MBTI Compatibility Theory ..Accurate!?????

[Gesundheit2]

@Carl-Richard Big 5 would then fall into the “normalization heuristic” or the normalization fallacy.

I don't think being either an introvert or an extrovert is normal or healthy by any means. I was mostly focused with my critique on the concept of introversion, but I could as easily critique extroverts for being co-dependent and easily distracted. That's not normal nor healthy, either. I could probably potentially make similar critiques to any personality traits that any model proposes. A normal/healthy human being is balanced and well-rounded, and capable of exuding any behavioral pattern without much force or struggling. They are not stuck within one mode of being. You can observe, within yourself and others, that all modes of being exist simultaneously, and that the models are just applying false distinctions based on false dualistic thinking. So, non-duality is most useful here. Though, I'm not even talking about an ideal enlightened sort of human being, really just a normal one. An ideal enlightened human being knows when and where to exercise any behavioral pattern. They have a perfect understanding and are perfectly-attuned to all the inputs they get from the environment on a moment-to-moment basis, so they basically don't exist, and I'm not talking about them. I'm talking about the normal/average person who is confused and addicted to certain patterns. The models, in my opinion, only serve to add more confusion on top of the original confusion.

[Carl-Richard]

@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? ?

[AtheisticNonduality]

@Gesundheit2 No, you're still missing it. Despite there being no reason for introversion to be automatically considered pathological, first make an attempt to see the evolutionary function of it. Consider that many of the enlightened shamans would have been separate from their tribes, and that civilizations would have been run by priests, scribes, lawmakers, architects, agriculturalists, none of which would have wasted time developing socialization skills since they had very specific functions. And then even look at modern society, with the top caste of billionaires being autistic white men (Musk, Zuckerberg, etc.) that invested massive amounts of time in technology. Obviously, they are not the healthiest forms that exist, but it shows why it makes sense for a percentage of people to be predisposed toward what is not the social field, to act as rulers, experimentalists, etc.

Now, this second part may seem a little harsh. The reason I didn't find much fascination with the outside world as a child was not because of bullying and the difficulty of it, finding it was weighing me down, but the sense that I was above it and had more important and enjoyable things to do. I might think of the memory I have of in elementary school, questioning why there was something rather than nothing internally while zoning out from the "s apostrophe, apostrophe s" nonsense the teacher and some overzealous student were going over. It wasn't that people were above me, but rather it was the inverse; it was simply that I considered them stupid, insipid, and a waste of time. So, environmentally, the reason was that the outside world was objectively inferior to what I had accessed interiorly, and this is connectable with the innate disposition.

Yet not all explanations would have that level of harshness, since there are a multitude of reasons for why someone would not care to be extraverted, would prefer having function upon society from outside it, would have focus upon intellectual or artistic or philosophical or mechanical or in-other-ways-obsessive interests.

[Gesundheit2]

1 hour ago, Carl-Richard said:

@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?

That's not what I'm saying.

I'm saying the models are false relative to normal people, because they are a misinterpretation of the data.

The data comes supposedly from observing patterns of behaviors, but how these patterns are collected affects the final data, which affects the interpretation. When we come at a scientific study with predefined terms and beliefs, we're automatically biased. All models of reality come with a bunch of cultural distortions based in language. But if we are not aware of those distortions, that can become a problem. And to me, it's obvious that these personality models are not aware of the distortions at all (Thank you, Jung).

Like I said with my critique of introverted people, the introverted person/pattern = someone who does not go out and socialize "enough", does not initiate contact most of the times, does not engage with high enthusiasm, etc. But the reality is that this person actually does all of these things, though in their own "perverted" way so to speak. So this "introverted data" is false, no matter how it is sliced. There isn't an introverted person. There is rather a human who wants and needs to socialize with other humans, but can't do it properly/effectively for some reason (that can be corrected, and that's the important part), so they cope with loneliness and isolation instead because it's safer and easier on their egos.

Note that not a single introverted person would not like to have sex with the hottest person of their preference, unless they're somehow asexual. If you randomly take any one of them and ask them if they would like to become social superstars, they will all say yes. If you ask them about their ideal world, they will describe a certain Uptonian world where their fantasies are actualized. If all of that doesn't prove my point, I don't know what will.

The thing is these introverted people are not abnormal in and of themselves/from birth. They were normal, but got polarized by trolls and bullies, which are the abnormal people (basically devils). See, in my view, trolls and bullies split people into two categories: those who can deal with them, and others who can't. Then polarization happens and after that, it gets complicated.

So introverts and extroverts are not typically "sick". They're rather exactly normal. But the pathological people who are actually sick create them through trauma. That's what the models are ignoring with their normalization fallacy.

[Gesundheit2]

@AtheisticNonduality I don't think intellectual interests and inclinations are mutually exclusive with being a social human being. You can do both. A lot of people do both.

The thing is that you can't ignore society, regardless of how you may judge it. Stupid or otherwise, it's the reason why you're alive pursuing whatever you are.

[Carl-Richard]

20 minutes ago, Gesundheit2 said:

So introverts and extroverts are not typically "sick". They're rather exactly normal. But the pathological people who are actually sick create them through trauma. That's what the models are ignoring with their normalization fallacy.

