Search results

Oh, yes. Because it doesn't work, and leads to pseudoscience. Is there any evidence that MBTI results correlate with styles of thinking? Only one of those really counts as a strong correlation. And the difference between the Big Five and MBTI is that the Big Five actually measures what...

I don't see how having your own learning methods would keep you from doing well in class unless you decide to ignore assignments to pursue them. :/ But no, working within the system is making the grade and otherwise demonstrating your learning (with cool ECs). Sadly. >.>

Ability to work within an imperfect system is just as important as learning the material.

No, P is my strongest trait. Of course, only the I/E scale on the MBTI has any strong validity. >.> EDIT: Also, fundamental attribution error.

MBTI is bullshit. I suggest focusing less on labelling to yourself and more on simply understanding yourself. Personality tests can help you do this, but don't let go of the reins. Otherwise you're going to be spending a lot of time 1) fitting yourself into a bubble precircumscribed by...

Woah, you've got risk factors for lots of mental problems. :S I'm not sure if the common genetic basis helps make mental disorders more comorbid, but I hope we'll find out soon.

Back door cracked We don't need a key We get in for free No VIP sleaze Drink that Kool-Aid Follow my lead Now you're one of us You're coming with me It's time to kill the lights And shut the DJ down (This place about to) Tonight we're taking over No one's getting ouuuuutttttt...

Instead, let's sing pop songs! *giggle* ...Dance.

It's true, too. >.>

They're very, very far away and not at all as obsessed with far-away things as we are, or like us in general. :/

Both are pseudoscience.

I was making a list of pseudosciences that deserve no attention except from historians of science. Add astrology. What is "extraverting feeling" supposed to mean? Or "preferred mode"? How do we know there are profound enough individual differences about preference for these concepts to matter...

(Or few people care.) Jung was terrible, guys. Or...Perhaps you have an ego problem. That's pretty insulting. :S Jung's ideas were failed attempts to psychologize Kant's categories.

You shouldn't trust the humanists, either, if you have any sort of commitment to truth and validity. Of course people are more than chemical processes and behavioral conditioning. That conceptualization of things is sooo last century. Today, people are machines. Highly special machines, with...

I read a lot of grad school books. >.> And no, none of these theories are taken seriously. Every time I see someone on this forum do it, I cringe — and I cringe hard. Seriously. Just about everything psycholoanalytic is pseudoscientific. Everything.

Not an INTP, but I fight monotony by not being a monotonous person. (i.e., by being a complete, hyperspontaneous weirdo.)

No, it exists, just like consciousness and color perception. The interesting thing is that this isn't usually the case; most people who are good at math are also bettee than average in other subjects. There's a general intelligence, a common factor about certain people's brains that improves...

khan is best. You might consider mit opencourseware, but it might be too hard and too fast.

G+ is for hipsters. :/ I like being free to choose anonymity. Forcing me to reveal myself without a good reason just isn't reasonable.

I'm not sure if this is true. There's also a lot of research demonstrating that much of morality is sociobiologically evolved. And whatever their origin or artificiality, this doesn't necessarily imply anything about the absolute or objective nature of morality. Philosophers are basically...

Haha. No one's suggesting that the meaning of life is a subject of geology or astronomy. I'm thinking it's psychology, and deals with how people decide their lives are fulfilling or not. Objectifying standards for eliciting mental states isn't too complicated. Take funniness, for example...

That's not true at all, though. Many small forums are full of crap and many larger forums are very awesome. I won't name names. >.>

Actually, hyperintelligent people tend to overestimate the intelligence of those around them. They are surprised that they are so smart. Unless they're immature. But seriously, what that someone said is probably bull and you should assume that it is until proven otherwise.

What? How many geniuses had this dude met?

What is this commonly available information for?

So, I'm Philovitist. My philosophical programme is to naturalize ethics. Woo. Naturalizing a philosophical issue is to conceptualize it such that it can be studied using the scientific method. Natural philosophy got naturalized into physics, chemistry, cosmology, et al. Philosophy of...

He was terrible. It's surprising to see him banned, but also better.

I think that if you're getting into a brawl, then you've made a mistake in the social sphere already. :/ And half-drunkenness is only a matter of magnitude, not quality. Are you suggesting that drinking first improves your function until you get past the 50% mark?

What's the point of being an INTP if you can't come up with solutions to philosophical problems?

Propositions are objective. They have semantic meaning that, like light, can be processed by a computer.

Should stop talking about MBTI as if it's an actually sound framework for understanding mentation. Your mind and your brain are the same thing. Dualism is dead. Has been for long time.

I study psychology as my passion. Intellectualizing feelings makes for a good transition to full-on empathic intelligence.

Recognition is just remembering that you've observed something like this before. Expression, as you call it, involves remembering a lot more than that and requires much more mental activity. It's that simple.

Alcohol reduces reaction time and judgment quality. See cognitive studies on the issue, see alcohol-related death listings. Your argument is invalid.

My kind of thread. False. You don't simply want to survive — you want to live a happy life. Survival's just the prerequisite. With the possibility of happiness, surviving is meaningless; there's no reason to put the effort into doing it. Stop resorting to the naturalistic fallacy. Evolution...

I used to reliably score as an INTP every single time. Now I'm...extroverted. I truly believe I changed into this through my time in high school.

If you don't care, you don't care. You won't respond to stimuli. It's pretty straightforward. :|

It's less a second self than a second attitude. Whichever is dominant seems to correlate reliably with my level of arousal.

Nice job reaching nihilism. No matter how much it hurts, there is no turning back. You now see things as they are. What's left to do, it seems, is to find a source of light in this tunnel. I'm pretty deeply involved in this quest, too. How well I can tell you I'm doing depends on my mood...

Philosophy attracts a lot of people of the high-end intellectual academician stripe. I think that's where most of the advantage comes from.

Mother of God! He's right!

THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR THIS LINK.

http://zoomzum.com/top-websites-to-download-free-ebooks/ Not the best ranking, it seems, but it's a list.

I'm so openminded as to only really respond vigorously when one's reasoning doesn't make sense — not when they do something. But now that I've become an ethical naturalist and have the foundations of a moral science, I have stuff to stand up for! I can be decisive!

That's an awesome way of learning English! Don't sweat it. You can have one body with two consciousness (by severing the corpus callosum) but can you have one consciousness for two bodies? It's be really hard for our cognitive architectures to take, given our inability to mulitask. But you...

My parents can't get over their bias against Latinos. They still have this "They took our jobs" mentality.

I got philosophy, but only idiots trying to hide the problems in their thinking appeal to authority when presenting ideas... Also, I avoid talking about philosophy. I'm planning on majoring in a science of mind, cognitive science, though.

Socionics is just some pseudoscience. So it is a great risk to take what is written for granted.