The Random Thoughts Thread

[Rebis]

That is some cool meditation, I'd like to do something equivalent.

Sent from my VOG-L09 using Tapatalk

 

[Marbles]

@EndogenousRebel Chased by a vegetable genius in a mechanical frame? Pickle Rick!

I've been struggling with a need for spiritulity too, but all the religion I have looked into has disappointed me. Meditation has been valuable, but it comes very unnaturally to me. My brain is a chatterbox, I'm a hard gainer in meditation.

Anyway, I wish there was a wholesome, non-supernatural spiritual system. One incorporating meditation in place of prayer, with rituals and ethics. Perhaps it could contribute some conformity to the west, which I think is sorely needed. Everyone is pulling in different directions. We have not evolved to cooperste well under such circumstances. We need common philosophy.

 

[EndogenousRebel]

Pickle Rick!

I wish there was a wholesome, non-supernatural spiritual system. One incorporating meditation in place of prayer, with rituals and ethics. Perhaps it could contribute some conformity to the west, which I think is sorely needed. Everyone is pulling in different directions. We have not evolved to cooperste well under such circumstances. We need common philosophy.

Haha, if only it wasn't fucking scary as fuck

Historically speaking attention itself was considered a form of prayer. Think about it in a calorie sparse world, why think about God/higher power? Well, maybe when I happen to do so I things work out differently? Theology is one of the hardest disciplines to get into and understand because it's just so thick with people that have been having the same evolving discussions for centuries. Just pick something that you think is worth investing your time into and really devote yourself to it, surely there is a tribe out there for it. Meditation is nice and fulfilling because it is a skill, but you could just as easily pick woodwork, or PC building, or painting. Things like these will bring the spirituality you're looking for.

 

[Marbles]

I guess what I might be looking for is an ideological foundation to give me direction. Everything feels so relative, now, I get caught up in minute details, and bugged down by all the lenses you can interpret reality through. Ambiguity and complexity can be a good thing, but there is more of them in my life that I have the processing power to deal with. I get overwhelmed. And it's lonely to feel alien all the time, like no one can understand you because you've dived into your own personal rabbit hole of interpretation of the world.

Too much chaos, too much Yin on my Wa... Yang, you know?

 

[Ex-User (14663)]

Meditation is for pussies LOL

 

[Marbles]

Pffft, you's a pussy, Serac. Chuck Norris!

The problems are real, man.

 

[EndogenousRebel]

I like how simply typing Chuck Norris on it's own says a thousand words.

I don't know, I try to be objective as possible but in general and individually we all have biases that will always be there.

I think you should dive right into absurdism, as it will give you direction. Albert Camus said a lot about this, he's my favorite rn. Literally the conclusion one will come to is that we just have to distract ourselves with things we love until we die. It doesn't have to be depressing, I personally feel like I've been living life better since I've looked into it.

 

[Marbles]

I read the Plague once. I really liked the first half, then it started to bore me. I really struggle to enjoy fiction as an adult. I guess im just used to the quick gratification of TV and the internet. Trying to get into books again, though. Been meaning to ask here for recommendations. @Serac you mentioned you read a lot. What do you read?

Thanks for the tip on absurdism. I'll check it out.

Edit: Done a quick dive. Apparantly Camus advocated a life rich in "willfull experience". I've written a couple of times on this forum that while I'm nihilistic, discarding objective meaning means I place all the more value on subjective meaning. Is that in line with Camus' thoughts when he talks about willfull experience?

Full disclosure, I'm sceptical of philosophy. I think it tends to devolve into pretentious wordgames. In principle it seems like a very cool disipline, though, so I'm open to checking out new schools. I've read some Marcus Aurelius, and appreciated that.

 

[EndogenousRebel]

Edit: Done a quick dive. Apparantly Camus advocated a life rich in "willfull experience". I've written a couple of times on this forum that while I'm nihilistic, discarding objective meaning means I place all the more value on subjective meaning. Is that in line with Camus' thoughts when he talks about willfull experience?

Full disclosure, I'm sceptical of philosophy. I think it tends to devolve into pretentious wordgames. In principle it seems like a very cool disipline, though, so I'm open to checking out new schools. I've read some Marcus Aurelius, and appreciated that.

I haven't done too much homework on this, but if I understand correctly, Camus would not have a problem with that at all. He would say something like that we are all children of the absurd, and that without us (our subjective judgement of our experience) the absurd wouldn't exist, basically saying subjective is pretty much what makes the world go round. I'm sure there is a Yin and Yang aspect to the absurd, but hey if you outright hate that, then you must hate math too. Normal distributions and all.

 

[Happy]

I read the Plague once.

I read this as:

I need the Plague once.

 

[Happy]

Meditation doesn’t need to be spiritual. I did it every day for well over a year without it once being ‘spiritual’.

I’ve also been to Buddhist temple to meditate, and even then you can just do everything except the prayer. It’s such a small part of it. It might be like <5 minutes out of 6 hours...

 

[Ex-User (14663)]

I've written a couple of times on this forum that while I'm nihilistic, discarding objective meaning means I place all the more value on subjective meaning. Is that in line with Camus' thoughts when he talks about willfull experience?

that's existentialism, more along the lines of Sartre.

I used to read a lot more than I do. I like to think it's because I found what I was looking for. I too think that when philosophy gets too deep and technical it becomes gibberish and a mere shuffling around with words whose meaning is defined from other words and so on.

but I basically read all the existentialism stuff – Sartre, Camus, Dostoevsky, Nietzsche.

Dostoevsky's "notes from underground" is the most hilarious book ever... like, it made me literally laugh out loud

 

[Ex-User (14663)]

I tried to meditate once. After 5 minutes of just sitting around doing nothing I was like "yo this is boring as hell". I'm sure there's some monk who's been living in a cave for the last 10 years who can tell me this means I'm not zen or whatever, but who is to say he is right. He probably has some rule that he's not even allowed to jerk off so his balls have ceased all operations ages ago. At least my balls are working.

 

[EndogenousRebel]

I tried to meditate once. After 5 minutes of just sitting around doing nothing I was like "yo this is boring as hell". I'm sure there's some monk who's been living in a cave for the last 10 years who can tell me this means I'm not zen or whatever, but who is to say he is right. He probably has some rule that he's not even allowed to jerk off so his balls have ceased all operations ages ago. At least my balls are working.

Not meaning to challenge you but that's what meditation is, a challenge. If you can sit down and do nothing for more than an hour without practice I really commend you, because that is kinda the point, it's a form of restriction and self control.

"Congratulations, you can do nothing for an hour" it just so happens that it's been proven that it thicken gray matter, and shrinks amygdala so it's more like I was able to change my physiology in a desirable way. I'm sure you could get the same results in a lot of other soothing and attentive tasks, but meditation literally just requires the willingness to focus on your breath, and no one can take that away from you.

 

[washti]

sitting in lotus position, hands tied behind your back, with full focus on feeling your balls with hearty OM on your lips. This may work wonders for you, Serac. Give it a tryyy.

 

[Marbles]

I'm really looking for non philosophical, entertaining fiction right now, but I suppose Dostojevskij might be worth another shot. I started Pride and Prejudice, but don't think I got through a fourth of it. I figure I should read some Nietsche soon, too. As far as these philosophies go, though... We've grown up with them? They've inspired the culture we've consumed since we were kids. We know the gist of it? Whenever I read a philosopher, I tend to go "I know, I know, that's wrong, I know, oh well that's sort of interesting", and thinking the brick in front of me should have been a pamphlet. Again, I guess part of it is my lack of patience, and how little I've read the last 15 years. Perhaps I should start with something easier, until reading becomes less of a chore.

I wonder if Sartre is worth looking into, if he's the closest to my own views on life, or if that would just make him all the more boring. I bet there are good TL;DRs on youtube of these guys, I think that's up my millennial alley :P

I haven't read much philosophy, but my impression is that it mostly consists of defining concepts, then fretting when certain phenomena fall between the concepts, or there are paradoxes between your concepts. Rather than realizing that words describe the world according to our best definitions when we invent them, the philosophers think that the world revolves around the words. Just refine the bloody definitions, make up new words, or appreciate that language is context dependent.

It seems to me that all strides forward in our understanding of the world come from the hard sciences. If philosophy is a sort of poetry, I think I'd rather read science fiction.

Two book recommendations:
The Three Body Problem: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/20518872-the-three-body-problem Possibly my favorite book. Careful if you research this one before reading, the media drops spoilers liberally. I can almost guarantee you'll enjoy this one, @Serac

The Overstory: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/40180098-the-overstory?from_search=true&qid=8NZ6E8Utz9&rank=1 Contains the most insightful, original thoughts I've been exposed to for years. It was a little heavy for me, but absolutely worth it. You avid readers shouldn't have any problems.

 

[Inexorable Username]

I'm sorry I didn't respond to your second to last post. Did you edit it? I thought I had read everything you had written.

I did add to it a couple of times. The first time was because the whole message didn’t go through. The second time I think I added additional information or I might have changed a ... because it was inappropriate punctuation.

That's how humans react to a woman they can't pigeon hole. You're unknown, and unknown is scary. People think in good and bads, then they half heartedly sort their emotions into specifics. Basically, you're unknown, which is bad, so they throw out some iteration of bad, like "cold", "arrogant", "narcissistic", or whatever. Had they liked your vibe, they might have said "rational", "self assured", "confident" - words to that effect.

Do you think it might be related to my gender? Because the people who seem to think I’m arrogant irl have been men. So I wondered that. Online, though, I seem to offend both sexes equally. So that’s was confusing.

I thought, potentially, it may actually be my vocal tone that lends me to be misinterpreted by men. When I get excited about a topic, or I feel passionate about a point, I tend to get louder, talk faster, and I think my voice may even raise in pitch. I use more hand gestures, become more long-winded, and just generally demonstrate quite a bit more energy.

