User Tag List

First 2101112131422 Last

Results 111 to 120 of 234

  1. #111
    failure to thrive AphroditeGoneAwry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    MBTI
    INfj
    Enneagram
    451 sx/so
    Socionics
    ENFj Ni
    Posts
    5,651

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LeafAndSky View Post

    Passes adventurousairheadedaphrodite (depending on your point of view) a recipe for lemon meringue pie. Waits 3 1/2 hours. Mmmm, almond meringue pie with pomegranate seeds. You should enter this in a contest!
    airheaded. i love it.



    Here's a big picture. If A and B each tell each other they're acting 'wrong', and then C tells them they're in some way acting 'wrong' doing that, is C acting similarly 'wrong'? And if D points out that C is acting similarly 'wrong', and D is then acting wrong, what do you have?????
    the makings of a 4some.

    [Retreats to the observation deck.]
    warp speed!
    Ni/Ti/Fe/Si
    4w5 5w4 1w9
    ~Torah observant, Christ inspired~
    Life Path 11

    The more one loves God, the more it is that having nothing in the world means everything, and the less one loves God, the more it is that having everything in the world means nothing.

    Do not resist an evil person, but to him who strikes you on the one cheek, offer also the other. ~Matthew 5:39

    songofmary.wordpress.com


  2. #112
    Permabanned
    Join Date
    May 2009
    MBTI
    ISFP
    Enneagram
    6w7 sx
    Socionics
    SEE Fi
    Posts
    25,301

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by aphrodite-gone-awry View Post
    Who made what up? Depends on who you're talking about. The original guru, for all intents and purposes, aligned the tertiary opposite the dominant. Was he right? Or wrong? Or someone who came after him? Who is to say what is right?



    Another Fi-er telling an Fe aux what Fe is. Gotta love it.
    No, really, you can't go around believing that the difference between Fe and Fi is that Fe "cares about others." That isn't about having Fe or Fi, I'm sorry.
    I don't know how you even figured out you have Fe if you don't believe in the original theories.






    I can't do much more than that unfortunately, because this is more philosophy than science. It's not really psychology yet, because we can't test anything. As to your question, I have said in various posts on here recently (i hate rehashing in case you missed that ), that I just know INTJs to be more considerate of others, more accommodating of others in their opinions, and more likely to be interested in in finding out what others are like and interested in.
    Considerate of others? Yes, that's my experience of them too. It's also my experience of healthy INTPs. I think that goes along with being an introverted thinker. They're rational enough to detach their behavior from their emotions, and introverted enought to not be overbearing...when they're healthy, that is.

    Also, in INxJs, your Ni will allow you to be more open and accepting to the opinions of others without feeling the need to argue that Ne'ers seem to have. That's Ni, not Fe.

    I don't know why you think finding out what others are like or interested in is Fe. You seem to believe that interest or concern for others is Fe.

    I think this is a weaker function in them, as I've said. Why do they use Fe? I don't think it drives them unless they are trying to spread the word of one of their theories, for personal reasons, or because they need to extravert to feed their Ni. This could also be why INTJs tend to act and dress conservatively; they wish to fit in more with society, which would be more an Fe trait too.
    It's just a J trait.

    They don't want to offend others.
    If you say so... I'm going to have to disagree.

    Yes, Ni/Te is very stubborn, but not necessarily governed by personal principles as per Fi, more their own identified principles through Ni/Te. Yet this is hard to see too because our principles are dictated by many other things, including a functional and healthy childhood, household dynamics, and the status of our egos.

    It's very possible your Fi feels it as Fi, because it could manifest as such a weak Fe, person and age depending. If I were to think on the differences between Fi dom/aux/tert I'd have a harder time describing them, because Fi is not my strength. Maybe, just maybe, some of the warm interplay between enfps and intjs is the Fi/Fe Ti/Te mix in addition to the Ni/Ne mix.

    Likewise, maybe your Fe feeles it as Fe because you somewhat mistakenly associate all warmth, cariing, and consideration with Fe. The Fi of ITJs is simply very individualized, where Fe is more broad.

    Srsly? That's just common sense. But thank you.
    That's what I think about your descriptions of Fe...it's not Fe, it's just common humanity and caring about or being interested in others.

  3. #113
    failure to thrive AphroditeGoneAwry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    MBTI
    INfj
    Enneagram
    451 sx/so
    Socionics
    ENFj Ni
    Posts
    5,651

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by marmalade.sunrise View Post
    No, really, you can't go around believing that the difference between Fe and Fi is that Fe "cares about others." That isn't about having Fe or Fi, I'm sorry.
    I don't know how you even figured out you have Fe if you don't believe in the original theories.
    I was trying to find the most descriptive, succinct phrase I could find to describe it 'in a nutshell.' I'm not writing a book here.