I remember learning about this definition of E/I:

Quote

Quiet: The Power of Introverts... author Susan Cain defines introversion and extraversion in terms of preferences for different levels of stimulation—distinguishing it from shyness (fear of social judgment and humiliation).

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]

3 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

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.

Introversion can also be explained by neuroticism. Introverts don't enjoy it when things are out of their control so they opt out for less stimulating environments because that makes them feel more in control, while extroverts are fine with loss of control, and don't have a problem with chaos. I'm using the word "chaos" intentionally to trigger your thoughts to generalize what I'm saying to the rest of Big 5.

3 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

Nevertheless, I don't see the big issue with the normalization fallacy in this case. Do you have another example of this?

Not currently. I will give more examples whenever they come up.

[Carl-Richard]

15 minutes ago, Gesundheit2 said:

Introverts don't enjoy it when things are out of their control

I can't find anything on that. Seems more like conscientiousness ?

Quote

High scores on conscientiousness indicate a preference for planned rather than spontaneous behavior.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Five_personality_traits

[Gesundheit2]

12 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

I can't find anything on that. Seems more like conscientiousness ?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Five_personality_traits

And that would be Circular Reasoning, which is exactly why I used the word "chaos". I anticipated you were going to think that way, so I preceded that objection and answered it right away by telling you to generalize the principle I'm suggesting, which is that all of the 5 traits can be reduced down to and explained by neuroticism.

[thisintegrated]

8 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

I don't understand what you mean.

If people regularly fall under both e.g. Spontaneous and Conscientious, that's a problem.  

 

8 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

Very Orange of you. What about the workers?  

Not at all.  Good actors want their directors to be dicks.  It means they take their job seriously.

 

22 minutes ago, Gesundheit2 said:

And that would be Circular Reasoning, which is exactly why I used the word "chaos". I anticipated you were going to think that way, so I preceded that objection and answered it right away by telling you to generalize the principle I'm suggesting, which is that all of the 5 traits can be reduced down to and explained by neuroticism.

Carl is known for doing this.  It's his inability/refusal to use Ti.

Edited June 12, 2022 by thisintegrated

[Carl-Richard]

48 minutes ago, Gesundheit2 said:

And that would be Circular Reasoning, which is exactly why I used the word "chaos". I anticipated you were going to think that way, so I preceded that objection and answered it right away by telling you to generalize the principle I'm suggesting, which is that all of the 5 traits can be reduced down to and explained by neuroticism.

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.

 

27 minutes ago, thisintegrated said:

If people regularly fall under both e.g. Spontaneous and Conscientious, that's a problem.  

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.

 

27 minutes ago, thisintegrated said:

Not at all.  Good actors want their directors to be dicks.  It means they take their job seriously.

Do you really think if you surveyed people, they would say that they prefer their boss to be a dick?

[Gesundheit2]

6 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

I didn't reduce introversion to conscientiousness. I said why it was more likely to be conscientiousness than introversion.

Yeah, but the point is that you're using the Big 5 model to explain the things I'm saying. And by definition, Big 5 defines introversion as something different from conscientiousness, and both different from neuroticism, since they're all different parameters that don't have to be correlated at all. I'm suggesting that all 5 traits stem from neuroticism alone, and that the model is based on false assumptions/dualities that don't have any reality to them on their own without neuroticism.

Edited June 12, 2022 by Gesundheit2

[thisintegrated]

3 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

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.

So if you're 50 for all the Big 5s, what is your type?

[Gesundheit2]

2 minutes ago, thisintegrated said:

So if you're 50 for all the Big 5s, what is your type?

Normie, The First.

[thisintegrated]

Just now, Gesundheit2 said:

Normie, The First.

lol

[Carl-Richard]

52 minutes ago, thisintegrated said:

So if you're 50 for all the Big 5s, what is your type?

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???

 

53 minutes ago, Gesundheit2 said:

Yeah, but the point is that you're using the Big 5 model to explain the things I'm saying. And by definition, Big 5 defines introversion as something different from conscientiousness, and both different from neuroticism, since they're all different parameters that don't have to be correlated at all.

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).

 

53 minutes ago, Gesundheit2 said:

I'm suggesting that all 5 traits stem from neuroticism alone, and that the model is based on false assumptions/dualities that don't have any reality to them on their own without neuroticism.

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?

[AtheisticNonduality]

3 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

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?

They all cause the variabilities of each other. That doesn't mean they don't exist.

[Carl-Richard]

5 minutes ago, AtheisticNonduality said:

They all cause the variabilities of each other. That doesn't mean they don't exist.

I think he means that they don't exist (or in our big brain pragmatic epistemology: they're not useful).

[AtheisticNonduality]

6 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

I think he means that they don't exist (or in our big brain pragmatic epistemology: they're not useful).

The ones that deny the existences of blue and red of course will elevate purple to the status of the only thing true, useful, and observant.

[thisintegrated]

1 hour ago, Carl-Richard said:

OMG there is no such thing as personality TYPES! Big 5 or no Big 5, this is the case.

Then it's even more useless than I initially thought.

Clearly types exist.  If two people with the same Big 5 results have no meaningful correlation in their personality then that's a failure of the model.

You'll never confuse an ISFJ with an INTJ.  If you see two INTJs you're gonna see the similarities, and if you know one, you'll know the other.  Types are real, and useful.

Edited June 12, 2022 by thisintegrated