u/MaskedHeracles

Please please please can we stop having conversations that go something like:

"Well, Enneagram 4 seems very much predisposed to not be Sanguine-dom."

RESPONDED TO BY

"Well, I'm E4 and sanguine sooooo...."

"As a sanguine E4..."

You are presupposing that its possible just because of your self-labeling and thereby just rejecting the question on principle. Your self-labeling could be incorrect! Maybe there are good arguments for Sanguine E4 (I strongly doubt it), but the argument is never going to be "Well I am both of these things so boom proof." I feel like I see it everywhere, less on this sub than everywhere else (or god forbid PDB, the land of INFP e8s) but it's such a thought-terminating cliche

When I was first getting into typology, I had these lofty ideas about how typology would let me understand myself and others better through my self-types and their self-types. Sadly, the more and more I learn about these systems it becomes more and more obvious that a majority of people (even avid typology people) either 1) don't understand the theory on a basic level or 2) don't understand themselves or their patterns on a basic level (more common).

And it'll be like, night and day differences too. I'm not talking INTP sp5 vs INTP so6. I knew a more or less archetypal ISFP sx4 who will fight you to the death if you deny their claim that they're INTP so5.

And in my experience, people get very defensive if you question their self-type, even if you know them very well. This is not to say that I (or anyone) 'know them better than themselves', but having an outside perspective (particularly about personality, where your self-perception is often very misleading) is very useful, and being extremely bullish about a self-type just seems silly. I would still be typing as an INFP so4 if I didn't meet some really smart typology people who helped me re-evaluate (not to say that my current typing is necessarily 100% correct, I could find out tommorow that I'm actually ENTJ or something).

I truly think it is a lack of ability to see themselves that causes it more than confusions about the theory, and an obsession with the idea that the way they view themselves is the way they are (and are viewed by others). There's a kind of paradox of self-knowledge / self-awareness where people who are truly self-aware realize they have much to learn about themselves, and people with no self-knowledge think that they have mastered their mind and are "painfully self-aware." No, Julie, you're just a normal person. Now I should post some engagement bait to drive interactions.

TL;DR INTJ E8 (ESP. SX8) is valid. If you disagree, read Naranjo and educate yourself. If you think ESFJ so5 is impossible, consider that humans are unique snowflakes, and labels are just boxes.

Hey all, I just finished Book 5 of the Bobiverse and I've absolutely loved it all the way through. One thing particularly bothered me though, being the idea that sentient life will almost always develop across similar lines. The idea is interesting, but it feels like the effect of it is that the alien races feel kind of same-y, just like humans with some quirks put in different settings. The psychology seems basically the same. I'm not sure how book 6 will go, and as I said before I love the series, but I really would be interested in an alien race that is different on a more core level. Not sure if thats the story DET is wanting to tell, and Ill love it either way, was just curious if anyone else felt this way too.

(This will be a kinda long essaypost comparing DCC and HWFWM, but I will tl;dr it at the bottom for my fellow post-Tiktok zoomers).

When I first read HWFWM, as my first self-described LitRPG, it absolutely blew me away, and I assumed that this is what LitRPG is as a genre. But after months of putting off reading DCC because of the strange pseudo-rivalry that the online fanbases have, it felt like the two were telling two completely different types of stories in a way that makes them extremely interesting to compare on a structural level.

The most pressing difference for me between the two is that HWFWM is almost an anti-isekai in a way. The world of Pallimustus in which much of HWFWM takes place is taken almost shockingly seriously as an earnest fantasy world, with a fairly straightforward magic system and political structure. The point of weirdness and chaos comes mostly from Jason himself. He is the aberrant thing in the world, he is where the ironic detachment comes from. In DCC, on the other hand, Carl is somewhat of an everyman. He has his eccentricities and traits, but he is not where the weirdness comes from. He is the normal man thrust into a crazy world and forced to adapt. The over-the-top zaniness in the humor comes mostly from the weird uncanny valley-esque world (taking elements of the world we know and satirizing them, both in the world of the story and for the reader).