    Also, in INxJs, your Ni will allow you to be more open and accepting to the opinions of others without feeling the need to argue that Ne'ers seem to have. That's Ni, not Fe.
    Oh, INTJs like to argue, like to discuss. Why are philosophers typically INTxs? No, something else is making them receptive to others, I'd wager, not Ni.

    I don't know why you think finding out what others are like or interested in is Fe. You seem to believe that interest or concern for others is Fe.
    It can be, most definitely. At it's essence, I believe that's what it is. There is this notion, and Jung defines it thus, that Fe is about what is expected, and oriented by objective data, not necessarily what is felt. I disagree. I think Fe can be about what is expected, and perhaps that takes precedence in many situations, granted; but Fe is usually genuinely felt (subjectively) by Fe-ers. Jung states:

    Her personality appears adjusted in relation to external conditions. Her feelings harmonize with objective situations and general values. This is seen nowhere more clearly than in her love choice: the "suitable" man is loved, and no one else; he is suitable not because he appeals to her hidden subjective nature--about which she usually knows nothing--but because he comes up to all reasonable expectations in the matter of age, position, income, size and respectability of his family; etc. Once could easily reject sucha picture as ironical or cynical, but i am fully convincecd that the love feeling of this type of woman is in perfect accord with her choice......These women are good companions and excellent mothers so long a sthe husbands and children are blessed with the conventional psychic constitution.
    !

    Come on. And the rest of Jung's Fe definition isn't much better. This is how you define Fe? This is how you want me to define Fe? As some sort of Stepford Wife, exemplified in the Good Wife Model? Going through the objective motions, but never feeling anything subjectively, unless she over-extraverts feeling, and then she becomes 'hysterical.'

    This is a defintion of Fe from Berens and Nardi:

    The process of extraverted Feeling often involves a desire to connect with (or disconnect from) others and is often evidenced by expressions of warmth (or displeasure) and self-disclosure. The “social graces,” such as being polite, being nice, being friendly, being considerate, and being appropriate, often revolve around the process of extraverted Feeling. Keeping in touch, laughing at jokes when others laugh, and trying to get people to act kindly to each other also involve extraverted Feeling. Using this process, we respond according to expressed or even unexpressed wants and needs of others. We may ask people what they want or need or self-disclose to prompt them to talk more about themselves. This often sparks conversation and lets us know more about them so we can better adjust our behavior to them. Often with this process, we feel pulled to be responsible and take care of others’ feelings, sometimes to the point of not separating our feelings from theirs. We may recognize and adhere to shared values, feelings, and social norms to get along.

    Likewise, maybe your Fe feeles it as Fe because you somewhat mistakenly associate all warmth, cariing, and consideration with Fe.
    Uh, I guess you can call me mistaken then. But I never said ALL. In fact, I went out of my way to say many things in our lives can affect our personalities, namely our families, how we were raised, and the status of our egos.



    That's what I think about your descriptions of Fe...it's not Fe, it's just common humanity and caring about or being interested in others.
    That's Fe though. Some don't orient around that like others do. You are Fi aux, so you might see it that way. Of course, all people should be considerate, but they're not. It's easier for some than others, and it seems the ones with Fe have more affinity for it.
    Ni/Ti/Fe/Si
    4w5 5w4 1w9
    ~Torah observant, Christ inspired~
    Life Path 11

    The more one loves God, the more it is that having nothing in the world means everything, and the less one loves God, the more it is that having everything in the world means nothing.

    Do not resist an evil person, but to him who strikes you on the one cheek, offer also the other. ~Matthew 5:39

    songofmary.wordpress.com


  4. #114
    Permabanned
    Join Date
    May 2009
    MBTI
    ISFP
    Enneagram
    6w7 sx
    Socionics
    SEE Fi
    Posts
    25,301

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by aphrodite-gone-awry View Post
    I was trying to find the most descriptive, succinct phrase I could find to describe it 'in a nutshell.' I'm not writing a book here.
    But Fe isn't just caring about others. Fi cares about others, too, and many Fi-ers feel that it's a more genuine or sincere caring since it doesn't necessarily revolve around social graces and expected norms...it's a caring that comes from within, an empathetic concern for other people. I'm not saying that it's true that Fe is insincere, but that Fi can view it that way, just as Fe can see Fi as being selfish.

    The truth is that both are about ETHICAL CODES OF CONDUCT not something as simple as "caring about other people."




    Oh, INTJs like to argue, like to discuss. Why are philosophers typically INTxs? No, something else is making them receptive to others, I'd wager, not Ni.
    INTJs aren't the most emotionally open people in the world, even if they're open to new ideas. In fact, it's pretty damn easy to tell an INFJ from an INTJ for this reason.

