• You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

Ecstasy and Natural Selection

Mole

Permabanned
Joined
Mar 20, 2008
Messages
20,284
Swimming with the porpoises

Victor is talking about the real ecstasy a person feels through things like love, meditation, and being one with nature. True happiness.

And the ecstasy of being with you in the noosphere. The ecstasy of being disembodied, like floating in the depths of the blue ocean, swimming with the porpoises.
 

Thalassa

Permabanned
Joined
May 3, 2009
Messages
25,183
MBTI Type
ISFP
Enneagram
6w7
Instinctual Variant
sx
And the ecstasy of being with you in the noosphere. The ecstasy of being disembodied, like floating in the depths of the blue ocean, swimming with the porpoises.

Aww, Victor. That's so nice.

:hug:
 

xisnotx

Permabanned
Joined
Sep 24, 2010
Messages
2,144
Sorry to interupt the hug fest but..

You can't get high off of anti-depressants, it takes days or weeks for them to even begin to work, and if they cause you to become truly euphoric it means you're experiencing mania because you're already bipolar and it was triggered, which I assure you is a bad thing in the long run.

my point was that drugs could, theoretically, play a role in a person's search for "ecstasy", can it not?
If so, then isn't how one chooses to use these drugs ultimately up to them?
If not, then should people who are "clinically depressed" be taken off their various medications as they aren't experiencing true ecstasy?
Why is one form of drug induced "happiness" any better than another?

"But it's more complicated than that..."

Is it really?

I won't comment on what you said about weed, but lol. It's a good thing though, it shows naivete.
 

xisnotx

Permabanned
Joined
Sep 24, 2010
Messages
2,144
I know many people who feel like drugs have ruined their lives, but I haven't met one person on a high for life who would ever see that as a bad thing.

Lol I honestly don't know if this is a pro or anti drug post. It could go both ways...intentionally? If so, brilliant comment.
 

Thalassa

Permabanned
Joined
May 3, 2009
Messages
25,183
MBTI Type
ISFP
Enneagram
6w7
Instinctual Variant
sx
Sorry to interupt the hug fest but..



my point was that drugs could, theoretically, play a role in a person's search for "ecstasy", can it not?
If so, then isn't how one chooses to use these drugs ultimately up to them?
If not, then should people who are "clinically depressed" be taken off their various medications as they aren't experiencing true ecstasy?
Why is one form of drug induced "happiness" any better than another?

"But it's more complicated than that..."

Is it really?

I won't comment on what you said about weed, but lol. It's a good thing though, it shows naivete.

Naivite? Wipe that idiotic smirk off of your face. I used to smoke weed, in fact there was a year of my life following a miscarriage where I smoked marijuana nearly every day, and I know many, many, many people who do. You're the one who is naive for not realizing how much it can fuck people up. I know what I've seen with my own eyes, and the findings about schizophrenia were done by scientists in the UK, Switzerland, New Zealand, et al not by the Christian coalitian or whatever you're imagining. In people who carry a certain gene, it can increase the risk of schizophrenia from 6% to around 60%, and there is a strong causal link between heavy marijuana usage in adolescence and psychosis later in life, not to mention the fact that people who are already mentally ill exacerbate their symptoms and are hospitalized for their illness more frequently who smoke weed than mentally ill people who do not.

And I sincerely think you're the person who is naive if you can't tell the difference between drugs which damage the brain, and ones which heal the brain, or which are dispensed illegally, so are taken in excessive dosages or are not "clean."

The fact that you would put all drugs in a blanket category is very unscientific of you. Are you really an INTP, or are you an INFP you thinks you are an INTP?
 

xisnotx

Permabanned
Joined
Sep 24, 2010
Messages
2,144
I'm both depending on who I want to be at that point in time. I tested intp when I first took it, and continue to do so...so that's what I "am".

The way I see it, weed doesn't "fuck people up". People who have a tendency to "fuck up" also have a tendency to "smoke weed"..but I don't think it's correlated at all. But that's correlation vs causation...an endless debate, usually... especially with terms like "fuck up" being totally subjective...