I enjoy working with animals and one of the lesson students you learn through working with animals is that high levels of energy on behalf of the human are usually not successful if you’re working to earn respect, trust, and a mutual understanding. (As opposed to training for a skill, like agility, which isn’t what you would do after the basic relationship is already established).

I’ve thought, in the past, that maybe some men are reacting to what they feel from me, rather then the words I say. Women seem to more often interpret my attitude as being one of passion and excitement, but I think it’s possible that some men interpret the same attitude as being aggressive, argumentative, and challenging.

What supports this theory is that I’ve had a few occaisions where people seem to have gotten the wrong impression that I’m flirting with them. Which is just weird to me. (Who flirts over subjects like neurology?)
And I’ve been told once that people may misinterpret my interest in a subject as being interest in them. Men, obviously. Although, I suppose maybe it could work with lesbians...but I don’t think they are so quick to respond a single factor like that.

What doesn’t support that theory is that, despite the fact that I’m often the person women will comeback to in order to share their feelings or discuss deep problems, I’ve never really had many female friends. Not in the sense where they act towards me as they would act towards a fellow female. I get a lot less giggles and girly behavior, and a lot less of their personal philosophies or casual impressions/feelings. I tend to get more like...female followers, than female friends. When I try to be girly-ish, it kind of falls flat. Like a bad joke. I also easily offend women. Or I think, make women feel uncomfortable/self-conscious. I mean...I understand why that happens, but I guess that my priorities during interactions are different.

So, I don’t know. I came to believe later in life that maybe I come across as a dominant person...which is just very weird to me, because I don’t try to be that way, and I know I have to be very high in estrogen. I definitely have a high EQ.

But anyways, that other aspect kind of contradicts that it’s a gender issue. Seems like people interpret me the same, no matter their gender, but draw gender-dependent conclusions. Like, women perhaps see me as someone who can be occasionally useful. Men see me as...I don’t know. Obviously, not a threat...lol. That thought is just absurd. Nobody would be threatened by me. I think I would die 5 minutes into boot camp. Either that, or dissolve into pitiful tears and have to be sent home XD
Then I would be traumatised for the next two years from all the criticism. Lol. I’m not at all cut out for being yelled at and made to do tests of physical prowess and stamina.

Weirdly, my behavior is almost always interpreted well in a professional context where people hire me to give advice/expertise or implement strategies and such. People seem to have a lot of confidence in my ability and tell me that it sounds like I have it all under control.
The only time I get micro managed is when there’s a particular type of female who is the bossy sort in management. The kind that loves times, dates, color-coding, management software, and voicing her opinion about everything - even things she’s has no expertise in. The enmity between myself and this personality type is mutual. I meet these women most often in non-profits, where they like to...well anyways.

Aside from that, I seldom have issues with my clients, and I don’t think I’ve ever had issues with a male client. Even this one guy who has a bad reputation for being a jerk respects me and will listen to what I say we need to do. Eventually.

Clients describe me as insightful/knowledgeable, energetic/enthusiastic, upbeat, passionate, positive, and they trust me to do what I do best.

So, here, I have a behavioral pattern that appears to get favor in one context, leads to misunderstandings in the other.

I think maybe that’s one reason why I like to stick to myself. Firstly, I just don’t feel the need to have other people be a part of my lifestyle. Secondly, though, I don’t get the impression that they want me to be a part of theirs, really. Not unless I have a use to them. Which suggests to me that whatever it is that people get from social interactions, I apparently don’t provide that.

It can’t be validation, because I always look for what information people have to share and I’m interested in what they say. That should feel very validating, I think. I even had a guy tell me once when I was asking about kernels “I’m just confused by your interest.”

That’s weird. Right? Why be confused,

So if you wanna be universally liked, find an archetype to imitate, so people can figure you out. Or be the best version of yourself, and attract intelligent, curious people, to whom you'll be just the right amount of mysterious, because these people better understand the world, and people.

I'm sorry I didn't respond to your second to last post. Did you edit it? I thought I had read everything you had written.

I have struggled with people believing I am cold, arrogant, judgmental or some version of that. I have come to think along these lines: people fear the unknown. If you are strange, it is hard to predict how you will act, so people peg you as a wildcard. You know how animals react to a new organism, gazing at it, sniffing it, carefully circling it? That's how humans react to a woman they can't pigeon hole. You're unknown, and unknown is scary. People think in good and bads, then they half heartedly sort their emotions into specifics. Basically, you're unknown, which is bad, so they throw out some iteration of bad, like "cold", "arrogant", "narcissistic", or whatever. Had they liked your vibe, they might have said "rational", "self assured", "confident" - words to that effect.

So if you wanna be universally liked, find an archetype to imitate, so people can figure you out. Or be the best version of yourself, and attract intelligent, curious people, to whom you'll be just the right amount of mysterious, because these people better understand the world, and people.

Sorry for my slow response! I actually wrote responses on two separate occasions but in an effort to be more concise, I didn’t send them. I’ve worked out that it’s better if I write my responses when I’m not over thinking issues, or I’m bound to write too much.

I do wonder sometimes if it’s a gender thing. In person, one person suggested I might be arrogant, one person said it outright, and there was one person who said I talk like an audiobook, and one person who said I talk to fast and (say too much?) - and they were all men.

In person, it seems like men are the only ones who perceive me to be somewhat aggressive. Women seem to perceive me to Ben passionate/enthusiastic.

When it comes to online though, men and women both seem to perceive me to be aggressive or arrogant or cold. So. Shrug. I don’t know?

In the past I’ve been accused of being cold mostly because I’m very focused on work/projects, and I’m not necessarily that eager to have longwinded phone conversations...added to the fact that I’m not the best at responding to emails/texts, or remembering to check my Facebook.

I guess I’m just having a hard time pinpointing where the problem is. It seems multi-faceted. Some people perceive me poorly from face to face discussions. Others, online. Some people seem to think I’m cold because of my anti-social behavior, others seem to think I’m cold online because of what I say.

I’ve tried various things. Like disclaimers...to remind people to take what I say literally, essentially, and at face value, without reading emotion or intent into it...but then people tell me not to write disclaimers and that I seem insecure/unsure of myself. @_@

I guess...I have a very practical approach to solving these kinds of problems, and maybe that’s not appropriate?

I can’t find the friends you speak of. Lol. I’ve spent quite a large portion of my life looking for people like that, but honestly, I’ve never been able to find people I can relate to. I thought I might find them in CS college, but the people there were just interested in money. In my head, I sometimes imagine how cool it would be to have a couple of friends that are interested in the same things I’m interested in, and would love to spend time brainstorming, whiteboarding, things like that. Maybe singing. Or taking stuff apart to see how it works.

But...one of my problems, potentially, is I think women just either aren’t like that, or they try hard not to be like that. And when it comes to men...there’s been one or two times that I’ve made a male friend that seems like they would be fun to hang out with in the contexts I’ve described, but I don’t seem to be able to find a male friend who isn’t willing to just be my friend. I know they exist - because I found one, once (lol), but that was shortly before I moved. So we didn’t really have that much time to hang out, and he was more in to being social than actually doing anything.

Other than that, I basically just run into the situation where guys lie and pretend they’re interested in what I’m interested in because they think I will go out with them. It’s tedious and obvious. I’m now 30 and people still try to pull this
-_- .....honestly. The standards people have these days for dating really have set the bar so low for both males and females. I’m not sure why lying about yourself and pretending to be someone you’re not are tactics people think they can get away with using. Anyways.

Your story about your experiences with trying to be another personality are helpful. I like to experiment on myself too. There was a time I decided to “shut off” my empathy...it was a mess! An educational one though.

I don’t have much luck with trying to find a role model. I’ve looked, but I need a role model whose thoughts and behaviors I can relate to, so I can step into that person’s shoes, so a male role model just won’t cut it for me. It’s hard for me to relate to men, and when I think I’m doing fairly well at it, I can still never be completely sure, because I’m not a man myself. There’s just not a lot of females out there though who emulate the example of what I would like to grow to be.

As far as advice goes...Please feel free to always give me advice. I don’t really understand why advice upsets people. It’s one of those human tendencies that I’ve been finding increasingly obnoxious. In a way...to me, it seems sort of arrogant. As if you think you know so much that you can’t benefit from anyone else’s helpful tips or guesswork.
I mean...it’s true that I’ve found that most advice doesn’t apply to me. Especially the canned, generic kind. But every once in a while, someone hits the nail on the head, and their advice can really shake my world. Plus, I find that when people don’t give generic, canned advice, they tend to give you advice that they’ve really spent a very long time entertaining in their own lives. People can be surprisingly deep and well thought out, and their relationship with said advice and the way they may have applied it, or drawn those conclusions, is something you can really learn from. Even if the advice, itself, isn’t what you were looking for, there’s often information in the giving of it that can be useful.

For me..I’m always trying to do better. I think I have a lot to learn and a lot people can teach me. Even following the wrong advice hasn’t been helpful to me, because it’s showed me why that advice was wrong, and therein, I often find the answer to things I never knew were questions to start with.

So please...always feel welcome to share your advice. If you missed the mark, or maybe if you misjudged me - well, that too is useful information. Shows me I might not be presenting myself accurately. Or it gives me an opportunity to explain why something doesn’t apply to me.

I wish people were different sometimes. Primarily, I wish people didn't have such fragile personalities as to be constantly offended by something as innocent as someone trying to help. Or to be offended by things like generalisations or even sexism...because people who let that stuff offend them are constantly on the look out for it. They read into everything and manipulate what you say to make you out to believe things you don’t believe...and they just have no sense of humor. It’s exhausting. It does make me miss the days when kids were raised to try to deal with the world and brush off the things that upset them, or be stronger than their feelings. When I was in school, for instance, we learned that it was bad to label people, and that’s you shouldn’t label yourself, either. It boxes you in. Makes it so you find it harder to be true to yourself. Now everyone has a whole stack of labels they use to define themselves and they actually want you to label them...(but not to generalize their label. Lol)

People are so frustrating sometimes.