    Not only that, but Fe loves to keep the peace, and I've noticed that INFJs - even the more unconventional punk rock kind of ones - maintain a certain level of "lets get along."

    INTJs, on the other hand, don't really care about keeping the peace - I think they care more about you leaving them the hell alone, which could look to a heavy Fe user like keeping the peace, but no. I'm still not clear on how you manage to believe that people who are theoretically known for sinister plots to take over the world and more commonly known for sick jokes and invitations to see their basement as people who don't want to offend others.

    I even had an INTJ professor and some students disliked her, didn't care for her humor in class, even though she clearly toned it down for class, and had the whole straight-faced professional demeanor. I thought she freakin' rocked, but not everyone liked her, and that was largely due to the fact that while she was obviously this extremely intellectual, controlled, J-type she didn't go out of her way to make sure she didn't offend anyone with her little dry comments and witty barbs. People thought she was "weird" - although she always dressed extremely simply, very neat, almost plain and conservatively, and has such a structured vibe about her.

    It can be, most definitely. At it's essence, I believe that's what it is. There is this notion, and Jung defines it thus, that Fe is about what is expected, and oriented by objective data, not necessarily what is felt. I disagree. I think Fe can be about what is expected, and perhaps that takes precedence in many situations, granted; but Fe is usually genuinely felt (subjectively) by Fe-ers. Jung states:


    Her personality appears adjusted in relation to external conditions. Her feelings harmonize with objective situations and general values. This is seen nowhere more clearly than in her love choice: the "suitable" man is loved, and no one else; he is suitable not because he appeals to her hidden subjective nature--about which she usually knows nothing--but because he comes up to all reasonable expectations in the matter of age, position, income, size and respectability of his family; etc. Once could easily reject sucha picture as ironical or cynical, but i am fully convincecd that the love feeling of this type of woman is in perfect accord with her choice......These women are good companions and excellent mothers so long a sthe husbands and children are blessed with the conventional psychic constitution.

    !

    Come on. And the rest of Jung's Fe definition isn't much better. This is how you define Fe? This is how you want me to define Fe? As some sort of Stepford Wife, exemplified in the Good Wife Model? Going through the objective motions, but never feeling anything subjectively, unless she over-extraverts feeling, and then she becomes 'hysterical.'
    Sure you genuinely feel your feelings. Of course you do. I usually like INFJs because they tend to emanate a certain warmth. But you have to understand that this is how Fe often looks to Fi users, especially in SFJs when combined with Si.


    That's Fe though. Some don't orient around that like others do. You are Fi aux, so you might see it that way. Of course, all people should be considerate, but they're not. It's easier for some than others, and it seems the ones with Fe have more affinity for it.
    We are going to have to agree to disagree, because I just do not see Fe in ITJ types - neither theoretically nor in my real life interactions with them.
    Last edited by Thalassa; 03-31-2010 at 07:52 PM. Reason: went to edit, and erased half the damn thing, how P of me

  5. #115
    Freshman Member simulatedworld's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    7w6 sx/so
    Socionics
    ILE
    Posts
    5,554

    Default

    Uh oh, here comes a non-NT questioning aphrodite's made up functional definitions.

    There goes the whole "NTs are personally biased against me and that's the only reason anyone is attacking my ideas" argument. Oops.


    Quote Originally Posted by Jaguar View Post
    Aw, aren't you cute.
    Just out of curiosity, what do you think are some common ENTJ weaknesses?

    What are some limitations on the Te and/or Ni perspective?

    To me, it seems only fair to acknowledge Ne/Ti weaknesses, but I'm not kidding when I say it seems like many NTJs don't believe their perspectives have any weaknesses at all.


    Quote Originally Posted by aphrodite-gone-awry View Post
    When I read Jung and his defintions of functions, or how he describes functions, I basicially agree with his gist of things. I think he's brilliant to have been able to observe and identify all that he did. But there are places that I disagree. And I think looking back through the filter of time can lend a huge distortion to what he meant as well, just as looking back through time on any document or work, especially with prose, can be.

    So when I read his work, I can't help but naturally 'tweak' the ideas and definitions to fit. It's just what I do. I don't really ever take anything I read at face value, even with contemplation. I like to combine it with what I've observed and mix it with what I already know and understand (Ni) to see if it makes sense.
    The problem is that you're "fixing" ideas that you haven't really fully understood in the first place. You keep pointing out "problems" with the current theory that don't actually exist, and are just based on your own erroneous understanding of it.