The story of Dungeon Crawler Carl as far as I've read (which admittedly isn't complete, relative to HWFWM) is of Carl learning to acclimate to the new environment he's been thrust into, to adapt, and find a life for himself in a world that seems intent on taking it from him. Jason, again, has an almost opposite arc. Jason's arc seems to me to be about not letting him lose what is special about him from the horrible things that he is shown by his travels (shown most explicitly when he >!returns to Earth in books 4-6!<. The world of Dungeon Crawler Carl is a joke that Carl isn't in on, while Jason's attitude towards the world is a joke that everyone else isn't in on.

In DCC, Carl is stuck in a world of extreme ironic detachment. Whats going on is insane, and even the system itself is intent on maintaining a 'nothing is serious' attitude despite the obviously very serious goingson of the Dungeon (>!especially with the Krasu storyline, jeez!<). This is what irritates Carl, what drives him to rage much of the time, because no one in his world can seem to realize how serious everything is (especially on interviews). Its a very modern style of story, in which the rules of reality themselves have been in some way taken away from you, and trying to maintaining that anything matters becomes more and more difficult.

The world of Pallimustus takes itself pretty seriously (as aforementioned), and the things that happen on a regular basis are very important, but Jason can't really let himself sit with that. For much of the story, he maintains a kind of absurdist ironic attitude that provides an illusion of meaningless in a world that seeks to constantly deprive him of it. Every arc has its serious repercussions, leaving Jason in some way forever altered, and he wants desperately for a break that never arrives. If Jason let go of his happy-go-lucky attitude, it feels like he will lose the last layer of defense he has against the things that are gnawing at him, and the remnants of his past failures (of which there are many, not the least of which being his ginormous chin).

It's not shocking to me that DCC has grown to widespread popularity, both because I found it generally enjoyable with solid prose (though not exactly my thing), and because it feels somewhat poignant for the particular moment of the world right now, in which everyone seems to feel that the world has gone crazy (not a new feeling, but seems to be growing particularly prevalent, at least in people I'm talking to). The idea of the straightforward, honest, nice guy taking on the chaotic post-ironic crazy world and finding meaning and family in it seems particularly destined to connect with people. To be clear, not saying that this is the entire or even a major reason for it's success, just something that popped out to me.

I think what appealed to me in particular about HWFWM in comparison is that part of Jason's arc is learning sincerity, learning to approach people on a human level beneath the layers of pain-residue from his life and the resultant irony. This definitely creates a... divisive personality, read uncharitably as "Preachy Tony Stark who read The God Delusion" but that appealed to me a lot personally, as someone for whom learning sincerity and to re-attach from a point of ironic detachment is a significant theme.

tl;dr In DCC, Carl is the seriousness and the world is the chaos, the seriousness must adapt to the chaos. The opposite is true for HWFWM. Carl has to learn to accept and live with insanity, while Jason has to accept and live with the intense, straightforward reality that he now occupies. Not very novel analysis, but it crossed my mind a lot as I read.

Curious if anyone else has any thoughts on this, or anything in regards to other LitRPGs. In terms of isekai anime with a similar premise, Log Horizon is interesting as a point of comparison, where the sudden shift and formation of new societies from a mass-isekai raise sociological questions which the story seeks to address through the eyes of the characters.

Hey all! I've been playing TTRPGs and video games in general since I was a kid (to the point of making horribly embarassing preposterously long homebrew when i was 13), and I'm currently working on a research paper with my university's philosophy and psych department to write about and study why exactly people play as characters so differently from themselves, and what they feel like they learn from doing so. Not sure if this counts as self-promotion, so I apologize if I've misflaired.

Regardless, I'm really curious about y'alls experiences playing as characters meaningfully unique from yourself and if you learned anything discernible from that experience.