 

[Inexorable Username]

I'm really looking for non philosophical, entertaining fiction right now, but I suppose Dostojevskij might be worth another shot. I started Pride and Prejudice, but don't think I got through a fourth of it. I figure I should read some Nietsche soon, too. As far as these philosophies go, though... We've grown up with them? They've inspired the culture we've consumed since we were kids. We know the gist of it? Whenever I read a philosopher, I tend to go "I know, I know, that's wrong, I know, oh well that's sort of interesting", and thinking the brick in front of me should have been a pamphlet. Again, I guess part of it is my lack of patience, and how little I've read the last 15 years. Perhaps I should start with something easier, until reading becomes less of a chore.

I wonder if Sartre is worth looking into, if he's the closest to my own views on life, or if that would just make him all the more boring. I bet there are good TL;DRs on youtube of these guys, I think that's up my millennial alley :P

I haven't read much philosophy, but my impression is that it mostly consists of defining concepts, then fretting when certain phenomena fall between the concepts, or there are paradoxes between your concepts. Rather than realizing that words describe the world according to our best definitions when we invent them, the philosophers think that the world revolves around the words. Just refine the bloody definitions, make up new words, or appreciate that language is context dependent.

It seems to me that all strides forward in our understanding of the world come from the hard sciences. If philosophy is a sort of poetry, I think I'd rather read science fiction.

Two book recommendations:
The Three Body Problem: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/20518872-the-three-body-problem Possibly my favorite book. Careful if you research this one before reading, the media drops spoilers liberally. I can almost guarantee you'll enjoy this one, @Serac

The Overstory: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/40180098-the-overstory?from_search=true&qid=8NZ6E8Utz9&rank=1 Contains the most insightful, original thoughts I've been exposed to for years. It was a little heavy for me, but absolutely worth it. You avid readers shouldn't have any problems.

If you’re looking to be depressed and traumatized consider The Time traveller’s wife.

Two of my favourite books will always be Call of the Wild and White Fang. I know. That’s not a very “cool” answer, but I just like the way Jack London merges the human experience with the animal perspective, and they were books that captured my imagination when I was a kid, so I guess there’s an element of nostalgia there.

If ever you’re looking for something a little more psychological, but not philosophical, try Musicophilia. It’s probably my favourite book of all time. You might have to be fan of music to enjoy it though.

I’m bothered by the fact that so many people regard Neitzche as such a great philosopher. He seems to be the kind ignorant philosopher that, if you have an objectified, pessimistic view of the world, or you’re one of those people that’s considers themselves to be a cheery, idealistic optimist of all that humans can’t be (but aren’t), then Neitzche’s opinions just resonate with you deeply and so you have a tendency to “instinctually feel” as though they are accurate. (Hopefully that doesn’t offend you, I’m not trying to say that about you personally!)

What I find with Neitzche though is that his view is just that...opinions. Highly subjective ones. He’s very poetic in his writing and very good at sounding convincing, but rather than observing the ways of the world and objectively attempting to explain why things are the way they are...Neitzche has this way of artfully painting a subjective representation of how he personally feels about what he sees.

Of course, there are some observations he makes that are worth entertaining. The will to power, for instance, is an interesting concept. But he takes that observation and, in my opinion, proceeds to blow it out of proportion to a monumental degree and apply it in a very subjective and inappropriate fashion. To Neitzche, everything is an expression of the will to power.

Neitzche’s brand of philosophy, in my opinion, is guilty of bias by exclusion. He starts with a theory, like the will to power, and then tries to fit all of his observations into that paradigm. It’s very unscientific.

In my mind, a philosopher should be a scientist of the traditional sense of the term, first and foremost. You observe, theorize, test, observe, and retheorize.

The way Neitzche writes, it’s like he has a viewpoint he wants to persuade you to share with him, so he observes, structures his observations to support his theory, and then just writes about it.

I think Neitzche would have been a powerful fiction writer. He has a way with words and a gift for captivating his audience...but as a philosopher, I think he probably set a bad example and I feel like he’s one of the the people who contributed to the weak foundation of philosophy and psychology we have today.

Of course, these are opinions I formed years ago when I listened to two of his books as audiobooks. And I realise that a lot of people are die hard fans, so I don’t often try to voice my opinions because they’re offensive. I do feel, though, that Neitzche has a way of crippling the philosophies of men. Most Neitzche fans, I find, aren’t worth having philosophical debates with. Not you, of course!

But, like Neitzche, so many of his fans are only interested in validating their conviction that Neitzche saw the world the way it “really” is, and that everything he said was just spot on. People like that seem to think they’re on a mission to find the truth, but really, they’re on a mission to feel emotionally validated. That’s all.

 

[Inexorable Username]

So a while ago, like before I made joined the forum, I had a dream where it was like cuts from a horror movie where Stephen Hawking was the slasher and basically went on a murder spree. It was really grotesque. The only real part of the dream that has stuck with me was right before I woke, where Hawking was using some sort of mechanical frame of metal strapped to him that allowed him to walk in a contorted manner with an oncoming giant bolder coming from behind him.

I've come to understand what it means to me, and my fear of logic/reductionism. It is a rational one because the more I reduce things the more shallow the world feels. I'm thinking maybe I'm looking in the wrong places. There is a drawback to unbounded rationality for sure, but again maybe I'm just looking in the wrong places.

I generally find that logic often complicates things...whereas creativity/abstraction reduces concepts to their fundamentals.

If you write out a logical proof, you end up having to write in a lot of assertions that normally go inferred if you’re just having a discussion with someone.

Also, when it comes to discussing macro concepts, like the truths of life, I find that you have to ascend beyond logic to a certain degree to really engage philosophically. Otherwise, you get into micro debates like “How can you objectively prove the existence of objectivity?”...which holds you back from being able to use the concept of objectivity to demonstrate something greater.

But - there is something to be feared in logic. I view people who profess to be logical with a lot of skepticism, because they often use logic as a tool to validate their beliefs, when in fact, their beliefs are not necessarily logically valid.

The problem with logical arguments is that, when isolated and purely logical, they’re often not as useful in a debate as people’s wish they would be. So many people, whether they realize it or not, will use a logically valid argument as a method to prove an invalid conclusion. People who logically debate can be highly manipulative. Ben Shapiro, for instance. (Who I enjoy, but don’t trust).

I think one of the major shortcomings of the hobby of “being logical” is that people think they are being more logical by becoming more heartless, less empathetic, and by caring less about emotions or the subjective experience.

That’s not the case. I would say those people are philosophically immature.

The problem is, the feeling of having a robotic way of analysing and processing the world feels, in and of itself, empowering. Those that entertain this state of mind feel a false sense of superiority, and they feel comforted into believing that they are more accurate because they are immune to subjectivity due to lack of emotion. By contrast, it is much more tiring, uncertain, and more a stress inducing to have to be logical while entertaining subjectivity.

So you end up with a lot of very smart, arrogant, narrow-minded people who aren’t willing to change their point of view unless you are willing to act like an emotionless robot.

I think I’m rambling. Sorry! My point was - I don’t think that logic is necessarily simpler. Posing proper logical arguments isn’t very micro-orientated and long-winded (the devil is in the details)! However, I do think that there is something to fear from becoming overly “logical” the way modern society views “logic” (synonymous with psychosis, really).

This is one of the philosophical shortcomings we have in society today, and I feel like Neitzche is in part responsible. His subjective opinion of empathy and weakness, I think, may have greatly contributed to inability of modern thinkers to adapt and grow beyond rudimentary powers of reason.

 

[Inexorable Username]

I tried to meditate once. After 5 minutes of just sitting around doing nothing I was like "yo this is boring as hell". I'm sure there's some monk who's been living in a cave for the last 10 years who can tell me this means I'm not zen or whatever, but who is to say he is right. He probably has some rule that he's not even allowed to jerk off so his balls have ceased all operations ages ago. At least my balls are working.

Not meaning to challenge you but that's what meditation is, a challenge. If you can sit down and do nothing for more than an hour without practice I really commend you, because that is kinda the point, it's a form of restriction and self control.

"Congratulations, you can do nothing for an hour" it just so happens that it's been proven that it thicken gray matter, and shrinks amygdala so it's more like I was able to change my physiology in a desirable way. I'm sure you could get the same results in a lot of other soothing and attentive tasks, but meditation literally just requires the willingness to focus on your breath, and no one can take that away from you.

It’s focus on your breath initially, but it’s much more than restricting yourself and focusing on your breath.

You should get to a point in meditation where you forget about your breath and you’re no longer having to fight to keep your thoughts at bay. Then, you should feel like your senses are on drugs. Smells, lights you can see behind your eyelids, and sounds all start to become very intense and vivid. A lot of people start to see colors.

I got to that point with my meditation but then I had a terrifying hallucination that really freaked me out and made me not want to meditate anymore. I still haven’t really gotten back into the habit.

Most of the hallucination was okay, and even kind of interesting...apparently you’re not supposed to focus on them though, which I did, but then it morphed into something else and it was no longer fun. Lol.

If I was alone in a cave for ten years, meditating, I can’t imagine what kind of hallucinations I might have. The thought gives me chills.

Luckily, I never meditated while trying to fall asleep. I’ve read that can cause sleep paralysis. Yikes.

 

[Marbles]

Your online persona doesn't need work, Inex. I think you're very well liked around here, but one can't please everyone. Some will even dislike you specifically for being liked by others, or for making an effort to be liked. People suck, they will always find a reason to dislike you, so don't be perfectionist about how you appear; then people will just hate you for that. I should be taking that advice, myself.

It is so hard to offer reflections on your troubles since I barely know you. I have no idea how you come across in person. To me, both here and on discord, you seem like an empathetic, intelligent, curious, quite feminine woman. You don't seem arrogant or argumentative at all, but you do seem like people have been called you those things; a little burned. Really, while I relate to everything you write, I have a very hard time understanding how you would be perceived that way. Perhaps we are both aliens. I feel your pain.

