bbc.com/news/world-asia-37847331
I was like that times 100 as a child.
Well, the purpose of psychology is to understand how these traits came about and studying people’s histories and seeing similarities (causes/effects) helps in forming these theories. Granted, not all people are the same and react alike, but certain general tendencies/inclinations may be categorized into working theories. How would one distinguish between a psychological model that is, as you call, shit, form one that is really valid? For instance, you seem to be a proponent of Myers Briggs personality classification; I find that the quantifying test questions too vague and I don’t believe that they really pinpoint underlying character traits; at best, may show transient behavioral inclinations. People respond differently depending on life situations (stress, major events, etc.) or even age (stage of personal development). I know, that in some ways, I am not the same person I was five or ten years ago, but in other aspects I still am. I do not believe that the questions of such tests target long term or more fundamental character traits, and so the results may be misleading.
Well, I don’t know about that. Skepticism can work in many ways, including self fulfilling ones. Just look at the multitude of extreme conspiracy theorists out there. One may not accept a given psychological model, but how would he know that the alternative (so-called-skeptical) model is not personally biased in order to bypass the underlying issue and avoid knowing the truth?
I would not ignore causality and history because personality itself is partly formed from personal history, especially at early age (you may disagree with that).
The expectations of a needy person may have developed early in childhood, though. For example, a miracle child, or, alternatively, mama’s boy, will demand more personal attention from his mate because he was used to having his way from his mother. That is now his norm. His perception of ‘no’ has different connotation than from a person who’s used to hearing “no’s” while growing up.
Yes, this seems to be a typical male approach to relationships.
I use a rather qualified version of MBTI, I had been juggling a lot of theories over the years, but increasingly have been leaning towards Lorin and Lane Friesen reworking starting in the 80s, largely because they predicted far better than anyone else I’ve come across basic network issues of a certain set of personality types, but they have issues, and I have difficulty presenting their language philosophically (they we’re not philosophers nir psychologists, just engineers) not to mention the odd obsession they have with trying to explain cognitive theology. Main bilk of their worth was mapping MBTI to the cranial nerves, beyond that, it starts turning silly and well, I gave up on trying to press the contradictions, as both theories predict I would grasp it better than either of them. I use it a lot in racking early Stoic theories on cognition, but also have had to adjust both in cases when I found rather surprising incongruities.
I also use a lot of other systems, I was “TheTrollEmperorOfDoom” on similarminds.com for years, and all we did was use multiple typology systems, however new or ancient, main steam or odd ball. Lots of people know the basics of my methods, I’m not exactly secretive, and my main dissenters won’t ever come from a site like this.
Yeah, that would be the “perciever mindset” of creating a general theory under their theory. I’m skeptical of it because it is not only so very often wrong, but completely oblivious to what leads that mode of thinking around. One of my main complaints about the scientific method, just made a thread about it:
Lorin Friesen would get all excited about how his theory predicts exactly in advance why you think one way, and why I wrote that, and the mechanics of my thinking, and would provide twenty similar philosophers from history that processed in a similar manner, but he isn’t very good at processing raw theory, my gripe isn’t found in the classics, as you pointed out, many kinds of skeptics, the part I’m focused on doesn’t have a ancient school abscribed fully to it, only in parts. I’ve looked at several from around the world. Enough I can have a shared vocabulary, but not enough to point at just anyone and say yet “this is my predecessor”. Closest I can find is a medieval kashmiri, and he falls woefully short. So I use their basic MBTI constructs, but increasingly modify them to explain classic texts. They themselves heavily modified MBTI, gave it a anatomical basis- at least Lorin did, Lane- Lane was a little shit who tried to pull a fast one on everyone. I tend not to refer to him.
I also use some more modern theories, but most aren’t as comprehensive.
Basically, I don’t trust the drive to unite schematic theories together. It makes for pleasurable simpler results,abd does indeed result in greater pragmatism, but we become less skeptical and driven more by faith. We cease to question basic ideas, they become more rooted. The big battles of faith vs science for example- mostly bullshit on either side, neither really is critical of the fundamental constructs of their own theories or the other, I started noticing this after I joined a Christian Apologetics group, they challenged their ideas no more than people challenge Dawkins early comical proofs of adaptation,but both coukd cobstruct theories equally as well. I tend to sit out in both groups because I take a very different approach to how we think, and the validity of out ideas,I get noticed fast. As a result, I’m not too impressed with the quality of debate flowing about. We tend not to advance technologically because of the validity or accurancy of our ideas, but coincidentally by the way those ideas sit in our minds. It gives us a excuss to think in a range of networks while rejecting others. Either root system results in pluses and minuses, of a thing we call knowledge and progress. Havent you ever been bothered with a very ancient thinker thinking “all too modern”?
