Share this comment
> MBTI has acronyms so its spreadable, compressible
Yes, the pop-psych crowd want something simple and evocative to talk about at parties and put on a tattoo; they'll run with horoscopes because that's just about the only simple and evocative game in town. Granted, they're generally bad people (see sciencedirect.com/scien… ) but they're s…
> MBTI has acronyms so its spreadable, compressible
Yes, the pop-psych crowd want something simple and evocative to talk about at parties and put on a tattoo; they'll run with horoscopes because that's just about the only simple and evocative game in town. Granted, they're generally bad people (see https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0191886921007686?ref=cra_js_challenge&fr=RR-1 ) but they're still going to have an influence on the discourse. Unlike horoscopes, at least the MBTI is essentially correct if you squint at it - it's just that serious and intelligent individuals will soon want to move past it to understand personality.
> high F types (to give the MBTI reference) may be more prone to lying actually than T users
That's my opinion. Emotionality/Feeling is generally seen as prosocial, but the fearfulness, sensitivity, and conformity of Emotionality makes people high in E uncomfortable with frank, clear communication. When there's also a lack of Honesty-Honor, they just have no respect at all for the truth. H- E- Psychopaths are occasionally truthful when they don't really care, but H- E+ Borderlines are just constantly manipulating and gaslighting everybody: https://thingstoread.substack.com/p/our-vulnerability-to-wicked-women
https://open.spotify.com/episode/0mv3RIzDIiuvbSagED87yx?si=4bd5067e5176489a - in the first 5 minutes of this episode, Pollard talks about what we were discussing in regards to agreeableness causing lying.
It's the most painful thing to watch in a person. As a Narcissist has fallen in love with themselves, truly protects and adores the Self, to watch someone else bash the Self is horrifying and degrades your opinion of the Other.
Going to get reasonably philosophical about the side affects of doing this to the Self, humour me.
There are two psychopathic (low agreeableness, high assertiveness, arguably, higher openness) reactions to this, you "bring them up" to see their behaviour, or you "bring them down" because that's what their Ego is craving.
That's what they are calling for. That's sometimes why you end up amongst them. They are calling for someone to cause their Ego pain, because they are reiterating to themselves over and over and over again, that the Self is flawed. So they want to come across people who have the "assertive" force to bypass their own Ego to... deal with the river because they have lost control.
But so for me its like raging against a river, I can see the person is drowning in their 'politeness', and I yank them out above the river and just watch them. This is something you can do when you have enough fuel in whatever way that is required to fuel you going, "against the current of the river".
I would call it politeness now but that's a psychological term... for me... its like the Self has become fragmented amongst the expectations of the Other. It's like you are yanking it out to "see itself" because its gotten "ripped up," it can't reconnect to itself. Cognitive dissonance, maybe, would be another psychological phrase for it. Dissonance of the Self. It "thinks its in position x, y and z," but when you yank it out, epigenetically I guess, the epigenetic environment stops affecting it and it returns back to x. This epigenetic environment is not physical, its mental.
I'll give an example. Say you sit down in front of me and I ask, "What's your name?" What if you didn't know your name so couldn't answer the question. What would be my reaction to you? It's the same at every level of assurance. It's not what you know, nor what you don't know, it's "in what you know, are you sure?"
Sure is also the wrong word... proud of it. Probably slightly better. Like, "okay" with what you found. Even if it makes you weak, wrong, an idiot, a great man, etc. No matter what you see, are you, "okay", with what you see. If you aren't okay, it "shakes". A bully can smell this.
Actually, to be really personal, I am highly offended by it. I don't get offended by many things, really low disgust response to most stimuli - but it really fucking pisses me off, because it implies to my Self that if I like you, that I am incorrect. I can choose whatever the fuck I want to like, and when the Self attacks itself, it's implying what I have chosen isn't "good". I've verbally said that to a few people in the last decade, like "stop being such a cunt to yourself," and cited the above in the same way. People forget that this is what is happening. They feel doubt about the Self and are drowning in it. It's ridiculously offensive to imply I have bad taste in human selection. Bleed me dry trying to fight against that river to reiterate you're not a piece of shit - completely arrogant to hate oneself.
To imply that instead of fighting against doubt yourself, that, every, single, other, human, you interact with - must fight it for you. Completely ridiculous. Because it feels good to feel bad right? To get angry, to have doubt, it can be fun as fuck. Watching people hate themselves is like watching people drinking coffee - totally unaware they are consuming a drug and that they are then going to not be useful at x y or z - because they chose just x. Which is fine, want to feel bad, doubtful, angry, etc. Good. But then don't be offended by what happens because you let someone else control the river - you let 'x' and x doesnt give a shit about you. Caffeine doesn't care whether your brain is too linear to do 'y', neither does your brain after hormonal release after a yummy bout of neuroticism.
