Don't forget when asking "What Would Jesus do?" Flipping over tables and chasing people out is in the cards Matthew 20:12 https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2021%3A12-13%2CMark%2011%3A15-18&version=NIV

It’s good for narcissism though.

Personality is firmly established by the late teens.
A person may feel that they have changed but that change imperceptible to everyone else. Behavior can change fortunately

Don't disagree, but they don't say it this way, so the actual message gets lost. They always talk about 'turn the other cheek', not 'paste him back if he hits you'. All carrots and no sticks is just as ineffective as all sticks and no carrots.

I showed you my tat, where's my generous tit?

I learned this in my course on Negotiation for my MBA. It works, but the hardest part is "not having a memory". It's very tempting when they co-operate after not co-operating to say "F you" and not co-operate with them, but that defeats the entire purpose.

It is discussed weekly throughout the world. It's called church.

I hit the nail on the head, unfortunately.

> The OP is incoherent TO YOU

That's not the argument. The argument is that the whole article is talking about how the Buddhist definition of self doesn't make sense and how the self is an illusion. Hence the Buddhist definition of self is incoherent.

I mainly agree with the article that the Buddhist definition of self probably has no useful application in the world or your world view.

But that's fine since nothing hinges on the Bhuddisht idea of self, it's all based on materialist definitions of self.

Give Axelrod's "The Evolution of Cooperation" a read for more info. Great book.

>You're not arguing in good faith. You are arguing across a semantic and somatic chasm, one the OP is willing and able to bridge and you are not.

The op wants to use some incoherent definition of self which and doesn't exist.

The OP's whole point is that their definition of self is an illusion. I'm just agreeing but saying I don't use that definition, and that outside of Buddhism most people really use that definition.

If you use materialist definitions, you don't have any of the issues or confusion especially compared to the Buddhist definitions.

My question to you is how is it possible for the OP or you to put forth any kind of coherent argument for me to address when you use inherently incoherent definitions of self?

Isn't it guaranteed for some people to think I'm arguing in bad faith when discussing something using such an inherently incoherent definition. Isn't it guaranteed that someone will think I'm arguing semantics against something with an inherently incoherent definition?

Only the Sith deal in absolutes.

That is the ideal state but I'm starting to see that so many of us are unable to see or understand this and as a result have a weak sense of self. That fundamental lack of authentic self, the inability to exist as our self with our self without judgement, drives us in so many ways. We mask our selves even from our selves and that's the most tragic mask of them all. It's the mask that you never put on and can never take off. It's what self doubt does to us and we all suffer from it to some degree.

They were using a pop sci self personality test to show the change of one's self over time, and it was a brief mention, and didn't say Myers-Briggs held any water.

The article constantly references different Buddhist beliefs and the author is Chinese, so...

Right?! It's the culmination of hundreds of experts' research over decades, but what shocks me is that the Axelrod Tournament was held as early as the SIXTIES! Why isn't this being discussed more?

Even better - the more you spread the word about the Strategy the more it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. If more people know about it, more people will be inspired to ACT like it, creating wonderful positive feedback loops.

This should be so high on the educational agenda!

[deleted]

This is fucking genius. How many scientist worked on this?

Hah! Could say this to be my opinion too. I was religious, lost faith completely, then found spirituality that's unrelated to religion. That spirituality is entirely based on Self-knowledge. The reason why I found your choice of words remarkable is because it is the verbatim description given by the teacher I follow. If you're ever inclined to read, do check out 'I Am That' by Nisargadatta Maharaj. It's available online for free.

My HR department said that's no longer allowed.

This exact thing hit me really hard last night and it's rough. It is an absolute tragedy and it's been my entire life.

I disagree with this with all of my being. Security in self is the root of everything good in this world. When you truly love yourself it is so much easier to understand and love others. It's exactly how you understand the nature of everything. Everything described here is from a fundamental disconnect with their self. It's why they are able to commit such atrocities.

What happens when you discover it's masks all the way down?

This is amazing! They do a brilliant job of covering the Axelrod Tournament (along with the obligatory Christmas Truce story when mentioning GTFT).

Would have loved to see them do the deep dive into the differences and similarities between the tournament's conditions and real life (and how each one affects the game theory calculus in real world decision making).

Hm, you bring up an interesting point. I think a brain has an essence and having a defunct concept of self would hinder that essence of functioning properly. There is a physical aspect here in which you could measure mental instability through neural pathways, etc… I agree with what you are saying though; is mental stability simply conforming to reality/society or is there more to it? I’ve personally though as mental instability as anything that hinders you from fulfilling biological needs.