It's complicated. It "is" different, HEXACO, but also is the Hare test, D3, Dirty Dozen, etc. Hexaco and Big 5 are both good but I find the big 5 (10) is my preference. I do like HEXACO though. I somewhat prefer the 10 to the 30. 10 is my favourite https://understandmyself.com/personality-assessment but MBTI has the benefit of being 'acronymus' - incredibly memeable, shareable, and relatable by the general population due to its memeability. And I find its breakdowns of openness, agreeableness, etc very useful.
Therefore has merit. Also, I agree with Bustamane that its excellent for mapping. Being a Ti user myself, its fantastic (this video was the reason I gave it a shot actually, after telling other people I wasn't interested in it a year prior) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wHTDAAZo63U.
There was a fucking really interesting talk on Modern Wisdom by a guy who was working on HEXACO a year or two ago and went into it in depth but I can't find it. I did find Jolly Heretics video on it though that I'd watched more recently https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qrfFPx4K-p0 - I agree with him massively that high F types (to give the MBTI reference) may be more prone to lying actually than T users - whom are more blunt and just tell you something even if you dont want to hear it - so defining morality is complicated. Is a lie immoral, or is hurting someones feelings immoral - depends entirely on your agreeableness level (or arguably, the norms of your sex - the percentage of the norm amongst your tribe influence your perceptions of right and wrong) from what I understand. Empathy and compassion are so fucking complicated https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RTeKIwWAP3I those whom “are” empathetic and those who say they are I have found uncorrelative sometimes, they are empathetic about things that they deem worthy of their empathy.
I like Caloz's test personally for MBTI https://www.michaelcaloz.com/personality/, the bigpersonalities test is the only one that has given me the wrong type - every other test has given me the same type. So from what I found, 16p doesnt understand agreeableness in my opinion, as thats what it ffed up in my stack.
Openpsychometrics I have found is alright too, like Sarkinorva.
They talk about here their comparison with other tests and how it works. They used to have something else written on the page somewhere too, for example for agreeableness its more focused on "accomodation" (to accommodate for others). From my own experience, MBTI compounds conscientiousness on orderliness rather than industriousness (how much you want stability rather than working hard), agreeableness on politeness rather than compassion as much (your ability to not say no rather than to be nice), extroversion on assertiveness rather than enthusiasm (how forceful you are rather than how happy you are), etc. I understand how it works, like, how to map it with the Big 5, i understand it so i see its merit - whether HEXACO or MBTI are as good as the big 5/10/2, etc, individuals will argue based off personal criteria.
I feel a fascination when people cant integrate the multiple systems of course, again being a Ti user and that being relevant here on the post, I can see the validity and take data from all of them and mush it together - it just takes time. I don't cast out one or another, they all have skills - the vast berth of women dont want to sit and chat with you about HEXACO, because its too disagreeable to be so linear, not spreadable enough in the female population because its too technical - MBTI has acronyms so its spreadable, compressible, youth fall into the category too of usually wanting something for peer relations, so its more useful for the whole species rather than just those with higher T in their stacks who are interested in "things" and can handle more Ti/Te technical data. To become spreadable, sometimes, things lose their uniqueness and specificity, but still hold water. An item made for you will not be very popular, because by definition it means its unspreadable to anything unlike you.
Edit: After opening your link. You must understand that HEXACO also rolls in Autism and such into it. Differentiating psychopathy from autism is quite difficult on tests. It's really complicated because in self-report only people high in assertiveness and low in politeness would EVER say those things about themselves which is why it bends so well into Politeness. No agreeable person would answer the questions negatively about themselves because that is their feedback loop in life, even though they DO in practice utilise immorality. Say for an example, an agreeable person forcing you to conform to social standards of agreeableness even if it makes you lose your sense of Self - totally disregarding the validity of... well, the phrase, "women want placid men until there is war". Only assertive people can survive the social shame of admitting they would sacrifice the Other for the Self, and only disagreeable people would admit that the validity of things and truth overweight collective emotionality. It's really fucking complicated to define "whom" scores highly and whom would not notice those facets about themselves. I score very low on 3 of the 4 facets for an example, in HH, I don't feel it can do females very well at all because society knows very little about female psychopathy as its generally totally different because there is more risk for females being disagreeable. Without scoring low in HH I wouldn't produce this content though as an example, because its as much to do with the Self as with the Other, in terms me doing my own data organisation.