Thanks for the book recommendations, and sorry about the short reply. I'm quite drunk, and there is distracting music. I wish I had something more tangible to offer, but I don't want to spout bullshit just to speak.

 

[EndogenousRebel]

I generally find that logic often complicates things...whereas creativity/abstraction reduces concepts to their fundamentals.

If you write out a logical proof, you end up having to write in a lot of assertions that normally go inferred if you’re just having a discussion with someone.

Also, when it comes to discussing macro concepts, like the truths of life, I find that you have to ascend beyond logic to a certain degree to really engage philosophically. Otherwise, you get into micro debates like “How can you objectively prove the existence of objectivity?”...which holds you back from being able to use the concept of objectivity to demonstrate something greater.

But - there is something to be feared in logic. I view people who profess to be logical with a lot of skepticism, because they often use logic as a tool to validate their beliefs, when in fact, their beliefs are not necessarily logically valid.

The problem with logical arguments is that, when isolated and purely logical, they’re often not as useful in a debate as people’s wish they would be. So many people, whether they realize it or not, will use a logically valid argument as a method to prove an invalid conclusion. People who logically debate can be highly manipulative. Ben Shapiro, for instance. (Who I enjoy, but don’t trust).

I think one of the major shortcomings of the hobby of “being logical” is that people think they are being more logical by becoming more heartless, less empathetic, and by caring less about emotions or the subjective experience.

The problem is, the feeling of having a robotic way of analysing and processing the world feels, in and of itself, empowering. Those that entertain this state of mind feel a false sense of superiority, and they feel comforted into believing that they are more accurate because they are immune to subjectivity due to lack of emotion. By contrast, it is much more tiring, uncertain, and more a stress inducing to have to be logical while entertaining subjectivity.

So you end up with a lot of very smart, arrogant, narrow-minded people who aren’t willing to change their point of view unless you are willing to act like an emotionless robot.

I don’t think that logic is necessarily simpler. Posing proper logical arguments isn’t very micro-orientated and long-winded (the devil is in the details)! However, I do think that there is something to fear from becoming overly “logical” the way modern society views “logic” (synonymous with psychosis, really).

This is one of the philosophical shortcomings we have in society today, and I feel like Neitzche is in part responsible. His subjective opinion of empathy and weakness, I think, may have greatly contributed to inability of modern thinkers to adapt and grow beyond rudimentary powers of reason.

I agree with you on most of what you wrote, I myself said that logic was a tool in the post before the one you quoted. It is a tool with which we reason with, you could reason with emotions but those wouldn't necessarily be logical, and a lot people would have a problem with that. The thing is, I do not think that logic as a tool is too flawed (besides the reasons I fear it), it's more user error than anything. We have this seemingly perfect tool and we choose how we use it, and people with dissonance will use it up until the point where it becomes overwhelming or inconvenient.

Human have been shown to accomplish great and innovative things, we could've been developing electric cars since the 1850s but we didn't because it was inconvinient. And too little too late, we have only began to really even trying to advance the technology recently. We all know that gas is bad for the environment, yet we tell ourselves it's worth it, for convenience. The biggest thing we wrestle with is time and implications of our actions, and how they will ripple our through the world. Logically, I could think "I'm alive for 80 years I can do whatever I want" but you would have to be a pretty decrepit person to actually believe and act that out.

Truth is if we were to breakdown which industries are using logic the most, we would get business at the top. I mean this quantitatively, I'm sure physicist do more intense math. Businesses, the ones that are succesful are all about variables and manipulating them, breaking down everything into it's smallest parts and knowing all the complexity in interactions between them. This I think is what I fear. If I were to breakdown logically, reductive, everything in my life, I might have great success, but what of my soul? I think that this is something a psychopath would have no issue doing, breaking down certain things would be like nukes of manipulation. I thought about certain things, and was actively avoiding thinking about them, such as the pesky thing that tells you to care about what others think. I didn't want to do that because I feared what it would make me. I'm probably just overreacting it's just, idk, troubling.

It’s focus on your breath initially, but it’s much more than restricting yourself and focusing on your breath.

You should get to a point in meditation where you forget about your breath and you’re no longer having to fight to keep your thoughts at bay. Then, you should feel like your senses are on drugs. Smells, lights you can see behind your eyelids, and sounds all start to become very intense and vivid. A lot of people start to see colors.

I got to that point with my meditation but then I had a terrifying hallucination that really freaked me out and made me not want to meditate anymore. I still haven’t really gotten back into the habit.

Oh yeah Ik what you mean, I can start meditating and I can instantly feel pressure and focus I am to maintain. An EEG device that gives feedback is really useful if you want to make sure you're doing things right. It really helped me with sleep too, as I can see that, yes thinking like this does change my brainwaves in a way that makes sense.

Never have hallucinated sadly, but I only meditate like 5 times a month or so, so maybe I should increase that.

 

[Inexorable Username]

Your online persona doesn't need work, Inex. I think you're very well liked around here, but one can't please everyone. Some will even dislike you specifically for being liked by others, or for making an effort to be liked. People suck, they will always find a reason to dislike you, so don't be perfectionist about how you appear; then people will just hate you for that. I should be taking that advice, myself.

It is so hard to offer reflections on your troubles since I barely know you. I have no idea how you come across in person. To me, both here and on discord, you seem like an empathetic, intelligent, curious, quite feminine woman. You don't seem arrogant or argumentative at all, but you do seem like people have been called you those things; a little burned. Really, while I relate to everything you write, I have a very hard time understanding how you would be perceived that way. Perhaps we are both aliens. I feel your pain.

Thanks for the book recommendations, and sorry about the short reply. I'm quite drunk, and there is distracting music. I wish I had something more tangible to offer, but I don't want to spout bullshit just to speak.

Aww...you’re so sweet and relatable Marbles. You should always feel free to spout bullshit. I enjoy your responses quite a bit!

It’s nice to get a little validation. I guess sometimes it’s easier to register criticism and get it more merit than it deserves because we rarely get a counterbalance. People don’t exactly run around saying things like “I appreciate how succinctly you express yourself. Keep it up.” Lol!

I think we are both aliens. I’m always try to find things about myself that need work and improve them, and I try to respect and appreciate the feedback I’m given, in an effort to value the opinions of others. Also, even though sometimes the feedback does burn a bit, I feel like that, in and of itself, can be valuable. If it burns there’s a reason. It means you don’t want people to think of you that way because you don’t value being that way, so you should correct the behavior that makes people perceive you in a way that you don’t value.

But you’re right - you can’t please everyone, and some people just want to hate you regardless. That’s why it’s tough for me to find that balance.

I try to look for a theme. If a lot of people are interpreting me as aggressive, or similar, then maybe they have a point and something about the way I behave needs to be corrected.

Although, sometimes I wonder if I’m just getting overly insecure? It’s a constant internal struggle.

I see myself as someone who always tries to be perfect while knowing full well that perfection is impossible.

I’m glad that you think I’m feminine! That’s sweet. I do think I’m fairly feminine and I like that about myself, because I think so many women these days think they have to be masculine to be intelligent, successful, or respected - and I hope some day that perspective changes. Being feminine shouldn’t be seen as being weak or stupid...but so many “feminists” these days attack femininity as if that’s what being feminine means to them. I disagree. I think that there’s innate strengths to both sexes and it goes beyond women being able to like...nurture. Yeah, obviously, there’s that. But there are more advantages to the female sex that people just don’t seem to recognize or appreciate these days - advantages that men cold befit from emulating. Just as there are aspects of the male sex that females could benefit from emulating....
Thoughts.

In any case - I did go through a tom boy phase where I think I felt like I wouldn’t be respected if I was too much like a woman. I think many women still feel that way. But I’ve since learned that if you’re a woman that tries to repress femininity then in a way, it seems like you get even less respect from male peers than you would have otherwise. At least, that’s my philosophy on it at the moment. There’s something about a person who is willing to be true to their instincts, in a decent, moral way, that is much more worthy of respect/admiration than people who try to hide who they are and live a double-life just to earn false approval from others.

 

[Inexorable Username]

I generally find that logic often complicates things...whereas creativity/abstraction reduces concepts to their fundamentals.

If you write out a logical proof, you end up having to write in a lot of assertions that normally go inferred if you’re just having a discussion with someone.

Also, when it comes to discussing macro concepts, like the truths of life, I find that you have to ascend beyond logic to a certain degree to really engage philosophically. Otherwise, you get into micro debates like “How can you objectively prove the existence of objectivity?”...which holds you back from being able to use the concept of objectivity to demonstrate something greater.

But - there is something to be feared in logic. I view people who profess to be logical with a lot of skepticism, because they often use logic as a tool to validate their beliefs, when in fact, their beliefs are not necessarily logically valid.

The problem with logical arguments is that, when isolated and purely logical, they’re often not as useful in a debate as people’s wish they would be. So many people, whether they realize it or not, will use a logically valid argument as a method to prove an invalid conclusion. People who logically debate can be highly manipulative. Ben Shapiro, for instance. (Who I enjoy, but don’t trust).

I think one of the major shortcomings of the hobby of “being logical” is that people think they are being more logical by becoming more heartless, less empathetic, and by caring less about emotions or the subjective experience.

The problem is, the feeling of having a robotic way of analysing and processing the world feels, in and of itself, empowering. Those that entertain this state of mind feel a false sense of superiority, and they feel comforted into believing that they are more accurate because they are immune to subjectivity due to lack of emotion. By contrast, it is much more tiring, uncertain, and more a stress inducing to have to be logical while entertaining subjectivity.

So you end up with a lot of very smart, arrogant, narrow-minded people who aren’t willing to change their point of view unless you are willing to act like an emotionless robot.

I don’t think that logic is necessarily simpler. Posing proper logical arguments isn’t very micro-orientated and long-winded (the devil is in the details)! However, I do think that there is something to fear from becoming overly “logical” the way modern society views “logic” (synonymous with psychosis, really).

