All the MBTI stereotypes are accurate??

[thisintegrated]

2 minutes ago, Akashic said:

Don't throw around these terms as if they make you sound smart. In truth, education is about the simplification of complex ideas.

Both sympathy and empathy have roots in the Greek term páthos meaning “suffering, feeling.” - Dictionary

At the heart of the words empathy and sympathy is the Greek pathos, which means “suffering,” “experience,” or “emotion.”

"The action of understanding, being aware of, being sensitive to, and vicariously experiencing the feelings, thoughts, and experience of another of either the past or present without having the feelings, thoughts, and experience fully communicated in an objectively explicit manner." - aceseditors.org

Two kinds of empathy:

Cognitive empathy — knowing how the other person feels and what they might be thinking.

This isn't objectively explicit either, which afaik is what you seem to be getting at. It is reflexive.

You consider etymology a big word? 

Anyway..

 

2 minutes ago, Akashic said:

Emotional/affective empathy — when you feel physically along with the other person, as though their emotions were contagious.

This is the main one. What creates compassion in this world.

Would you say you need to suffer the pain of being in a concentration camp when talking to someone who went through this?  Are you really saying that unless you literally feel their pain, you will have zero compassion for them?  Jeez, I knew INTJs were dark.. but that's next level, lol.

[AtheisticNonduality]

4 minutes ago, thisintegrated said:

Would you say you need to suffer the pain of being in a concentration camp when talking to someone who went through this?  Are you really saying that unless you literally feel their pain, you will have zero compassion for them?  Jeez, I knew INTJs were dark.. but that's next level, lol.

That actually would be helpful, though a bit debilitative for the average person.

1 minute ago, Akashic said:

You'd have reflexive empathy only--which by definition, would make you a psychopath.

Without emotional empathy, you are able to exploit people without the pain of suffering with them.

That's where deontology and moral codes come in.

[AtheisticNonduality]

@Akashic Nah, there are psychopaths who are benevolent just because they don't want to go to prison, hell, social condemnation, etc. Also, I have heard from Christians that you should give charity and volunteer to help people because of God, because of God's will and moral stricture, rather than because of empathy and you feeling good from doing something. Empathy there is selfish because it is about how you feel in relation to other people, rather than what God feels. Obviously, that is a bad view in terms of accuracy, but it proves morality need not come from empathy.

[thisintegrated]

omg this fucking forum.. just pressed "show reply" and it deleted everything I wrote??

 

7 minutes ago, AtheisticNonduality said:

That actually would be helpful, though a bit debilitative for the average person.

Helpful, yes, but unnecessary if the goal is to gain compassion.  Trauma from this would cause hundreds of millions to commit suicide, so not worth it.

 

10 minutes ago, Akashic said:

You'd have reflexive empathy only--which by definition, would make you a psychopath.

Without emotional empathy, you are able to exploit people without the pain of suffering with them.

Ever heard of the Levenson Self-Report Psychopathy Scale? That one directly tackles this topic. People who may not be psychopaths but have lesser levels of emotional empathy are likelier to exploit for people. Emotional empathy is the bedrock of all the good values. And it involves, yes, suffering with the other.

Really jumping around the question here..

btw, simpler to say FI/Fe than emotional empathy, reflexive emotional empathy, etc.

[Carl-Richard]

1 hour ago, thisintegrated said:

If Sadhguru saw you crying, do you think he'd feel horrible and depressed?  Of course not.  He could if he wanted to, and he'd likely have a good understanding of how you're feeling, but he wouldn't voluntarily make himself feel depressed just because he saw a sad person.

At Sadhguru's level of consciousness, he is you crying and feeling horrible and depressed. Btw, search up "Sadhguru crying" on YouTube  

 

1 hour ago, thisintegrated said:

The more evolved someone is, the more control they have over their emotions.  Every moment in Sadhguru's life is happy.  Even if someone he knew died, he'd still be happy.  He'd be sad, but he'd still be happy.  Happiness doesn't come from anything.  It's your natural state, and nothing should be able to take it away from you ..unless you're still immature and are still controlled by external influences.

He is certainly happy just by his own nature, but he is also able to "feel the other", which is my point.

[thisintegrated]

13 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

At Sadhguru's level of consciousness, he is you crying and feeling horrible and depressed. Btw, search up "Sadhguru crying" on YouTube  

He is certainly happy just by his own nature, but he is also able to "feel the other", which is my point.

Feel the other, but not recreate hell for himself for literally no reason.

