Yeah, I probably had stuff like that happen before my "break from (conventional) reality", where I started becoming aware of a greater story occurring than the conventional narrative.
I don't know what thread you're referring to - can you link me to it? I also don't know what your last line means.
The link is here:
https://www.typologycentral.com/for...ions/102720-please-help-type.html#post3178705
There is one thing that I realized, one of some other things, at reading you and Reckful on that thread, is this thing about subjective and objective and the meanings behind them.
There is a big difference into exact sciences objectivity and "human" sciences objectivity.
When you do an experiment of an object falling into vacuum, in every proper experiment the object falls. If your instrument measures on the acceleration of gravity arent too precise, every "experimenter"/researchers are supposed to find the same result anywhere, if they followed the experiments guidelines strickly.
Still on gravity, if you throw an apple out of window on a building, it will fall to the ground every time.
That doesnt happen on humanities and partially on the biological experiments and experiences. In humanities, metaphorically, if you throw an apple on the window the apple can go up for some people, keep the height for others and fall to the ground for the majority. Thats mostly due to the human science nature than their fault on the approach (sometimes its their fault).
I think there are two big mistakes, one in your side and one on Reckful, sorry if I was rude for using the word mistake so directly towards you and him.
On your side, I think that you might end up with the idea that, if it works for you, it should work for everybody else. Not in everything, but specially in these personalities assumption.
On Reckful side, Reckful might not realize that, if something happens for most people, it doenst mean that that something happens for every people. Same for NOT happening.
Giving an inside MBTI example.. It happens that, for most cognitive function stacks, most INTPs dont have tertiary Si and most INFJs dont have tertiary Ti and so on. However, it happens that a few INTPs actually get tertiary Si and a few INFJs gets tertiary Ti, so, in one side, if one INFJ have tertiary Ti, and perhaps if the very few INFJs he knows have tertiary Ti either, that still not enough to imply that all INFJs have Ti. On the other side, if the average INFJ dont have tertiary Ti, that doesnt imply that all INFJs dont have tertiary Ti. This goes with entire MBTI thing... MBTI profiles are written based on statistics that mostly persons from the same type do... For example, being open mind is a ENTP/ENFP trait, because most ENTPs/ENFPs are open mind, but that doesnt imply that all ENTPs and ENFPs are open minded.
This can get really ugly and complex in politics. Very few people asks themselves "What makes a country development?" but rather instead they answer the question before doing the question itself. They already states what makes a country developed, and then they point out one or two countries that "it worked", meaning that these are examples to be followed and that, if it worked on that country and in the other one, then it should work in all countries. And thats answering the question before asking the question, because there is a big difference in someones approach of asking the question and then starting to look for all countries for patterns, by instead starting with an answer and then picking up a few cases that worked out and then suddenly starting creating truths out of that. It is in these conditions where I start to lose temper (and Reckful in typology), but politics gets even worse because even when you carefully explain people will keep still on that (and I do believe that there are bad intentions out of it) (although Reckful would say the same for typology, switching the word bad intentions for irrationality).
This goes the same for some medicine/drugs. In some drug studies, the drug works into all patients or in most patients? Its different. Due to specialization and for some other reasons, it seems that most studies doesnt care to study exceptions (sometimes even I dont when im looking into something) and that some media the phrase "works for most of the cases" which is written mostly on article as "there is a correlation between...", "the average increased after..." switch and transforms to "works for everyone", "after you do that, the results are sure, because studys says so", which have different meanings.
At the very end, asking "if this works for me, will it work for everybody else?" and "does it works mostly or always?" always does some good. No, wait, mostly does some good actually. In typology, I believe on the comprehension between sides and approaches, in politics I tried explaining, but from the very few cases where I had the patience, all of them arrived me concluding that, in the end, it was all about hidden intentions and desires rather than a matter of comprehension, with approaches reaching wrong conclusions not by mistake, but by hidden desires.
EDIT: I derailed a little bit of what I was talking and ended up not explaining my last phrase on the other post.
Scientific approach of today dont reach mostly of what is untested - actually, it does through theories. Understanding that it is possible that some spiritual things are out of scientific approach, but some of them arent and they can end up being proved wrongly, so its a matter of looking for spiritual things that arent testable (or that are testable and its going to work out, which if somebody ever manages to do it it will make a good jump straight-foward). Always looks for beliefs that are out of test and avoid quackery/sciolism (portuguese word "charlatanismo").
Second thing, if something is "the truth", then it must be "universal" (or mankind universal) and valid from a man living in the middle of the forest without any contact with "todays society" to someone flying in a space station. Most religions arent universal and some of these spiritual things arent either.