This is one of the philosophical shortcomings we have in society today, and I feel like Neitzche is in part responsible. His subjective opinion of empathy and weakness, I think, may have greatly contributed to inability of modern thinkers to adapt and grow beyond rudimentary powers of reason.

I agree with you on most of what you wrote, I myself said that logic was a tool in the post before the one you quoted. It is a tool with which we reason with, you could reason with emotions but those wouldn't necessarily be logical, and a lot people would have a problem with that. The thing is, I do not think that logic as a tool is too flawed (besides the reasons I fear it), it's more user error than anything. We have this seemingly perfect tool and we choose how we use it, and people with dissonance will use it up until the point where it becomes overwhelming or inconvenient.

Human have been shown to accomplish great and innovative things, we could've been developing electric cars since the 1850s but we didn't because it was inconvinient. And too little too late, we have only began to really even trying to advance the technology recently. We all know that gas is bad for the environment, yet we tell ourselves it's worth it, for convenience. The biggest thing we wrestle with is time and implications of our actions, and how they will ripple our through the world. Logically, I could think "I'm alive for 80 years I can do whatever I want" but you would have to be a pretty decrepit person to actually believe and act that out.

Truth is if we were to breakdown which industries are using logic the most, we would get business at the top. I mean this quantitatively, I'm sure physicist do more intense math. Businesses, the ones that are succesful are all about variables and manipulating them, breaking down everything into it's smallest parts and knowing all the complexity in interactions between them. This I think is what I fear. If I were to breakdown logically, reductive, everything in my life, I might have great success, but what of my soul? I think that this is something a psychopath would have no issue doing, breaking down certain things would be like nukes of manipulation. I thought about certain things, and was actively avoiding thinking about them, such as the pesky thing that tells you to care about what others think. I didn't want to do that because I feared what it would make me. I'm probably just overreacting it's just, idk, troubling.

It’s focus on your breath initially, but it’s much more than restricting yourself and focusing on your breath.

You should get to a point in meditation where you forget about your breath and you’re no longer having to fight to keep your thoughts at bay. Then, you should feel like your senses are on drugs. Smells, lights you can see behind your eyelids, and sounds all start to become very intense and vivid. A lot of people start to see colors.

I got to that point with my meditation but then I had a terrifying hallucination that really freaked me out and made me not want to meditate anymore. I still haven’t really gotten back into the habit.

Oh yeah Ik what you mean, I can start meditating and I can instantly feel pressure and focus I am to maintain. An EEG device that gives feedback is really useful if you want to make sure you're doing things right. It really helped me with sleep too, as I can see that, yes thinking like this does change my brainwaves in a way that makes sense.

Never have hallucinated sadly, but I only meditate like 5 times a month or so, so maybe I should increase that.

When I hallucinated I was meditating for about a half hour on a daily basis.

The hallucination wasn’t even that bad. It started out with unrealistically beautiful sea creatures artistically jumping out of the water and swimming like they were dancing to music, and it just came out of nowhere. It shocked me so much I wasn’t sure what to think, but then I just started watching the sea creatures in my head like it was a movie. I was like “huh. This is neat.”
THEN the scene changed and what I saw was this open doorway with a bright light coming from it...and a backlit silhouette of a figure in a suit and a hat was walking toward me with his hand in his pocket.

And for some reason unbeknownst to god, the sight of that legitimately terrified me. I felt this rush of extreme fear and this feeling like that person wanted to...murder me or something? And they were like...the embodiment of pure evil? I don’t know. It was an extreme emotional experience.

People think I’m totally batshit crazy when I recount this story. lol. I don’t even know where that image came from or why I felt such fear for it, because I’m not religious, and I’m certainly not fearful. I’ve traveled a lot and been in plenty of sticky situations...mundane stuff just has no fear for me.

But I think it was because I was meditating that I had that kind of emotional reaction. It probably doesn’t help that at the time, I was researching pagan religions (kind of a tangent to my research into Christianity and Judaism).

Anyways, after that I started feeling really jumpy and I started having weird thoughts like “what if demons are real”...now - it’s important to understand here that I’ve traditionally been a very non-mystical person, so I’ve never once believed in things like demons. But that was how shocking this experience was. It really shook me and made me feel a fear I just can’t remember feeling since I was a kid and had graphic nightmares.

And I was awake during the meditation. Which just made everything so creepy. I dunno. That’s when I stopped meditating. I’ve done it a couple of times since, but in situations with more stimulation...like out in nature.

I still haven’t meditated in the office since that happened. Lol. Which...now that just makes me feel like I’m a superstitious crazy person. I shouldn’t be THAT affected by one little hallucination...especially since when I researched it, I found they’re quite common in people who start getting deeper into meditation. But. That’s the way it is. I make plans to meditate in my office and then somehow, I inevitably end up being “just too busy to do it today”. Lol. Maybe admitting to that like I just did right now will help me get back on track. Because meditation did make a very noticeable difference in my life. I was more attentive, I felt more intelligent, I slept better, I had less stress and anxiety, I was less prone to emotions/mood swings, less irritated, I had a better memory, better ability to switch tasks...I mean, of all the things I've learned and tried, meditation made the biggest difference of all, by far. But I seldom tell people that because people who tried meditating and gave up because they couldn’t focus hate hearing about how you got all these benefits from meditation. Lol.

Insofar as your concerns about logic...I think I might understand where your coming from....in which case, my advice would be that you should logically and philosophically explore the purpose of empathy.

In our modern culture, we seem to regard empathy as the opposite of logic. We also regard emotion as being the opposite of logic. That premise is fundamentally flawed. They are not opposites, and in fact, most of the time to be predominantly logical in a subjective situation, emotions and empathy are essential. Psychopaths are not logical, and if you research psychopaths and their tendencies later in life, their failure to thrive is very suggestive of why we need empathy and why we need to value emotions.

I think the departure from empathy and emotions may be the thing you fear? Because we can choose not to feel those things or not to respect them. In doing so, you can become a morally bankrupted person.

But the importance is to discover why it is not logical to shut those things off. I had a personal experience with that, because I shut off my emotions and empathy for a period of time when I was younger, and doing so helped me to understand why those things are critical.

I think what you’ll find, or what you may already realize if you think on it...is that business isn’t actually at the height of logic. I think it’s just the massive egos and arrogance of business-centric people that make people think they just be logical. But modern day business men, in my experience, (and I do marketing, so I have a fair bit of experience in that regard), are not as logical as they think they are. Even the successful ones...and that is because they do not value empathy and emotion.

So to demonstrate my point, I’ll use an example. Henry Ford was an excellent businessman, and in my mind, much more logical than modern day business men. (He was also anti-semetic - not a perfect man by any means...)

What made Henry Ford logical to me was his respect for systems, and subjectivity. Henry Ford valued human relationships, had a good relationship with his mother, and had a strong sense of responsibility for others, as well as a strong sense of morality and the attributes that people would call “noble”.

Henry Ford respected emotions, and empathized with the people. Because of his excellent understanding of humans, and systems, and human systems, he was able to mass manufacture cars.

So he is a great example of why empathy and emotions are highly relevant to logic. Without exercising those senses, you are not able to relate to the subjective human experience and understand the way these things motivate and fuel others, and the behaviors that result. You will end up making decisions that damage the welfare of others, in the name of “progress”, and when you damage the welfare of others, or demonstrate the callousness to do such, you not only sabotage your own resources but you poison the trust of your dependents, which will inevitably cost you in terms of potential.

People who can truly, really see the biggest picture in life...the kind of people who seem to “get it” in ways that most people don’t, and seem to have the deep answers most people aren’t able to find...If you look at those people (like the Dalai Lama), you’ll find that they value emotions and empathy, and that they all express that we are part of something much larger, and that our actions are interdependent.

So if those better, wiser people believe that, and agree on that, it’s likely that they have a reason for it.
The notion is worth exploring.

So many people who believe that emotions and empathy are the enemies of logic and reason never seemed to really have stopped to question that belief. Either that, or they cherry-picked a philosopher like Neitzche who they feel agrees with them.

When you stop to question that notion...what I think you find is something roughly like this:

Empathy is a sixth sense. It gives us information that intellectually is not within or reach.

Emotions are the products produced by empathy that give us insight as to how to feel about the thing we are sensing. Whether it is subjectively good, or bad, for instance. (Just like there are good and bad smells).

By using empathy and emotions we can relate our experience to the experiences of other living things.
That ability gives us additional information which is necessary for making a decision that isn’t based on all available information.

If your decisions are not based on all of the information available to you, then how are you not guilty of being fallacious by omission?

And while you do not need to feel emotion to construct a logical argument regarding something like...whether or not water is wet...when it comes to making decisions about whether or not you should close your business on Christmas Eve - or anything relating to humans or living things which have subjective experiences, well that is where emotions become essential information and empathy is the sense by which you gather said information.

And you’ll never hear a person use logic as a defender when they’re arguing whether water is wet. They use it for things like economics and politics - subjects that are heavily dependent on human emotion.

I find those people to be intellectually childish, narrow-minded, and limited. Of course, they can still be highly useful...Like Ben Shapiro - I value what he has to say. I just treat him as a shortcut to coming up with real “answers”. He brings 50% of the work to the table. It’s useful, just seldom entirely accurate.

I don’t know...hopefully, maybe this helps you? I used to be a very objective, “logical” kind of person. I had to do that psychological experiment so mentioned before I realised how limited I was.

I don’t mean to suggest you haven’t already come to the same conclusions - but I figure I might as well share my thoughts, because I think I can relate to the struggle.

Also, again...I think that we secretly want to believe that being unemotional is the answer. It sounds sexier and intelligent. I think that’s how people resonate with Nietzsche. He has a way of touching upon something we wished were true - we wish that we could excuse abandoning empathy and being hardened people...but the evidence available to us as well as the examples of those who have obtained what we’re looking to obtain - these things demonstrate that’s the theory that empathy is self-destructive or limiting is highly unlikely to be accurate.

Once I corrected my inaccurate understandings of empathy, it became very clear to me which “smart people” were actually well developed, intellectually, and which were good at sounding smart, but really guilty of knowing just enough to be dangerous...ignorance that makes any sense.