Suffering just creates more suffering.  Sadhguru understands this and wouldn't choose to recreate your suffering within his own consciousness.  If you made Sadhguru fall into despair would that make you feel any better? No, so Sadhguru wouldn't make himself suffer randomly just because it's considered "empathetic".  He doesn't care about Preety's approval or how good of a person he appears outwardly.  Sadhguru would say "Let them suffer if they want, fuck 'em" and that's the enlightened view.

 

And no, if you feel depressed he wouldn't see your depression as his depression.  This sounds like some Green misunderstanding of non-duality.  To Sadhguru, you're just a picture of a crying kid.  Would a picture of a crying kid make sadhguru fall into a deep depression?  lol.  Your emotions do not exist within Sadhguru's reality.  Your emotions are your own.  For Sadhguru to feel your emotions he'd have to imagine them and create them for himself, as otherwise they don't exist.

Edited May 19, 2022 by thisintegrated

[Carl-Richard]

8 minutes ago, thisintegrated said:

Feel the other, but not recreate hell for himself for literally no reason.

Suffering just creates more suffering.  Sadhguru understands this and wouldn't choose to recreate your suffering within his own consciousness.

And no, if you feel depressed he wouldn't see your depression as his depression.  This sounds like some Green misunderstanding of non-duality.  To Sadhguru, you're just a picture of a crying kid.  Would a picture of a crying kid make sadhguru fall into a deep depression?  lol.  Your emotions do not exist within Sadhguru's reality.  Your emotions are your own.  For Sadhguru to feel your emotions he'd have to imagine them, create them for himself, as otherwise they don't exist.

Emotions are spontaneous and can be triggered in anyone. It's just that for some people, like Sadhguru, 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; but the emotions are nevertheless still experienced. It's easy to conflate unconscious emotional repression with "spiritual detachment". If you're truly conscious, you will express whatever emotion arises within you (to the extent that is appropriate), because that is what is healthy human behavior. That is why Sadhguru cries at times, or raises his voice, or is polite etc. If your emotional system was completely inactive, you wouldn't be able to even move. He is certainly able to differentiate between emotional states, inside and outside himself, which again, is my only point. He is of course not stuck in the compulsive cognitive-emotional loops we call suffering.

[thisintegrated]

1 minute ago, Carl-Richard said:

Emotions are spontaneous and can be triggered in anyone. It's just that for some people, like Sadhguru, 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, but the emotions are still experienced. It's easy to conflate unconscious emotional repression with "spiritual detachment". If you're truly conscious, you will express whatever emotion arises within you (to the extent that is appropriate), because that is what is healthy human behavior. That is why Sadhguru cries at times, or raises his voice, or is polite etc. If your emotional system was completely inactive, you wouldn't be able to even move. He is certainly able to differentiate between emotional states, inside and outside himself, which again, is my only point. He is of course not stuck in the compulsive cognitive-emotional loops we call suffering.

A highly developed person can't be "triggered" like you're suggesting.  Fear is what's "triggered" in a person to make them angry/annoyed/jealous/etc., but if you have no fear then there's nothing to trigger.

Sadhguru doesn't have sad cries.  He cries out of overwhelming positive emotion, as this is something he wants.   It's not like someone can insult him and he gets triggered and starts having a mental breakdown, as you're suggesting.

[Carl-Richard]

3 minutes ago, thisintegrated said:

A highly developed person can't be "triggered" like you're suggesting.  Fear is what's "triggered" in a person to make them angry/annoyed/jealous/etc., but if you have no fear then there's nothing to trigger.

Sadhguru doesn't have sad cries.  He cries out of overwhelming positive emotion, as this is something he wants.   It's not like someone can insult him and he gets triggered and starts having a mental breakdown, as you're suggesting.

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.

[thisintegrated]

3 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

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.

The emotion doesn't arise in him at all.  Why would it?  If anger doesn't serve him, why would he ever experience anger?  There's literally nothing you could do to piss him off.

[Preety_India]

2 hours ago, thisintegrated said:

Sure I know what suffering is.  I just don't take my own suffering seriously.  No one should.  No matter what happens, life goes on, and any attachment to suffering is 100% your own doing.

Yes I'm unempathetic, I'm an ENTP.  Not only are emotions not a big focus for me, but I think everyone should be less sensitive.  Although I'm less emotional, I'm happier than most emotionally sensitive types such as yourself.  The more space negativity takes up, the less space is left for love and happiness.  You should aspire to be more like me

Suffering is 90% just worrying about suffering.  If you stopped judging everything as good and bad, nothing would bother you.  Learning to laugh at suffering is an essential skill you must learn sooner or later (though I think this may be a level Yellow ability, so might not make sense yet..)

 

If you take on other people's suffering, that's an unhealthy/immature ego.

If you take your own suffering seriously, that's an unhealthy/immature ego.

