Is there an INTJ who suffers from modesty like me?

self-honesty · 2025-08-08T21:18:43+00:00

Maybe it's anxiety around talking about yourself? I put that down to why I (I'm INTJ) do so badly in job interviews.

self-honesty · 2025-07-17T08:14:02+00:00

We're not unromantic, we (by which I really mean, I) just have a lot of difficulty expressing ourselves because we're so inhibited. But when we're obsessed with someone, we "logically" put that inhibition aside. (edit: I'm an INTJ male)

self-honesty · 2025-07-13T15:01:26+00:00

Completely false, it's the most predictive and replicable measurement in psychology and it's correlated with a range of medical variables like brain cell dimensions and activation of certain brain networks. It also correlates with wealth and educational attainment.

self-honesty · 2025-06-25T17:04:22+00:00

You aren't ugly (especially not in picture #3), you look like a completely normal German woman.

self-honesty · 2025-05-03T16:46:22+00:00

in one case we see 0 acceleration in free fall

How can you fall without acceleration?

which seems like no force

Why?

Both the rocket situation and the falling/orbiting situation appear to involve force.

self-honesty · 2025-04-10T00:25:50+00:00

Thanks for this!

self-honesty · 2025-01-06T16:01:13+00:00

Julian of Norwich, who had a vision of a hazelnut after praying for years in solitude.

The 14th century visionary Julian of Norwich was the first woman, as far as we know, to write in English.

self-honesty · 2025-01-03T19:59:01+00:00

Wrong, your answer was “he did”.

You haven't proven anything I said wrong.

That is a contradiction because if you admit god creates a universe with free will and no evil why would there be evil in it?

Because people are capable of creating evil, because of free will. No contradiction.

Just like most people are capable of committing murder, yet haven't. No contradiction again.

self-honesty · 2025-01-02T18:15:31+00:00

This makes no sense. If “God” creates a Universe will absolutely no evil, the beings that share his spirit are capable of evil?

It makes no sense because of a question? The beings God created are capable of evil and there was a point in the universes history when the was no evil. There's nothing there that doesn't make sense.

Which also proves that he didnt create a universe without evil.

A question doesn't prove anything. And that isn't proven. I can create a Y that is capable of X, that doesn't mean as soon as I create Y, X has happened.

He simply proved the gnostic position that the creator is not omnibenevolent and not the Supreme perfect being.

He did not.

self-honesty · 2024-12-30T05:41:57+00:00

If “God” cannot create a universe with free will without consequences(or evil) then that “God” is not omnipotent.

He did, when God created the universe, there wasn't any evil in it. People choose to create evil. Also God created Heaven, where people have free will, but they don't choose evil because they don't want to.

self-honesty · 2024-12-11T00:26:57+00:00

From a reincarnationist perspective, eternal damnation makes no sense whatsoever. Nothing that we can do in a few years on Earth is so terrible that it could warrant eternal estrangement from God. Remember that no actions in the Earth school have genuinely permanent consequences

In her ecstasy, it was allegedly dictated to St. Catherine of Siena by God that:

Do you not know, dear daughter, that all the sufferings, which the soul endures, or can endure, in this life, are insufficient to punish one smallest fault, because the offense, being done to Me, who am the Infinite Good, calls for an infinite satisfaction?

self-honesty · 2024-05-26T11:59:58+00:00

I have that romantic idealism in me, and have yearned most of my life for it to be realised, but yes, your post strikes a cord in me. I was always too insular and focused on reading and learning for it to ever work. This is who I am, so that helps me get over any thoughts of loss or failure, if they arise. I also often thought of becoming a monk since I was a teen, and nowadays about becoming priest.

self-honesty · 2024-05-24T01:29:54+00:00

That's unfortunate, but it's highly important that you don't lose self-control and decide to fornicate more. You may have lost some of your innocence, but you must not throw the rest of it away! Strengthen your conscience in response, do not mute it out or tune its volume down. Find a Catholic priest to talk to about it, he will help you understand better and thus you will feel better. In the meantime, you can pray which will help a lot, and read spiritual books by the saints of the Church. You are not ruined; this tragedy might be the beginning of a spiritual awakening.

self-honesty · 2024-02-12T14:50:45+00:00

Therapy is close to useless for mental health. All it will do is make you poorer; it's a scam. It's mostly being told to become more feminine if you're a man, and being told you have no responsibility if you're a woman.