More importantly however;

The fact that you would put all drugs in a blanket category is very unscientific of you.

Science? I thought we were talking about "happiness". Happiness, I believe, is outside the domain of science (for the most part, prove me wrong!). Drugs as they pertain to "happiness" has little to do with science.

In fact, scientifically speaking, I think the prevailing position is "drugs are fine as a means to achieve happiness". (or "correcting a chemical imbalance")

Wipe that idiotic smirk off of your face.

lol
 

Thalassa

Permabanned
Joined
May 3, 2009
Messages
25,183
MBTI Type
ISFP
Enneagram
6w7
Instinctual Variant
sx
I'm both depending on who I want to be at that point in time. I tested intp when I first took it, and continue to do so...so that's what I "am".

The way I see it, weed doesn't "fuck people up". People who have a tendency to "fuck up" also have a tendency to "smoke weed"..but I don't think it's correlated at all. But that's correlation vs causation...an endless debate, usually... especially with terms like "fuck up" being totally subjective...

No, the gene which is triggered by THC is called COMT, and it isn't "subjective." I'm not saying that all people carry this defective version of the gene, but you know some people can also drink a couple of glasses of red wine with dinner, while others guzzle down pints of vodka and beat their spouses and kill people in massive car accidents.

My point is that, yes, objectively, marijuana is a drug - and it is a drug which objectively has been scientifically proven to cause very real long term harm, particularly in certain individuals with a predisposition to mental illness, and in adolescents whose brains are still developing. I get really sick of people touting this stupid crap about marijuana not causing any harm, because IT DOES CAUSE HARM. Yes, it does. In people who use it excessively, even if they don't have the genetic predisposition for schizophrenia, they can become so psychologically dependent upon it that they can have withdrawl symptoms such as irritability, sleeplessness, nervousness, anger, even rage.


Science? I thought we were talking about "happiness". Happiness, I believe, is outside the domain of science (for the most part, prove me wrong!). Drugs as they pertain to "happiness" has little to do with science.

In fact, scientifically speaking, I think the prevailing position is "drugs are fine as a means to achieve happiness". (or "correcting a chemical imbalance")

You can't make a blanket statement about all drugs in this manner as though they all affect people similarly and have the same long term (or short term) impact on various facets of health.

You also don't understand personality theory.

And your little spiel about happiness?

INFP. You are INFP or INTP depending on who you want to be???

INFP INFP INFP INFP INFP INFP


 

xisnotx

Permabanned
Joined
Sep 24, 2010
Messages
2,144
You can't make a blanket statement about all drugs in this manner as though they all affect people similarly and have the same long term (or short term) impact on various facets of health.

or happiness. right? My point all along...you can't condemn or approve the use of anything as if that thing will affect all people similarly especially as it pertains to something as subjective as happiness...then claim it's not "true happiness" if they choose to ignore you.

You also don't understand personality theory.
I understand theory.
And your little spiel about happiness?

INFP. You are INFP or INTP depending on who you want to be???

You say that as if it's a bad thing. infps are cool. i think i'll be infp now..

Ironically, I don't disagree with you about the drugs (subjectively speaking, of course)..
 

Thalassa

Permabanned
Joined
May 3, 2009
Messages
25,183
MBTI Type
ISFP
Enneagram
6w7
Instinctual Variant
sx
or happiness. right? My point all along...you can't condemn or approve the use of anything as if that thing will affect all people similarly...then claim it's not "true happiness" if they choose to ignore you.

Yeah apparently facts and reality mean nothing to you. Sure, different people have different ideas of happiness, but there's clearly a big difference between the kind of real contentment, satisfaction, and health that lasts...and the kind of misery that could result from excessive abuse of street drugs, some of which actually cause conditions which require psychiatric medication to be fixed...a very common one is depleting one's own seratonin.


I understand theory.