When you look at battles across history,it doesn’t matter if a man was overly mothered or cuckolded,if he was a well educated noble or a peasant, demogague or tyrant. What matters is how the tactical setup unfolds, and the most impirtsnt traits I’ve found over the years are ones that relate to their cognitive setup within a larger tactical synthesis. Romans were fond of doing just the oppodite,it always had to be the individuals personal history or ancestry. Doesn’t play out when we have multiple sources for a battle. I’ve learned to just tease out basic personality traits, and work it through that first. Alot of silly propaganda has sneared, glorified and demonized alot of people over the years, civilization after civilization. Occasionally,we have biographical topos from the vlasdical worldsuch as on all the Tyrants that occupied a region in sucession, or someone writes a Life of Philodophers or Statesmen,or a Princes Mirror that goes indeoth, we didn’t start doing it for businessmen on a similar scale till the renaissance, and Life of Saints are too formulaic to be of much use to me (I suspect a successor to me in a hundred years or so will find a way).
Sounds like your emphasis is on military leadership qualities.
No, just leadership in general. Statecraft is my concern, not merely martial concerns.
First snow of the year just happened at Saxonburg, PA. Stopped by with a friend to a women’s Greek Orthodox monestary, but turned out everyone was severely sick from a stomach virus, several visitors hospitalized. We arrived in just enough time to catch it ourselves.
Heading back to Ohio Valley to spread what is undoubtedly a Antibiotic Resistant strain of it, you’ll all have it soon too, thank me later.
Christmas lights mostly up, kinda. They sick, can’t finish. Some of my warped view on women, visiting a bunch of nuns in a snowstorm. Shameful.
Look, all I want is to not rot alone every goddamn day. It’s like, weeks go by without recieving a single text or call from a woman who so-called loves me.
If I’m needy for wanting attention more than 3 weeks at a time, so be it. If I’m needy for wanting sex more than once every 3 years. So Be it. I’ll be damed.
Try years.
I said years. If you averaged all the sex I had in my life, it would average out to once every 3 years. And that is generous because I am counting all the times where I didn’t even enjoy the sex.
If you measured it out, it be like, three times a week for me. Very passionate horndog. But like, I don’t do it unless intimacy exists. Gotta trust the woman. But if I trust her, I will thrust her like a deranged bonobo, nonstop.
Cool, I am happy for you. Now back to my miserable existence.
No, this thread is about my warped sexual worldview.
Honestly, I think I’m a sex addict or something that craves intimacy and nonstop, deeply perverted kinky pleasure with a intimate other, well past her ability to accommodate. My dick gets hard eating oatmeal so long as a woman I like is around. All I wanna do is humptity hump hump, and stick it into all these anatomically incorrect holes in absurd positions while hollering zoo monkey noises. And when I cuddle, I always gotta be the big spoon, never the small.
It is because you are a man, something I aint. Reason is because even though, like you, my dick may be hard when she puts her boobs in my face and serves me oatmeal, however the difference between u and me is would let her be the big spoon, can’t even say how often, might even be more often than not.
No, that’s deeply disturbing and unamerican. Man spoons woman, not the inverse. Only exception be if he is a midget, and she is a giant. It says so in the Bible to spoon that way, think it was Moses.
My Grandpa said he was moses, his email username was moses, and he said he was a lesbian born in a man’s body.
And he managed to reproduce with a woman. Moral of the story.
Yeah but modern feminism didn’t exist back then.
Quit being a little bitch. Always excuses with you.
When theres a demonic Twilight Zone plague out to get me, not much I can do.
I have had women swear to me that they loved me, and even if they were mad or upset at me, that they would at least try to communicate with me why.
They could not even do that. Not even do that. Not even send me a simple message. Not even one simple message. Each new one, I say to myself, “Maybe she will be different. She will be different” But they always are the same. All liars. All carbon copies. I am a fool for believing it could be different. I am a fool for loving them. They are all part of a Twilight Zone conspiracy to break my spirit and maximize my suffering. They are all demons from hell sent to ruin me.
They are all liars, all promise breakers, all filthy rotten cunt liars.
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CJ07JyztEIU[/youtube]
Yes, but they are also wonderful.
You take the good and the bad. There be no human race if men just wrote off womankind on their obvious faults alone.
♬ Yes all Women are liars, but they also have vaginas,
Defrauders that cheat and steal, but give live birth too.