 

We shouldn't be enabling unhealthy egos.  We should, instead, be providing opportunities for people to overcome their egoic delusions.

You're already judging suffering as bad. Maybe suffering is not bad. 

Also you can't dictate what people should be with their suffering nor hold them accountable for it with your silly theories on attachment. 

 

[Carl-Richard]

15 minutes ago, thisintegrated said:

If anger doesn't serve him, why would he ever experience anger?

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.

[thisintegrated]

1 minute ago, Preety_India said:

You're already judging suffering as bad. Maybe suffering is not bad. 

Also you can't dictate what people should be with their suffering nor hold them accountable for it with your silly theories on attachment. 

 

"silly theories on attachment"

I can't believe you said that????

 

This is like the simplest, most basic idea in spirituality/actualization/buddhism/etc.  Literally no one disagrees with this.  Even stage Orange people usually understand this concept.

Suffering isn't a physical thing.  If someone makes you angry, and they're outside your house but you don't know, will you be angry and negative?  Of course not.  You can only be angry when you think "he's here?!? Ok, now I'm angry".  The person's proximity was irrelevant.  Before finding out they there you were happy.  If you understand this logic, it should be obvious how all suffering is a product of your mind.  If you weren't attached to that person in some way, their presence wouldn't have evoked anger in you.

All suffering is caused by attachment, be it to a belief in your abilities, or a belief in your social status, or in a person, or anything else.

[thisintegrated]

9 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

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.

????

Emotions are something you subconsciously create for yourself to achieve some goal.  E.g. if you have a fear of being without honor then whenever someone insults your honor you will get angry as a means of getting yourself to respond and defend your honor.

Without anger, you may have let the insult go unchallenged.  But because you've decided that honor is something worth protecting, emotions come up to help you; to move you to action.

Sadhguru doesn't give a shit about honor or anything like that because he's awake enough to know that losing honor is nothing to fear.  In fact, there's nothing he fears, so there's nothing for him to defend, and nothing for "anger" to do.  Again, how would anger serve him?  

Edited May 20, 2022 by thisintegrated

[Preety_India]

2 minutes ago, thisintegrated said:

"silly theories on attachment"

I can't believe you said that????

 

This is like the simplest, most basic idea in spirituality/actualization/buddhism/etc.  Literally no one disagrees with this.  Even stage Orange people usually understand this concept.

Suffering isn't a physical thing.  If someone makes you angry, and they're outside your house but you don't know, will you be angry and negative?  Of course not.  You can only be angry when you think "he's here?!? Ok, now I'm angry".  The person's proximity was irrelevant.  Before finding out they there you were happy.  If you understand this logic, it should be obvious how all suffering is a product of your mind.  If you weren't attached to that person in some way, their presence wouldn't have evoked anger in you.

All suffering is caused by attachment, be it to a belief in your abilities, or a belief in your social status, or in a person, or anything else.

This is just theory. How people interpret suffering is up to them 

Maybe the goal is not to eradicate suffering but to understand suffering. 

Also suffering on a collective cannot be eliminated.

Just because you don't suffer doesn't give you the right to preach others on how they shouldn't suffer. 

That's a highly entitled approach and it's not spiritual. 

Buddhism is irrelevant. Buddhism is not a tool to insult suffering 

 

Also read on spiritual bypassing. 

Too much arguing with you because you don't understand suffering and talk from your ass

Goodluck 

 

[Carl-Richard]

4 minutes ago, thisintegrated said:

Again, how would anger serve him?  

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

[thisintegrated]

11 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

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

It's not.  It's a primitive response to being denied something you feel you're entitled to.

If you think you deserve the computer to not freeze all the time you may get angry.

But you never get angry at how you can't fly as you don't believe you're entitled to this.  lol, imagine being able to fly, but 1% of the time you just can't get it to work for like a full minute.  You'd get fucking pissed off lmao.

 

Edited May 20, 2022 by thisintegrated

[Carl-Richard]

Just now, thisintegrated said:

It's not.  It's a primitive response to being denied something you feel you're entitled to.

Why do animals get angry?

[thisintegrated]

3 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

Why do animals get angry?

They don't really, not in the same way.

A cat may hiss and scratch if you pick her up too much, but that's not really anger, just aggression to tell you to stop.

 

Just now, Akashic said:

I quoted studies on the topic. Arguing with them could be simply fallacious.

omg you really are a Te, aren't you?

Edited May 20, 2022 by thisintegrated

[thisintegrated]

1 minute ago, Benton said:

@Akashic Link the study homegirl

It will help everyone understand what you do be saying better

lmao, now you've really pissed him off???