Once something is considered reflexively negative, collectivists shun it, and deviants move towards it - its really complicated. If masculine norms are considered incorrect, competitiveness, brute force, etc - then you get only the deviants saying they have it I'd guess (which is generally what is happening, ENTPs/ESTPs/ENTJs/ESTJs are whom is saying they have it - high extroversion (narcissism), mid to high openness and low politeness (psych/mach)). I am not adverse to integrating things like the Hare test, which I also had some issue with, into the Big 5 to make HEXACO - but its complicated yea. Say for Greed Avoidance in HEXACO, it only uses material greed not intangible from what I remember. I might shoot you for a piece of data, but not for external validations of wealth - HEXACO has no ability to distinguish between those things - and therefore doesn't look at the female dominance hierarchy over the male one - you would have to add in questions of greed of beauty rather than greed of resources, etc < because one is actually used to climb the female dominance hierarchy rather than the other, the other is of lesser importance as it is socially acceptable for it to be acquired through a male and not the Self whereas not so vice versa, its used for peer competition amongst men predominantly - "my man has more money than yours" maybe, but, "I am more beautiful than you," definitely moreso.
From what I've read because I do really like your post, from what I've read it does roll into other Dark Triad tests alongside Politeness. There is very little distinctiveness it has. Especially because the HH traits also compound on Agreeableness and Emotionality in HEXACO
"Dark Triad traits were also found to be consistently and significantly negatively associated with a number of other HEXACO personality factors including agreeableness (rs between −0.36 and −0.48, ps < 0.001), emotionality (rs between −0.25 and −0.47, ps < 0.05), and conscientiousness (rs between −0.22 and −0.43, ps < 0.05). Finally, agreeableness (rs being −0.67 and −0.49, ps < 0.001), emotionality (rs being −0.33 and −0.45, ps < 0.05), and conscientiousness (rs being −0.22 and −0.39, ps < 0.05) were also significantly negatively correlated with symptoms of ODD and CD" https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10826-022-02344-8 so is it actually unique enough, as Jolly Heretic says, to stand on its own.
> 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
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.
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.
Hey what do you think of the HEXACO? I've actually found it useful to use MBTI items and phrases in HEXACO surveys (e.g. "More thinking than feeling" for Emotionality): https://thingstoread.substack.com/p/the-big-five-is-incomplete
"In relation to the Dark Triad, the most relevant Big Five/FFM factor is Agreeableness... provided evidence that the traits associated with the core of the Dark Triad were not distinctive from low agreeableness (ie, antagonism)." - ie, the extra factor it has, the 6th, is no different from the big 5 generally speaking. https://books.google.com.au/books?hl=en&lr=&id=yfhgEAAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PA76&dq=%22Greed+Avoidance%22+hexaco&ots=wFB1-G9dzg&sig=51hMcrWowuYDlEltqjXiGHGpK2A&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false
It's complicated. It "is" different, HEXACO, but also is the Hare test, D3, Dirty Dozen, etc. Hexaco and Big 5 are both good but I find the big 5 (10) is my preference. I do like HEXACO though. I somewhat prefer the 10 to the 30. 10 is my favourite https://understandmyself.com/personality-assessment but MBTI has the benefit of being 'acronymus' - incredibly memeable, shareable, and relatable by the general population due to its memeability. And I find its breakdowns of openness, agreeableness, etc very useful.
Therefore has merit. Also, I agree with Bustamane that its excellent for mapping. Being a Ti user myself, its fantastic (this video was the reason I gave it a shot actually, after telling other people I wasn't interested in it a year prior) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wHTDAAZo63U.
There was a fucking really interesting talk on Modern Wisdom by a guy who was working on HEXACO a year or two ago and went into it in depth but I can't find it. I did find Jolly Heretics video on it though that I'd watched more recently https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qrfFPx4K-p0 - I agree with him massively that high F types (to give the MBTI reference) may be more prone to lying actually than T users - whom are more blunt and just tell you something even if you dont want to hear it - so defining morality is complicated. Is a lie immoral, or is hurting someones feelings immoral - depends entirely on your agreeableness level (or arguably, the norms of your sex - the percentage of the norm amongst your tribe influence your perceptions of right and wrong) from what I understand. Empathy and compassion are so fucking complicated https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RTeKIwWAP3I those whom “are” empathetic and those who say they are I have found uncorrelative sometimes, they are empathetic about things that they deem worthy of their empathy.
I like Caloz's test personally for MBTI https://www.michaelcaloz.com/personality/, the bigpersonalities test is the only one that has given me the wrong type - every other test has given me the same type. So from what I found, 16p doesnt understand agreeableness in my opinion, as thats what it ffed up in my stack.