Hmm...maybe none of this is applicable to your concern. Oh well! Sorry about that. It’s my best attempt at providing useful insight.

 

[Inexorable Username]

I get impassioned about my argument that emotion and empathy are (usually) requirements for a truly logical argument...because so many people nowadays seem to think that emotions make you weak and unintelligent or illogical.

That doesn’t make sense. Moreover, it seems to be that belief, primarily, that causes so many men to not really value women.

If emotions made you weak and illogical then apathy would be the hallmark personality trait of our best and brightest - and it is not. Professional detachment is common. Objectification is common. Apathy? No. Apathy is the lack of emotions, and if you look at anyone who is highly successful, they are not apathetic.

Apathy is essentially the hallmark of people who are failures. It’s also a hallmark personality trait of people with psychosis or autism...and it’s sad. It’s something to pity. And honestly, it’s probably my greatest fear, because I’ve been apathetic before and I can’t really imagine a worse way to feel. It’s like your dead but still breathing, and doomed to your fate. Horrifying.

So, anyways, those that thrive have emotions and engage with them often. That’s why they do not appear to be lazy, unmotivated, uncaring, or unimpressed people.

Now...to add to that...I’ll say that there are definitely people who indulge in their emotions and are also depressive, needy, dependent, sensitive, weak, or otherwise worthy of pity. But those traits aren’t the result of having emotions. They are the result of failing to thrive for whatever reason. So for instance, someone might have a hormonal imbalance that causes them to cry all of the time. Or they might have trauma that they’re not able to cope with yet. Or they might just be an angsty teen who is suffering with adult feelings and a child’s lack of the skill, experience, and knowledge required to process and manage said feelings.

Women sometimes have the coddled puppy sydrome. That’s just what I call it. They did a studies where they essentially raised puppies in a room and when they tried to integrate them into the rest of the world as adults, the dogs shrieked and cried over the smallest things and lived their lives in fear. That’s what happens when you fail to raise an animal to be able to handle reality as it is, and cope with things such as minor pains or emotional let downs. So some women who were never challenged to develop a healthy psychology end up being helpless, sensitive, miserable, dependent creatures who cry all of the time. But men also have consequences resulting from poor parenting that overly emphasises gender roles. It’s just...a thing. A consequence of an unwise society full of people who didn’t really want to be parents and weren’t mature enough to handle it.

Well. In any case. There’s a poem I like. It’s been my favourite poem, ever since I was a kid...because it is a poem about conviction, courage, and facing your fears head on, and it is simply saturated with emotional content...but it’s powerful. So moving. So inspirational. To me, this poem demonstrates how powerful, formidable, and even masculine, human emotion can be. And I’m not going to tell you what it is....muhuhahaha! Feel that in for size! Just kidding. It’s “Invictus”, but William Ernest Henley. Whenever I felt weak growing up, I repeated that poem to myself. I wonder how many people were also moved to great heights by it. By the emotion of reading it, and feeling that something that makes you strong. You can’t impact so many generations of people on a logical argument devoid of emotion in the way that man did with his poem.
That’s why I think Neitzche should have stuck with poetry or fiction. His talent was wasted on being a mediocre philosopher. He was meant to be an artist of human emotions and subjectivity...oh well. Perhaps there’s reasons for things.

 

[EndogenousRebel]

I believe, from my earlier post

Rationality is a tool or plane we are developing and or discovering.

that most of what I said goes in line with what you write.
You should watch this video.
You'll find that logic is fundamental to math, and you wouldn't even question if it's the opposite of empathy, because that would mean mathematicians are delving into psychopathic thinking. Ford may very well have had high IQ along with EQ and realized that empathy is the path of least resistance in the long wrong. We evolved empathy, of course it's rational IE logical. I feel like you have a distorted view of psychopathy, maybe from how the media portrays it, much like you can have a functioning autistic, someone with ASPD could blend right in. Try looking through Quora to see what people have to say about that, they are very matter of fact on there. I'll also share this with you, it is my belief that if there was a psychopath that wasn't narcissistic, they would be a dangerous person, maybe at the same time an admirable person, but I'm sure it's a 50/50 shot.

Consider blueprints to a hydrogen bomb. It was logically constructed. The sum of it's parts, parts that on their own may not harm anyone, together they make the most awful weapon ever created. The mere existence of those blueprints are a threat to mankind. If you had a runaway civil engineer who was hell bent on causing chaos, then they would be able to easily breakdown on exactly how to cause whatever mayham they thought possible. Logic is the gateway to possibilities, and I don't wanna know the possibilities, maybe LOTR gave me an irrational fear, but I'm not gonna go down that path at all.

 

[Inexorable Username]

I believe, from my earlier post

Rationality is a tool or plane we are developing and or discovering.

that most of what I said goes in line with what you write.
You should watch this video.
You'll find that logic is fundamental to math, and you wouldn't even question if it's the opposite of empathy, because that would mean mathematicians are delving into psychopathic thinking. Ford may very well have had high IQ along with EQ and realized that empathy is the path of least resistance in the long wrong. We evolved empathy, of course it's rational IE logical. I feel like you have a distorted view of psychopathy, maybe from how the media portrays it, much like you can have a functioning autistic, someone with ASPD could blend right in. Try looking through Quora to see what people have to say about that, they are very matter of fact on there. I'll also share this with you, it is my belief that if there was a psychopath that wasn't narcissistic, they would be a dangerous person, maybe at the same time an admirable person, but I'm sure it's a 50/50 shot.

Consider blueprints to a hydrogen bomb. It was logically constructed. The sum of it's parts, parts that on their own may not harm anyone, together they make the most awful weapon ever created. The mere existence of those blueprints are a threat to mankind. If you had a runaway civil engineer who was hell bent on causing chaos, then they would be able to easily breakdown on exactly how to cause whatever mayham they thought possible. Logic is the gateway to possibilities, and I don't wanna know the possibilities, maybe LOTR gave me an irrational fear, but I'm not gonna go down that path at all.

What an awesome video! Thanks SO MUCH for sharing! I love the way this guy summarises math pretty much in its fundamental entirety! This is why I love YouTube. It’s a gateway for...for stuff. I don’t want to be long-winded. Lol.

I love that you and I share core philosophies. I really don’t generally meet people that respect and appreciate empathy and emotions. Usually, I’m fighting against the wind. You can probably get that sense from the way I write about the subject. I try very hard to be impactful in a small amount of words to make people potentially question their fundamental concept that emotion is contradictory to logic.

Math, and logic, they’re essentially the same. Logic, to me, is linguistic math. The issue with that is that there are so few things (comparatively) in the world that can be reduced to strict math. Most things we tend to discuss in our world are subjective, and partly affected by emotion and subjectivity.

I’m not sure where your atom bomb fits in as far as proving a point is concerned....I think I missed that point. Also, your links aren’t working on this DECREPIT POS PHONE. But I will look at them later on my computer. Excited about it. It’s fun hearing your philosophies.

 

[darque]

As a newborn its going to take me a while to get a sense of everybody, however I have no problems with anything I have read so far in this forum. It is all normal INTP stuff through and through so I feel I can speak freely, but please kick back as hard as you like we all value feedback; don't like it, but value it.

I also sense I'm a good 20 years further down the road than many of you so I feel honoured that I may be able to drop you a few pearls of wisdom to give you a foot up with the things that are challenging you. Been there, done that, hopefully I can save you a few scars that haunt me.

Firstly people are our Achilles heel, get used to it, as it won't change, ever.
We have Fe inferior, that's why, but that's for another time.

Secondly we isolate ourselves from them because, generally they provide low value input. Even worse, they pollute our thinking with their own highly subjective viewpoint and we spend years deconstructing our psyche to remove the erroneous suggestions that are manifesting as the incongruent behaviours in our relationships with others, and the poor choices that we loathe within ourselves.

However, isolation doesn't work. We are a behind the scenes type and exist to support others through solving problems, big problems. Without real purpose in our lives that is producing meaningful value and growth for ourselves, others or society, our focus will turn inward and we will proceed to resolve our own internal conflict ad infinum until we analyse ourselves into the unresolvable event horizon of our own personal black hole.

Welcome to the human condition INTP style, balancing on the knife edge between door-mat and self cannibalisation. Of course we can do more self analysis taking a pee at 2:00 in the morning than most people achieve in years of therapy and what I have read so far on this forum, everyone is working hard and coming to exactly the right conclusions that they need to, so Gradpappy is proud.

As always, one should take INTP feedback with a pick of salt. Its never researched or footnoted just spat out, with words chosen because they are cool, rhyme well and help the paragraphs to be visually neat and well balanced.

Ultimately, I'm just getting over my social awkwardness, fear of foot in mouth, and self criticism that I really don't have a clue what I should write or where my life is going and just writing something... anything! ...and the last two paragraphs are just rambling. See at 51, you still won't know when to stop.

 

[Inexorable Username]

@darque wow. That was so eloquent and majorly spot on.
I feel constantly confused in life. Discovering the MBTI helped me realize I wasn’t the only one with this subset of human crises. lol. That was nice.

One thing I firmly disagree with though is this perspective that’s INTPs are emotionless. I’ve taken this test at...I think 3 or 4 points in my life. The first 1-2 times were earlier in my life and I didn’t bother researching it because I thought it was superficial nonsense. (I’m not very superstitious). I think the third time I was fairly curious, but expected the rest of the world to believe the test was superficial nonsense. The last time was when my ex told me about that the test, and then flatly refused to believe that I was an INTP. So i took it again. I’ve never gotten anything else. >_>

(For the record, not sure if he really understood what INTPs are like. Lol.)

I feel like almost all of the stereotypes of INTPs fit me spot on except for two. I’m definitely an “empath”, as people call it, and I don’t do video games much. I can definitely get addicted to them if they’re one of the few I fancy, and I’m in hibernation mode, but...for a majority of my life I’ve done non-game things.