You may understand theoretical thinking in general, but no, you don't understand personality theory if you think your personality changes with how you feel or want to be that day.

I'll always remember Edgar's example in one thread of the DVD player...it plays different movies, but it's always going to be a DVD player. It's not going to magically turn into a toaster one morning.



You say that as if it's a bad thing. infps are cool. i think i'll be infp now..

What an INFP motive to say you're going to be that type.

I never said it was a bad thing. I was declaring you to absolutely not be an INTP.

As someone who is an FP myself, I'm not sure why you thought I meant it in a bad way. You're definitely Fi, not Ti.
 

ColonelGadaafi

New member
Joined
Oct 10, 2008
Messages
773
MBTI Type
ESTJ
Enneagram
Si
Yeah apparently facts and reality mean nothing to you. Sure, different people have different ideas of happiness, but there's clearly a big difference between the kind of real contentment, satisfaction, and health that lasts...and the kind of misery that could result from excessive abuse of street drugs, some of which actually cause conditions which require psychiatric medication to be fixed...a very common one is depleting one's own seratonin.
But then again, the question that follows is facts and reality important to someone who iqnores them?.


You may understand theoretical thinking in general, but no, you don't understand personality theory if you think your personality changes with how you feel or want to be that day.

I'll always remember Edgar's example in one thread of the DVD player...it plays different movies, but it's always going to be a DVD player. It's not going to magically turn into a toaster one morning.
Thats a very obscure statement on personality. How can you ascertain that a personality of a person is fixed, the assumption here is that there are fixed tendencies. You know that your brain scientifically is evolving each day and that we are constantly changing neuro-structure to new stimuli right?.



What an INFP motive to say you're going to be that type.

I never said it was a bad thing. I was declaring you to absolutely not be an INTP.

As someone who is an FP myself, I'm not sure why you thought I meant it in a bad way. You're definitely Fi, not Ti.
I've still yet to find a persuasive and clear definition of what INTP and INFP is. The first assumes that one is inclined to be rational, logically sound, and "objective"(whatever that means) and prefering a broad perspective, while the other assumes that one approaches things from how one instinctively feels about them. I dont see why these two preferences should be mutually exlusive and why she couldn't have an roughly balanced usage of processing information in either way. Either way, i dont think there is a two scale way of thinking anyway. its a flaw in MBTI that F versus T, when there also could be P and other various ways of processing things.
 

xisnotx

Permabanned
Joined
Sep 24, 2010
Messages
2,144
Yeah apparently facts and reality mean nothing to you.
Especially as it pertains to happiness, yes. Can you logically be happy?
Sure, different people have different ideas of happiness, but there's clearly a big difference between the kind of real contentment, satisfaction, and health that lasts...and the kind of misery that could result from excessive abuse of street drugs,

You keep on changing your perspective. The word to use would have been "happiness". If you would have used the word "happiness", I would have replied "How can you objectively prove that?" the answer to which is "You can't". But since you compare "happiness" to "misery" you expose your bias.

You may understand theoretical thinking in general, but no, you don't understand personality theory if you think your personality changes with how you feel or want to be that day.

I'll always remember Edgar's example in one thread of the DVD player...it plays different movies, but it's always going to be a DVD player. It's not going to magically turn into a toaster one morning.

My personality according to the MBTI changes based on how I want to interpret myself at that particular point in time. Personality, probably more than anything, is so subjective that believing with any certainty that you are "in fact" one type is almost insane. Theoretically speaking two people could be the same in every aspect of their being and if they both perceive themselves as being different from one another, they would necessarily classify themselves as different, despite being the same. How, then, can a person believe he is intp when he could quite easily be infp, unbeknownst to him?

Under your analogy, if my personality is a dvd player, mbti is nothing but a movie. I can choose to play different scenes (intp, infp etc etc) in this movie, or I can choose to pop in a different movie altogether (zodiac, enneagram etc etc). The real question isn't so much "what movie am I watching?" as opposed to "which movie shall I watch now?" (or, and this one I have no answer to, "What happens when I choose to not watch anything?")