Openpsychometrics I have found is alright too, like Sarkinorva.
https://openpsychometrics.org/tests/OJTS/development/
https://openpsychometrics.org/tests/OEJTS/comparison/
They talk about here their comparison with other tests and how it works. They used to have something else written on the page somewhere too, for example for agreeableness its more focused on "accomodation" (to accommodate for others). From my own experience, MBTI compounds conscientiousness on orderliness rather than industriousness (how much you want stability rather than working hard), agreeableness on politeness rather than compassion as much (your ability to not say no rather than to be nice), extroversion on assertiveness rather than enthusiasm (how forceful you are rather than how happy you are), etc. I understand how it works, like, how to map it with the Big 5, i understand it so i see its merit - whether HEXACO or MBTI are as good as the big 5/10/2, etc, individuals will argue based off personal criteria.
I feel a fascination when people cant integrate the multiple systems of course, again being a Ti user and that being relevant here on the post, I can see the validity and take data from all of them and mush it together - it just takes time. I don't cast out one or another, they all have skills - the vast berth of women dont want to sit and chat with you about HEXACO, because its too disagreeable to be so linear, not spreadable enough in the female population because its too technical - MBTI has acronyms so its spreadable, compressible, youth fall into the category too of usually wanting something for peer relations, so its more useful for the whole species rather than just those with higher T in their stacks who are interested in "things" and can handle more Ti/Te technical data. To become spreadable, sometimes, things lose their uniqueness and specificity, but still hold water. An item made for you will not be very popular, because by definition it means its unspreadable to anything unlike you.
One of the first memes I ever made: https://imgflip.com/i/6wau3m
Edit: After opening your link. You must understand that HEXACO also rolls in Autism and such into it. Differentiating psychopathy from autism is quite difficult on tests. It's really complicated because in self-report only people high in assertiveness and low in politeness would EVER say those things about themselves which is why it bends so well into Politeness. No agreeable person would answer the questions negatively about themselves because that is their feedback loop in life, even though they DO in practice utilise immorality. Say for an example, an agreeable person forcing you to conform to social standards of agreeableness even if it makes you lose your sense of Self - totally disregarding the validity of... well, the phrase, "women want placid men until there is war". Only assertive people can survive the social shame of admitting they would sacrifice the Other for the Self, and only disagreeable people would admit that the validity of things and truth overweight collective emotionality. It's really fucking complicated to define "whom" scores highly and whom would not notice those facets about themselves. I score very low on 3 of the 4 facets for an example, in HH, I don't feel it can do females very well at all because society knows very little about female psychopathy as its generally totally different because there is more risk for females being disagreeable. Without scoring low in HH I wouldn't produce this content though as an example, because its as much to do with the Self as with the Other, in terms me doing my own data organisation.
Once something is considered reflexively negative, collectivists shun it, and deviants move towards it - its really complicated. If masculine norms are considered incorrect, competitiveness, brute force, etc - then you get only the deviants saying they have it I'd guess (which is generally what is happening, ENTPs/ESTPs/ENTJs/ESTJs are whom is saying they have it - high extroversion (narcissism), mid to high openness and low politeness (psych/mach)). I am not adverse to integrating things like the Hare test, which I also had some issue with, into the Big 5 to make HEXACO - but its complicated yea. Say for Greed Avoidance in HEXACO, it only uses material greed not intangible from what I remember. I might shoot you for a piece of data, but not for external validations of wealth - HEXACO has no ability to distinguish between those things - and therefore doesn't look at the female dominance hierarchy over the male one - you would have to add in questions of greed of beauty rather than greed of resources, etc < because one is actually used to climb the female dominance hierarchy rather than the other, the other is of lesser importance as it is socially acceptable for it to be acquired through a male and not the Self whereas not so vice versa, its used for peer competition amongst men predominantly - "my man has more money than yours" maybe, but, "I am more beautiful than you," definitely moreso.
From what I've read because I do really like your post, from what I've read it does roll into other Dark Triad tests alongside Politeness. There is very little distinctiveness it has. Especially because the HH traits also compound on Agreeableness and Emotionality in HEXACO
"Dark Triad traits were also found to be consistently and significantly negatively associated with a number of other HEXACO personality factors including agreeableness (rs between −0.36 and −0.48, ps < 0.001), emotionality (rs between −0.25 and −0.47, ps < 0.05), and conscientiousness (rs between −0.22 and −0.43, ps < 0.05). Finally, agreeableness (rs being −0.67 and −0.49, ps < 0.001), emotionality (rs being −0.33 and −0.45, ps < 0.05), and conscientiousness (rs being −0.22 and −0.39, ps < 0.05) were also significantly negatively correlated with symptoms of ODD and CD" https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10826-022-02344-8 so is it actually unique enough, as Jolly Heretic says, to stand on its own.
> 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.