OH! Also, I’m very impulsive and adventurous. That doesn’t seem to be an INTP thing. I love to travel. Especially if I can be self-destructive about it ._.

My main struggle right now is the fact that I lack organisation/discipline...and I suppose I also struggle with the fact that people don’t really seem to interpret me accurately when i speak/write. That just bothers me because i really value being genuine...and I don’t like being misunderstood.

 

[darque]

From what I have read in your posts on this thread I would certainly agree you are INTP Exo. The whole stereotype of the robotic INTP is baloney. We care very deeply and are rewarded when new can meet the needs of other people. It's just that the inferior function is where our fears manifest and it is where we are vulnerable so the hardest to develop as we need to have confidence in ourselves. Fe, seeks Fi as the introverted functions provide a source. The same way others seek out our Ti as it is a source of analysis and answers.

Also, as an INTP female you are very rare at under 1% of the population and therefore your perspective is very precious. Stay true to yourself. I've only met a few female INTP and they were all delightful. All INTP hate conforming to others thinking... its usually unnecessarily compromised. Thank you for you comment on my writing, I work hard on my communication also for the same reason, people mis interpret or more correctly they read with reference to the subjective so they see what they believe. We however are careful as we are trying to convey a very specific message that must be read in context. I cannot offer much advice other than keep doing what you are doing as you write well.

 

[darque]

Impulsivity and adventure fits for an INTP as we tend to be blind to sensory experience in the moment due to Se being a shadow function so it needs a blast to activate. Hot curries, bungie jumping, throwing ourselves into unknown situations are all good as it tests thinking on our feet.

We also have Fi in the last shadow slot which is called the demon function. We looove to self destruct, think the human torch, flame on!

Especially if we have been slighted and we cannot see anyway out. Lets burn the house down and everything in it as it will hurt you more than me; rebuilding is a daily exercise for us anyway so nothing lost.

 

[EndogenousRebel]

I’m not sure where your atom bomb fits in as far as proving a point is concerned....I think I missed that point. Also, your links aren’t working on this DECREPIT POS PHONE. But I will look at them later on my computer. Excited about it. It’s fun hearing your philosophies.

lol yet again I appreciate your validation pretty soon I'm sure we will be sharing criticisms, and I welcome valid ones.

I'm trying to Feynman technique a bigger idea. Imagine, no one has a nuclear bomb, but then a scientist creates a blueprint, a schematic of a weapon that WILL work as proven through their math (logic). The existence of that blueprint itself is a threat to humanity, and every country will be dying to get their hands on it. My fear of logic stems from the idea that I or someone else very well could or has reverse engineered psychology, sociology, logic, human reasoning and all it's flaws and components to basically- well the more and more I think of this the more I think about big tech companies, it's scary. But yeah basically a pamphlet that tells you how to win in every situation. I'm sure only just one person couldn't conceive all of it's parts, but it's just a big yikes for me.

I also sense I'm a good 20 years further down the road than many of you so I feel honoured that I may be able to drop you a few pearls of wisdom to give you a foot up with the things that are challenging you. Been there, done that, hopefully I can save you a few scars that haunt me.

Firstly people are our Achilles heel, get used to it, as it won't change, ever.
We have Fe inferior, that's why, but that's for another time.

Secondly we isolate ourselves from them because, generally they provide low value input. Even worse, they pollute our thinking with their own highly subjective viewpoint and we spend years deconstructing our psyche to remove the erroneous suggestions that are manifesting as the incongruent behaviours in our relationships with others, and the poor choices that we loathe within ourselves.

Of course we can do more self analysis taking a pee at 2:00 in the morning than most people achieve in years of therapy and what I have read so far on this forum, everyone is working hard and coming to exactly the right conclusions that they need to, so Gradpappy is proud.

Ultimately, I'm just getting over my social awkwardness, fear of foot in mouth, and self criticism that I really don't have a clue what I should write or where my life is going and just writing something... anything! ...and the last two paragraphs are just rambling. See at 51, you still won't know when to stop.

Eagerly awaiting these pearls of wisdom. I'm INTP at my core, I think I've just been so lucky or resourceful in life that I'm surrounded with the right people, so I'm pretty XNXP, it's flexible and a lot of people tell me I'm likeable or charismatic. So my goal is to get those S and J's down so that I am the ultimate Myer brigg, XXXX.

Basically everything I omitted in the quote is stuff that I'm comfortable with. Lol the therapy comment is funny, and true for me. I've always like writing, so I understand that people aren't going to take my word for it and know that citations are nice, but this is a forum about an imagined personality test so who gives a fuck, if people want more clarity the will ask for it.

 

[darque]

Agree, thanks for the discourse Exo, nice to get the ice cracked.

@EndogenousRebel, don't get me started on the whole corporate, black future thing that's a beast in its own right. Everything we write is subjective, so I am always interested in what sticks for other people. We cannot tolerate bad logic so give a better argument and I have no option but to accept it and rewire my head if necessary. lol.

 

[Inexorable Username]

@EndogenousRebel
Ohh...I think I see where you’re coming from. It’s the fear of the development of the “math” of human psychology...in a sense?
The ability to brainwash humans to a systematic and accurate degree...
If we’re worried about the same thing here - I feel like this isn’t something I’ve been scared of all my life. Even as a little kid, I was afraid that adults were trying to brainwash me. I always stayed away from news and the media because I didn’t want to be influenced.
Now as an adult, ironically, I do media marketing. And it creeps me out even more...how much psychological research we perform - especially without the consent of others.
Me, I’m all for knowledge. But something about this knowledge almost seems inherently evil in nature...and like the precursor to the destruction of individualistic humanity. Or maybe I’m just being dramatic.

I work hard on my communication also for the same reason, people mis interpret or more correctly they read with reference to the subjective

This! Exactly. Because I feel like I present my information with accuracy, but my intent is inferred based on a person’s preconceived notions on the motivations of various human stereotypes, which they then proceed to apply to me...and they don’t apply. Not at all.

Especially if we have been slighted and we cannot see anyway out. Lets burn the house down and everything in it as it will hurt you more than me; rebuilding is a daily exercise for us anyway so nothing lost.

Lol. I’ve only done this once...but I did do it. Someone in my life who I trusted since I was a kid backstabbed me in a major way...and that was after quite a while of “slighting” me in various aspects. I’m normally a very friendly, laid back person, but I think I did sort of flip my shit and get a “burn it to the ground” attitude. I’ve just now started talking to the person again. Cordially. Because they are unavoidable...lol. (Family member)

Thank you for your love of INTP females! How sweet! I’d love to be delightful. I think, though, that I’m typically more “overwhelming” and “confusing” XD!
Oh well.

But you give me hope that maybe as an INTP female, I can become a delightful person!

I’m glad that you don’t think INTPs are devoid of emotion. I have to admit that I have, in the past, struggled with an overly objectified and emotionless life outlook....but I was young and trying to prove myself. I like to think I’ve matured enough to “be myself” more now, and at my core, I’m a very kind, loving, compassionate, and even girly person...despite my utter lack of respect for fashion. I can do it. It’s just an expensive waste of life and I don’t see the point in dedicating time to my body. It’s like...a car. (My cars don’t get much love either, as you can probably tell!)

I have to admit that I haven’t looked too much into the function thing yet. I’ve been research stocks. Isn’t the shadow function what your evil side is like? It sounds to me like I have a lot of shadows @_@ (oh god. I knew it. I’m secretly evil at heart)

I can definitely be self-destructive, and for some reason, I love the thrill of danger. One of the most boring guys I ever dated I met because I challenged him to a race on a highway. Not that...I did that a lot. Or anything. Most of my self-destructive impulsive behaviors are a one time thing.

 

[Inexorable Username]

We cannot tolerate bad logic so give a better argument and I have no option but to accept it and rewire my head if necessary.

Oh this is me! So me! People think I’m stubborn but I’m not. I’m just entertaining my philosophy until such a point at which it is disproven.

What really confuses me is why other people don’t get that. It’s like...I don’t think you’re “wrong”, or that you don’t know what you’re talking about. You just haven’t been concretely contradictory enough for me to redefine my beliefs. Obviously. O_o

 

[darque]

This! Exactly. Because I feel like I present my information with accuracy, but my intent is inferred based on a person’s preconceived notions on the motivations of various human stereotypes, which they then proceed to apply to me...and they don’t apply. Not at all.

Nailed it! but it is not an intentional slight against you, just a cookie cutter approach to thinking. It gives them speed at the expense of accuracy.

 

[darque]

Obviously!

 

[Inexorable Username]

Lol. No - I get it. I don’t harbor I’ll will. Generally if people are misguided I feel compassionate for their errors. I just...I think I’m struggling to figure out how to correct this misconception. Because people commonly seem to think I’m arrogant. Especially men.
Like, I have women who want to....
Nope. I was about to get long-winded. Not going to do it. This is me reforming my long-winded ness. Death to the rambling and schizophrenic monologues. (It’s schizophrenic when you’re talking to yourself, right?)
Something to that affect.

 

[Inexorable Username]

Does anyone here enjoy playing stardew valley? Or am I the only one?

 

[Inexorable Username]

Also, D, tell me about this shadow function thing. I’d like to know how many shadows there are in my functions.

I read somewhere that my shadow self is the “mad scientist”, which described me as a person who would objectify others to an essentially psychotic degree...
And I had a good laugh with my soul sister, Allie, an INFJ - whose shadow function is the “mad queen”.
We decided that she would go nuts and burn the world to the ground, and I (as the “mad scientist”) would STILL be there’s to pay her on the back and tell her it’s okay XD

I could definitely see her being the mad queen though. Not at first. But then I watched this Youtube video where they said Danaerys Targarean is the epitome of the INFJ shadow function...Thought of Allie...and was like - yup. I could see it. For sure. Lol

 

[moody]

wtf to they want from me?

I'm sorry, that's rough. Sometimes parents take for granted that the child has to rely on them because it's a child, then don't realize you actually have to form a sustainable bond if you want a relationship after the child matures. You could do what one of my aunts did: block everyone and move away.