I was declaring you to absolutely not be an INTP.

As someone who is an FP myself, I'm not sure why you thought I meant it in a bad way. You're definitely Fi, not Ti.
My infp side agrees with you..my intp side thinks both of us are idiots...nothing new...

My dvd player doesn't think we disagree on too much. Essentially we are doing the same thing; playing movies. However I'm like bluray, and you're more HDDVD. (lol)

Just joking, of course...or not?
 

Thalassa

Permabanned
Joined
May 3, 2009
Messages
25,183
MBTI Type
ISFP
Enneagram
6w7
Instinctual Variant
sx
My personality according to the MBTI changes based on how I want to interpret myself at that particular point in time. Personality, probably more than anything, is so subjective that believing with any certainty that you are "in fact" one type is almost insane.

Theoretically speaking two people could be the same in every aspect of their being and if they both perceive themselves as being different from one another, they would necessarily classify themselves as different, despite being the same. How, then, can a person believe he is intp when he could quite easily be infp, unbeknownst to him?

Under your analogy, if my personality is a dvd player, mbti is nothing but a movie. I can choose to play different scenes (intp, infp etc etc) in this movie, or I can choose to pop in a different movie altogether (zodiac, enneagram etc etc). The real question isn't so much "what movie am I watching?" as opposed to "which movie shall I watch now?" (or, and this one I have no answer to, "What happens when I choose to not watch anything?")

No you didn't get the analogy. Your cognition is a DVD player, and whether you're 12 or 22, happy or sad, going to work or just hanging out, your dominant cognition will remain the same, unless you suffer from severe brain damage or are suddenly struck with a severe case of psychosis or something. It would take a great deal of trauma, either physically or psychologically, to go from Fi (which is your dom function, bro) to Ti (your least used function).

Nothing else you said it worth responding to. Have a nice day, INFP.
 

Thalassa

Permabanned
Joined
May 3, 2009
Messages
25,183
MBTI Type
ISFP
Enneagram
6w7
Instinctual Variant
sx
But then again, the question that follows is facts and reality important to someone who iqnores them?.

No.

Thats a very obscure statement on personality. How can you ascertain that a personality of a person is fixed, the assumption here is that there are fixed tendencies. You know that your brain scientifically is evolving each day and that we are constantly changing neuro-structure to new stimuli right?.

I've still yet to find a persuasive and clear definition of what INTP and INFP is. The first assumes that one is inclined to be rational, logically sound, and "objective"(whatever that means) and prefering a broad perspective, while the other assumes that one approaches things from how one instinctively feels about them. I dont see why these two preferences should be mutually exlusive and why she couldn't have an roughly balanced usage of processing information in either way. Either way, i dont think there is a two scale way of thinking anyway. its a flaw in MBTI that F versus T, when there also could be P and other various ways of processing things.

It's because I don't look at it as a simple F vs. T thing. It really isn't. It is about cognition: Fi vs. Ti, which are conflicting functions. When a strong Fi user (an FP) leans more toward Thinking it's because they're developing or have developed Te.
 

ColonelGadaafi

New member
Joined
Oct 10, 2008
Messages
773
MBTI Type
ESTJ
Enneagram
Si
It's because I don't look at it as a simple F vs. T thing. It really isn't. It is about cognition: Fi vs. Ti, which are conflicting functions. When a strong Fi user (an FP) leans more toward Thinking it's because they're developing or have developed Te.
I am going to take up a difficult position and argue that Ti and Fi have more in common then Ti and Te when it comes to processing information, by the fact that they both draw from an internal processing source, the only difference is what they concentrate on. They are anything but contradictory.

The main difference between Ti and Fi is just how these two functions have a preference to filtering information. Fi will look for personal meaning in information while Ti tries to establish personal understanding of information. Fi-users will try to draw conclusions based on their personal values while Ti will draw conclusions based on how it internally understands the logical relationships inside a context.

