to use 1. **Send the text above (Part 1) as a single system or user message.** 2. Wait for the assistant to say something like *“I understand. Do you have any clarifications?”* 3. Send Part 2 to trigger the full analysis. This structure should maximise compliance with every requirement while giving the model explicit leeway to ask for clarification if needed and a built-in self-audit step. @Joshe I got ChatGPT o3 to tell me how to best make my prompt to maximize things like readability and I made it revise my prompt based on those criteria, and this is what it fed me.

It's more like instead of trying to stand on the bottom of Niagra falls and trying to stop the water, you jump in the water and go for a swim.

That video I posted, it hit me like a ton of bricks the first time I watched it.

Don't take the title as a pejorative. It's a highly relevant video:

My newest results based on adding the misconceptions section: I still think I'm more INFP than INTP but maybe my writing is more INTP. Maybe I could do some data-driven dialectics where I feed it my own description of myself and my own type estimation and make it single out places where its analysis might be inaccurate and how the prompt can be improved to address this. It could also probably be beneficial after new additions to ask it to streamline the prompt and remove repetitions to improve processing.

The eternal problem with generalized LLMs. A possible counter to that other than the "only use academic literature" prompt would be to feed it a list of common inaccurate internet tropes that it should avoid. Here is what I will update the original prompt with (could be developed further): "Avoid anecdotal claims" was supposed to counter this. Who knows if it actually works though lol

By accepting things you cannot solve now and moving on to things you can solve. That's a part of the growth mindset, of not expecting things to be served to you on a silver platter. It might be solved later with better knowledge. Also, when you engage with life intensely enough, unsolveable questions simply become absurd. You're constantly in a state of flow of solving things. If things aren't solved, you simply move on and keep the dopamine flowing. If you don't deal with enough solveable problems, your mind will focus on unsolveable problems. If you adopt enough responsibilities in life and engage with things that have a clear direction, you won't have time for endlessly looping about unsolveable questions.

Virtually all mental disorders are spectrums. It's even how they're operationalized: you virtually always need a certain number of symptoms (and often of a certain strength) to get the diagnosis. In other words, when you're far enough out on the spectrum, that is when we will slap a label on it and call it "a mental disorder".

Upgrade your worldview from a certainty vs unknown based worldview to a statistical worldview. What is likely given certain estimates? What is reasonable given certain arguments? Looking for certainty means you are looking for comfort. Growing up means going beyond mere comfort-seeking. Upgrade your worldview from a static worldview to a growth worldview. Wherever you put your focus and time in, it will grow. And even if you can't see a path right now, the path might be uncovered by simply walking a path. Your ignorance depends on your growth. It's not static. Your knowledge grows with data points, with statistics. Things do not reveal themselves without discovery, and discovery happens by taking the journey.

Degenius.

I'm lost in the sauce. What's the argument and how does it negate that certain structures have a certain naturalness to them? Does an amoeba have to discipline itself to chase a bacterium?

Ey fok yoo man.