 

[darque]

.I think I’m struggling to figure out how to correct this misconception.

When you work it out let me know... It has cost me jobs more than once. I use the broken record method and just keep trying to correct them but it usually fails. I often get accused of being quiet, but it is a learned behaviour because of this issue. I'd rather say nothing than to say something half baked and have it haunt me later.

 

[Marbles]

@EndogenousRebel Thanks for sharing that video, it was really inspiring.

@darque "Nailed it! but it is not an intentional slight against you, just a cookie cutter approach to thinking. It gives them speed at the expense of accuracy."

That's exactly it. I tried to skew my thinking in the direction of speed some time ago, but it's easier said than done.

 

[darque]

@Inexorable Username, the shadow functions are just the inverse of what you usually use. For an INTP we have TiNe-SiFe in our ego therefore the shadow is TeNi-SeFi which is an ENTJ the Chief. This is our 'get stuff done' extroverted self.

We can also flip the order of the functions and get an FeSi-NeTi which is the ESFJ, the Supporter, also an extroverted mode, its why others say we are good listeners, and finally we have FiSe-NiTe to give us an ISFP or the Artist. People can be surprised that we have a creative streak but this is why. The ISFP would also be the mad scientist reference, creative but in a screwed up way.

As we get older we gain better control of these other modes but never like a native. One extroverted mode is essential, so ESFJ makes sense for a woman and the ENTJ for a man, so we can get pretty decent at these quite early on.

I could prattle on for days here... and probably will.

If you stick to a mechanistic viewpoint when you approach the functions there is solid mathematics, and I would argue a Nobel Prize, waiting in this space. I think I have the logic mostly licked so if there are some decent math heads in the forum, it might be the incentive I need to stop procrastinating and write it down.

There you go! one day in the forum and I have already over committed... dang.

 

[Inexorable Username]

There you go! one day in the forum and I have already over committed... dang.

Lol! Story of my life!

I also find it slightly hilarious that we’re all struggling with the same issues of being misunderstood when we speak. It’s a funny sort of sad.

Weirdly enough, the other day I took the test in accordance to what I WISH I was, rather than what I always steadfastly get every single time (the INTP), and my result was the ESTJ.

I thought it was kind of cool how close it is to the opposite. I guess I can’t part with my T no matter how much I value emotions and empathy. Its weird I suppose. Maybe as a female I should air more on the side of F but I just don’t. I think it’s in large part because I just don’t respect decisions that are purely emotional. I think emotions are essential to decision-making, but they are like...25% - 75% of the equation. At the end of the day, the final judgement needs to be an intellectual one of the decision is to be one that reflects the best way to achieve the desired goal.

But aside from that, there’s a lot I wish I could change. Consistent adherence to a schedule, for instance. Order, organisation, a respect for life’s mundane expectations such as having tidy, fashionable clothing, and keeping up to date with superficial information in the news, or remembering the names/faces of famous people.

There’s also a bit of a disconnect that I feel deeply when I look at my peers & their love of sports or famous people. I just don’t feel that. Well - no, I “feel” it in the sense that I can feel the emotion emanating from said people...but it’s disembodied. I have no context in which to fit the emotion because getting excited about sports doesn’t make sense to me. Nor does getting excited about famous people. They just don’t seem that impressive. Some of them seem a bit...well...stupid. Even though I don’t necessarily like to phrase it that way (kind of harsh). But I wish I could get excited about these things because other people seem to get a real boost from them. I’ve tried that hat on for size a few times in life but it never fit.

Anyways, I’ve been wondering if trying on a new personality might help. Marbles did that though, and doesn’t recommend it.

I’m surprised to hear about the artistic thing. I’ve always loved art, ever since I was a kid. Music, too. I didn’t read about that when I read about the INTP thing.

I guess I share a lot of the other functions. The impulsive, almost self-destructive thrill seeking wanderlust. The artistic streak. I can even be somewhat extroverted when the scenario suits me. I thought those things weren’t INTP but maybe they are just shadow functions.

 

[darque]

That's exactly it. I tried to skew my thinking in the direction of speed some time ago, but it's easier said than done.

It's not easy Marbles we have too much stuff in there, we are aware of the nuance around us and demand quality thinking from ourselves; something has to give.

From step to step, I have come to think that I am faster than most. I suspect from sheer bloody mindedness and the self criticism you are expressing to optimise myself as much as possible; there are just too many steps. Not only do we have to perform logical analysis, we do it with abstract data, that stuff is hard and most people glaze over and won't even try.

For example, my wife is an ISTJ and she is smart and fast but it is just not the same. She inhales crossword puzzles, drives like a rally driver and has an excellent bullshit filter. No chance this little black duck can serve up half baked ideas, cause he is too lazy to check facts. However, I can run rings around her in analysis and intuitive interpretation.

But it is because she has SiTe which is a serious information pump and the FiNe combo of value judgements on diffuse intuitive data gives her a sixth sense. Bloody woman learns by osmosis, sub-consciously processes it, and has it on call with citations as required; it is almost a straight pipeline. Mine is more like a labyrinth, and what's a labyrinth without a Minotaur, gotta have one of those in there, its cool...

 

[darque]

I also find it slightly hilarious that we’re all struggling with the same issues of being misunderstood when we speak. It’s a funny sort of sad.

and frustrating as hell, but yes it's also funny. Luckily we have big egos to keep us warm at night.

I guess I can’t part with my T no matter how much I value emotions and empathy.

Nailed it again. We are a control type we wont relinquish our thinking unless the activity is simple and well planned. The ENTJ is an extroverted thinking type and therefore subconscious... I better explain my logic behind that...

It is commonly understood that the extroverted judging functions are on a cognitive axis with their apposing introverted function as can be seen in the types. So Ti is always with Fe, Te is with Fi. So a change in Ti will directly change Fe. It is also acknowledged that the extroverted functions are affiliative.

So, we can comfortably infer some additional things here.

We don't need to consciously utilise both Ti and Fe as they are effectively two interfaces to the same cognitive tool chain. In fact we consciously work on ensuring our logical thinking synchronises with our empathetic response and vice versa. As seen in the reduction of social faux pas as we get older.

Also, our senses only provide rudimentary data. For example eyes only give us colour, shade, edge, corner, curve etc. The concept of square requires thought, as it needs prior knowledge that: this combination of edges and corners is significant, and it has a designated name: square. Consciousness to perform this analysis is not only unnecessary, but undesirable as:

a) it will slow the process down
b) the user could ruin data integrity by reclassifying this as a triangle today
c) they have enough control through feelings so it is duplication
d) they can always take conscious control back if they wish
e) it is harmonically synchronised with the environment so would be very unpleasant

Additionally, it makes no sense to have two distinct thinking systems as Ti / Te are fundamentally the same engine, just the perspective is different. Te is rationality and Ti is subjective rationality or logic, ie. self resolving rationality; so the same tool is acceptable. I find the simplest solution to resolve the available data elegantly is fine, until additional information and/or logic prove otherwise. So

One thinking system, one feeling system, axially connected. Conscious control of the introverted aspect of whichever tool is the most relevant, and subconscious or automated control of the other function through the axis.

Final bit to nail the coffin down. When reading Iain McGilchrist's - The Master and His Emissary: The Divided Brain and the Making of the Western World, it occurred to me that the two hemispheres map nicely over these functions. Left hemispheres (closing down to certainty) thinking & sensation and right hemisphere (opening up to possibility) feelings and intuition. The axial link between the two being the corpus callosum.

So the hemispheres play nice with each other. One takes the subjective conscious role and the other takes the subconscious objective role and they swap as necessary but with distinct preference.

We my friends, I class as duo-spheric transformative (lead with judging), as our default state is left hemisphere subjectively judging and right hemisphere objectively perceiving.

My beloved wife as ISTJ is mono-spheric experiential (lead with perception), as her default state is left hemisphere subjectively perceiving and left hemisphere objectively judging.

As I mentioned we are in a set with three other types INTP, ESFJ, ENTJ & ISFP. As expected, these are all duo-spheric transformative and there is also a duo-spheric experiential set and the same with two mono-spheric types. Like I said there is some serious maths going on here.

I would also wager the mono-spherics get a speed advantage due to a tighter coupling and increased bandwidth but harder to transition. whereas the duo-spherics can switch hemispherical perception faster but a slower overall transfer due to bandwidth limitations in the corpus callosum. Homework for someone to review the types and see if these sorts of propositions can be seen behaviourily.

See how much I love you guys, giving away all my state secrets. Even if it is complete bullshit it's about a ⅓ of the way to my concept for an AI engine, so useful regardless.

so, I have over committed, and now over shared... can I join the INTP club yet?

 

[Inexorable Username]

@darque I think I will reply to your message but right now I must abstain.
Because I have responsibility issues right now that I need to manage.

 

[Inexorable Username]

I CANNOT FOCUS. Dear god someone save me. I have to type painfully boring articles...so terrible. So boring. Ugh. Just...Just...just barfworthy. I can't seem to bully my brain into cooperating. My brain - as a consequence of responding to many things and reading many things here on this website, as a means of procrastination (don't feel guilty, guys, I would have found other ways to procrastinate if not for this place) - is just full of stuff that is WAY more interesting and, according to the irresponsible demon of my subconscious (the guy that sits on your shoulder looking like a sweet little devil thing) - far more important to my survival as a human.

Dear lord...I know we have our issues. Primarily, my lack of being spiritual and/or religious - I realize this is a contention point between us - but please, for the love of god (no pun intended), if you do exist kick my brain into gear. I HAVE TO GET THESE ARTICLES DONE.

>>>> End of Rant <<<<

 

[Inexorable Username]

o_o My end of rant thing was formatted into a box when I sent it. How did that happen. Now I have new things to wonder about. FUCK. Dammit. SCREW YOU BRAIN. I hate you.
Just kidding. Please cooperate. We need to do some teamwork here.