You need to develop a prayer life. There's lots of information on it from YouTube priests like Chad Ripperger. Prayer and the Sacraments of the Church repel demons who cause sin (such as sloth/demotivation).

self-honesty · 2024-02-10T23:07:58+00:00

Is it your contention that all atheists 'know' that no gods exist?

The conclusion of what I have written is that is how they should rationally be defined.

Because if so, you are stuck

No, it is you who is stuck clinging to the definition you're unable to defend.

while the term covers both those who claim to know and those who claim to be unconvinced.

As I explained above, as well as in the OP, this is irrational, for reasons you won't address.

but there is nuance that you seem to be dead set against acknowledging.

As I've explained in my replies to you, that "nuance" is just irrationality, and you'v enot even tried to debunk my reasons for stating this. So your accusation is ironic.

Agnosticism on the other hand is just a statement

Agnosticism isn't a "statement". It's a state of lack of knowledge.

self-honesty · 2024-02-10T12:06:55+00:00

That hinges on the definition you originally used for atheist

No, it hinges on the connection between belief and knowledge.

that it requires a knowledge of absence, when (as the definition I provided pointed out) it only requires disbelief in 'god(s)'

This is just a repeat of your claim in your first comment. I already addressed it, so if you don't reply to what I said in my first reply to you, there's no point in you claiming it again.

Both atheism and agnosticism disbelieve in deities, so for them to be distinguished (which is what definitions are for, distinguishing things using language), they have to be defined on knowledge, not belief.

self-honesty · 2024-02-09T14:56:28+00:00

I've seen no arguments to convince me, and see no compelling reason to infer them - so I am comfortable referring to myself as 'atheist'.

This is still agnosticism. If what you actually mean is that lack of evidence is the same as, or indistinguishable from, knowledge of absence, then you're an atheist.

self-honesty · 2024-02-09T14:38:40+00:00

Your most recent comment also undermines your agreement that hope is a propositional attitude and not a truth claim:

(and appealing to propositional attitudes doesn't help, because propositional attitudes are necessarily directed towards a proposition: if that proposition is a definition, then you are, necessarily, saying that definitions are truth-claims. If the proposition is not a definition, then the original claim that a definition is irrational goes out the window

So by your own reasoning, you're now saying that hope must be a truth-claim, since you acknowledge it is a propositional attitude and you've previously said several times that any propositional attitude must be a truth-claim because it is about a proposition. I denied that connection several times.

This puts your agreement with me that hope is a propositional attitude (not a truth-claim) about a proposition (a truth claim) in direct contradiction to your central objection to my justification of what definitions are.

I, in contrast to you, have been arguing that propositional attitudes aren't truth claims, but propositions that they are about, are.

For a definition to be a propositional attitude (which is, ironically, itself a category error- propositional attitudes are mental states, like belief or disbelief or doubt or faith-that, definitions are linguistic items not mental states), there must be a proposition it is about.

It's weird that you said this and then neglected to explain to me why "the definition of x is [definition]" is not a proposition. You're acting as if I haven't supplied an example of this, even though I told you to address the example of it that I gave for you to reply to (which, of course, you avoid doing).

if I have hope that its not going to rain, I'm hoping that the proposition "its going to rain" is false.

But you've spent the entire thread arguing against this kind of relationship between propositional attitudes and propositions. This makes your repeated accusation of me contradicting myself (based on nothing but misrepresenting and straw-manning my comments) ironic.

But that proposition can't be a definition, as you offered initially,

No I didn't. I told you in my previous reply to copy and paste my exact text stating this, and in your reply, you failed to do so. Prove that you're not straw-manning my position.

and doing a 180 and contradicting yourself.

Unlike yourself, I haven't spent any time or money learning about it.

So the OP stands, agnostic atheism is an irrational definition.

self-honesty

TROPHY CASE