Personalities/Types, strength/weakness, individuals/groups

All the different personality types are built off the same pattern (a diamond that was never “in the rough”—but … also … very much was/is), but some of us have different capacities due to various factors (difficult to suss out if it is “nature“ or “nurture“ and how much the X Factor had to do with it).

That does not mean we cannot cultivate the strengths that need a little more cultivating than others. Greater strengths or heights have corresponding weaknesses or falls—collect/cultivate all the strengths and protect against all the falls (by collecting/cultivating all the strengths)—only possible in dialogue with other diamonds who smooth out each other’s rough.

Only one diamond always had/has all the strengths.

This feels cheesy as hell but I’m posting it anyway.

To any moderator who reads this…

Wrong forum… the Religion forum is that way —>

Since when are you not a moderator? And since when is worldview exempt from any field of inquiry? Have you never read Nietzsche? You must be saucing yourself with too much Stephen J. Gould’s NOMA.


Forgive me, but I must ramble on about a related issue.

Do you know what’s worse than sexually transmitted diseases? Relationally transmitted diseases. Memes if you will. There is good bacteria and bad bacteria. I’m talking about the bad memes. The ones you collect from this person and that person to form an idea (well… let’s call it an unguided-by-reason intuition) of what it is supposed to be like in a relationship. And you take those memes with you into other relationships, and they have to deal with your/others’ memes that may not be obvious until it’s too late. And you have to deal with theirs/others’. And the more people you interact with, the worse it gets (assuming their heads were full of bad memes, too). If you don’t know how to rule out the bad memes with the antidote (logos) because either you were not taught it (like math… the antidote can be arrived at through our own logos patterned after the original) when you were young, or you stubbornly will only learn by experience…then you both/all get tangled up in all the false intuitions, mistaken impressions, unguided/unpruned by reason.

but at least there is logos

How ironic the ones who use it to deny it. Boomerang gonna hurt.

¿…saucing myself with too much Stephen J. Gould’s NOMA who/what!?

When you’ve (i.e. me) been thinking such things, since you were old enough to [start] think[ing], what has others’ thoughts/thinking got to do with it. :-k

Nuthin, that’s what…

Stephen J. Gould’s NOMA (non-overlapping magisteria) is like the separation of church & state for science, except without free expression, so … It paints religion (worldview) as not being evidence-based, but if that were true, cognitive behavioral therapy and any other sort of modification of thoughts, feelings, and behavior with a new evidence-based interpretation would be impossible. Granted, there is the evidence and there is the interpretation of that evidence. However, if you automatically think the interpretation cannot change with new evidence or a new way of looking at it using reason, bye-bye science. Faith is not necessarily blind, it is necessarily trust. And how many scientific experiments start with a guess and let’s see what happens? All, if you’re doing it right.

[Side note back up to church and state… nothing grounds the legislation (nothing is… full stop) if the being described by self=other is … not. Defending or amending the Constitution amounts to arguing over the shadow of a troglodytic puppet… in which we ceremonially, ritually, customarily, play at trusting for the mere sake of preserving culture. In a “no God” world, we are most to be pitied.]

If anybody thinks that reading something that takes 1 second to understand, needs explaining, then I feel sorry for that person’s intellect.

…also, like I’m the only person to ever mention it to them. :icon-rolleyes:

Look what I reduced them to, and made them do. 8-[




keep getting thrown under those buses, yea!

Follow the crowd, find yourself under the bus.

Yes, ma’am! salutes

Their troubling compliance, now troublingly abounds… :open_mouth:

¿What is going on!?

You don’t know what you want.

:teasing-blah: :teasing-blah: :teasing-blah:





Shhhh. Baby MagsJ sleeping.

Why don’t you tell me what you think I want?

What an odd thing to say, on a philosophy site, with no initiation of that inquiry from my end,

that^ is a total trap

backs away very slowly

…or maybe I’m just simply in shock, of the change in/of your tact. :open_mouth:

…so nothing to do with not knowing what I want whatsoever, so a 100% wrong assumption.


I have no interest in doing that, but the males on here do it on the regular… and oftentimes you, as well.

Dull, at best.

Do what, exactly? What are you implying, here?

The clue to what I am implying here of what some do, is in the quoted post that I was replying to… :wink:

The trap to which I was referring is telling you what you want. People already know what they want—even if they don’t know they know. And if they are avoiding what they want, telling them is like… throwing it in their face. Especially if they know it. And if they don’t, it’s manipulative on a whole ‘nother level. I avoid it intentionally…because…a) I am not omniscient, b) even if I were (informed by omniscience), I prefer not to manipulate below awareness/consent.

Also, feigning ignorance has got us all out of mutually awkward situations at least once… I’m sure.

We can’t handle omniscience. The truth is… there is only one (or… possibly three at most) who can.

:laughing: guh

Let’s start again, shall we…


I have no interest in doing that [in totally trapping others] but the males on here -and males in general- do it on the regular… and oftentimes you do it too, as well -hence the projection of doing it, onto others.

Dull at best… :sad-bored:

Skipping the quicksand and hitting reset!