I've met plenty of nice neurotic people, the guy, Pollard, who is talking in this video from above. He has had it... hard. You can see it, and he has managed to... befriend it, doesn't run, doesn't let it control him, he listens to it, keeps it happy, but doesn't let it control the river anymore.
I know what I am, and even if the natural order (genetic variance from tradition) and it's (culture or nature backed) politeness system finds a flaw in it, that's okay, I NEED to have flaws to be considered human - so therefore, the flaw is a requirement, therefore not a flaw. I don't understand how people believe flaws are bad, truly. It confuses me. Intellectually I do, but I don't emotionally. They say this right... if the world was perfect, humans would fuck it up because they couldn't handle utopia - same thing applies all the way down to the molecules of the individual. Nothing can be perfect - so why be offended by your flaws?
A flaw is the universe in development - why is that so offensive to the individual? All flaws must exist, otherwise the norm wouldn't be considered the norm - it would also be a flaw. If that makes sense?
I think ENTPs probably, spend their whole lives, trying to be "the flaw" in the system - because the flaw is the new waves of evolution - whether man-made or not. On the fringes. Every deviation from the norm, creates knowledge. That's why its there. Nothing is for nothing because nothingness is something.
For me personally. I notice, if one accepts they are a great man. If one accepts they are an idiot. Then the nothingness around them becomes something. If an idiot does not accept he is one, he cannot see how to use his idiocy to his advantage. Do not let one's nothingness become something that can be taken, because it's another type of person's something. It's very hard to pull a fish from a river he can breathe in.
-- end of philosophising for today.
My opinion on this is complicated - I come from a small talk society and I taught a lot of people who were not. Quite often the topic of small talk would come up and people from non-small talk societies berate it. As I did when I was young. Of course as someone low in agreeableness, I had to debate this and stand up for whatever was the "underdog" in regards to the conversation which is common in my culture to do (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Culture_of_Australia#Folklore / https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/14443058.2021.1876137), so in debating this so many times I actually started to understand why it exists. How draining it is without it.
When I was in germany, I noticed people do not "notice" other people. In Australia you, "nod", "smile", "wave", say "hey", to strangers walking past you. It's a cultural norm. You don't have to, but if you met eyes with someone, you are expected to, because, as I have learnt over analysis, you are acknowledging the humanity in the other person. You don't wave to a dog, for it 'has no humanity' - you acknowledge a human, because it is human and you are expressing that by acknowledging them in a micro gesture. The other person feels this, and so feels good for absolutely no reason through being acknowledged.
When you look at science, from what I understand, the things that became "hits" so to speak, survival of the fittest, newtonian concepts, etc, they became the hits they are because they COULD be simplified so spreadable amongst the populace - many correct concepts are not taught because they never reached the... oh what's the law called, the reproducing law - Price's law https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cHtY2ukfeP8.
If it cannot be simplified, it will never be spreadable. This is not "good vs bad" people, this is the entirety of the species because of how brains are built. Peterson talks about it all the time, that stories are spreadable because how the brain maps the world. Monkeys and AI are confused by a cup I believe, but we aren't, because we don't see a cup as a cup, we see it as a "drinking object" < the story of the cup is what you remember, not "cup". You won't forget to drink from it, but you may forget the name of it in a mindless moment because the former association is stronger than the latter. You are very unlikely to accidentally put it on your head, as a wild monkey might instinctively do because it has no story for the object.
In terms of MBTI, it is a "better story".
In terms of small talk, the drain on the unit - say an agreeable women who spends all her time on caring for people in her environment, does not have time to reverse the brain to think deeply about "things" - and Big 5, HEXACO is more technical, more "things". Like if you are talking to an average man mid depthful discussion about things, and then ask about whether he thinks his grandmother will like the discussion - becomes haughty instantly. Feels you have kicked him. Because the brain is reversing and it takes a huge amount of manpower to alter to polar "ways of perceiving", creates aggression or alarm, creates a flood of hormones because you are altering the environment too far from the norm and puts them into fight or flight quite often because that's what people do before they attack you - they turn "opposite" happy, happy, happy, cruel (stab). cruel, cruel, cruel, happy (stab). No matter whether you are being disagreeable (cruel) or agreeable (happy), both of these will occur in the same facet. I don't mean agreeable as happy, I more needed a word to imply how one feels before they stab you, sometimes with rage sometimes with exuberant joy over being successful in their goal. A better word for agreeable and disagreeable that I also use in other fields is, "to join" and "to sever". Disagreeableness fundamentally severs from the Other, Agreeableness Joins with the Other. Fundamentally.