Te-users however who will be inclined to be empirical, they will always first and foremost rely on external "Objective" criteria, and externally measureable and testable information, to orient themselves within and establish knowledge and their understanding of logical contexts and argumentive premises, hence why facts and reliability of information are always given priority, which is completely different from the experiental holistic understanding that Ti users try to establish in their learning process, which tries to cover and link every single concievable bit within a subject.

Hence why you see a shitload of Te users being scholars and scientists of the positivist tradition, while theorists are commonly Ti.

So in this case i would actually argue that Fi if anything is more similar to Ti, and if used to explore logical relationships, analysis and objective understanding would look and function not too differently from Ti.
 

Thalassa

Permabanned
Joined
May 3, 2009
Messages
25,183
MBTI Type
ISFP
Enneagram
6w7
Instinctual Variant
sx
I am going to take up a difficult position and argue that Ti and Fi have more in common then Ti and Te when it comes to processing information, by the fact that they both draw from an internal processing source, the only difference is what they concentrate on. They are anything but contradictory.

The main difference between Ti and Fi is just how these two functions have a preference to filtering information. Fi will look for personal meaning in information while Ti tries to establish personal understanding of information. Fi-users will try to draw conclusions based on their personal values while Ti will draw conclusions based on how it internally understands the logical relationships inside a context.

Te-users however who will be inclined to be empirical, they will always first and foremost rely on external "Objective" criteria, and externally measureable and testable information, to orient themselves within and establish knowledge and their understanding of logical contexts and argumentive premises, hence why facts and reliability of information are always given priority, which is completely different from the experiental holistic understanding that Ti users try to establish in their learning process, which tries to cover and link every single concievable bit within a subject.

Hence why you see a shitload of Te users being scholars and scientists of the positivist tradition, while theorists are commonly Ti.

So in this case i would actually argue that Fi if anything is more similar to Ti, and if used to explore logical relationships, analysis and objective understanding would look and function not too differently from Ti.

Ti and Fi can look a little more similar in terms of being subjective and preferring "depth" over "breadth" and preferring to check things internally. So in that way, yes they can appear more similar. And that's exactly why they clash.

People who prefer an internal ethical system tend to want to check logic externally, and vice versa, and I honestly think the judging functions are one of the easiest things to figure out (at least it was for myself) because it is so obvious to me that facts and logic are external, and ethics come from within (where as an Fe/Ti user would strongly think the opposite made more sense, or was more effective).

Ti and Fi come from a similar part in the mind, and one is rejected while the other is accepted. One is the shadow of the other.

Ti is like my worst function, but people say they see Te in me all of the time, and I'm absolutely an Fi type.

I see Ti/Fi clashing all the time, as well as Te thinking Fe is trying to get in its way.
 

Stanton Moore

morose bourgeoisie
Joined
Mar 4, 2009
Messages
3,900
MBTI Type
INFP
I think what Victor is referring to is called 'mindfulness'.
It can be accessed through meditation, it's true. But it can also be achieved anywhere, anytime, with practice. It's about letting your senses take pleasure in the moment rather than losing it in the constant stream of the monkey mind, with it's non-stop woulda-coulda-shoulda thoughts and hypervigilence that churn in your mind.
All drugs short change this becuase you can't be completely present when effected by them.
 

xisnotx

Permabanned
Joined
Sep 24, 2010
Messages
2,144
No you didn't get the analogy. Your cognition is a DVD player, and whether you're 12 or 22, happy or sad, going to work or just hanging out, your dominant cognition will remain the same, unless you suffer from severe brain damage or are suddenly struck with a severe case of psychosis or something. It would take a great deal of trauma, either physically or psychologically, to go from Fi (which is your dom function, bro) to Ti (your least used function).

Nothing else you said it worth responding to. Have a nice day, INFP.

Are you saying people don't change? I honestly can't relate too well with my childhood self. Ironically, my type hasn't changed, but the way I perceive myself as being, fundamentally, has.

Oh, and I aint your bro..but nice try.
 
Top