    Quote Originally Posted by aphrodite-gone-awry View Post
    I think that you are extremely rigid in your understanding of functions as regards their manifestation. Even if a person were to apply intense thinking to how a function works and manifests itself, there is still so much room for error, or bias! I am open to exploring pertinent, modern definitions of functions (based on Jung or whoever has proposed helpful definitions, like Thompson), and how they manifest themselves. However, it sounds like you want to stick to Jung's definitions word for word, which is fine, but we know more now, we understand more (because of him), and we have each other (he only had himself) to bounce ideas off of and brainstorm with.
    Thomson's definitions are pretty consistent with Jung's. And the central point of her entire type theory is that balancing the dominant and auxiliary is the ideal approach, but that many people are tempted to use the tertiary instead of the auxiliary--it's more comfortable because it's oriented in the same direction as the dominant.

    Your theory about tertiary functions is exactly the opposite of Thomson's, and your idea of the definitions of Fi/Fe/Ti/Te are totally inconsistent with all well-known authors on the subject.

    Does that mean you can't offer new ideas? No, of course not, but you have to realize that many of your ideas that you think are "new" have already been explored and discarded by people who know more than you do. You keep talking about how current function theory is "inadequate", but I can't take that criticism seriously until you show that you actually understand current function theory enough to make such a claim.

    Quote Originally Posted by aphrodite-gone-awry View Post
    Because of this apparent rigidity, it makes working with you difficult. If you already know you are Right in everything, and know more than most everyone, then how can someone propose something and have it be taken in good faith. You obviously don't need us (or my ideas anyway), so why this long, drawn out debate with me?
    I'm not being rigid because I have some silly dogmatic faith in already established methods. I'm being rigid with you because most of your ideas about the inadequacies of current function theory are just based on inadequacies in your own understanding of it.

    In other words, I've heard it all before and I've already considered it fully and discarded it. I don't dismiss any and all new ideas on principle--yours are getting dismissed because they're nothing new. You haven't offered a single new idea on this topic that I've never heard before, but you have made a lot of really common mistakes.

    It's like taking taking piano lessons and complaining to your instructor that he's being "closed-minded" because he tells you that hitting a C# in your C scale is wrong. It's not that he's never considered playing a C# in the key of C--it's that he's already explored all the implications of that in much greater depth than you even grasp at this point and recognized that it doesn't work in 99.9% of contexts.

    Quote Originally Posted by aphrodite-gone-awry View Post
    Furthermore, Ti might be rigid when it comes to definitions and understanding the way things work, I get that. But I also feel an almost desperate emotional clinging to your ideas that is NOT Ti like, which I perceive as Fi like. Again, Jung said himself that we do not necessarily know the functions (beyond our dominant) that are at play in ourselves. This in itself is ironic of him to say, because it seems like the most difficult function to understand in ourselves IS our dominant. Yet he might be very right in this, because understanding our tert is obviously very hard to see.
    Your perception of this as Fi-like is incorrect. My behavior in this case is a function of Ti+Fe. The Fe aspect comes in because I find your insistence on ignoring sources that are far more informed than you are to be out of sync with generally accepted standards for learning about new topics. You need to understand the old approach before you decide you can improve upon it. Anyone can break the rules, but it takes someone who understands the rules enough to recognize their natural limitations to break them intelligibly.

    Quote Originally Posted by aphrodite-gone-awry View Post
    Do you have any ideas or goals for function theory you'd care to share with me? Are you happy with the status quo, or do you just like to study prominent authors on the subject and learn what you can from them, applying it here and irl?
    I like to apply the already existing model to new contexts and discover new connections between different contexts as a result. I don't much care for dramatic redefinitions of the entire system unless they're offered by someone who: A) understands the current system enough to deconstruct its potential flaws meaningfully, and B) has some genuinely new ideas that no one has offered before.

    Quote Originally Posted by aphrodite-gone-awry View Post
    I guess I see Jung and others as a framework. I mean he was the first to tap in to and discover how we think, and label it. In the process he made a sort of new philosophy. That's huge. From my vantage point in 2010, I can identify gaps and shortcomings in function theory, just from studying on it a year. Most authors contribute something interesting, if not valuable. I guess I'd like to, in my INFJ sort of way, bring it all together in a more cohesive whole, whereby it can be utilized by all.
    You haven't identified any shortcomings that haven't already been covered in much greater depth and clarity by more recent authors with more knowledge and experience than yourself. You think you're being new and revolutionary but every criticism of current type theory that you've offered has already been suggested by others and already been addressed by numerous authors.


    Quote Originally Posted by aphrodite-gone-awry View Post
    This is why we have a hard time communicating. Your Ti and my Ni just have a hard time meshing, I guess. To my way of thinking, if we stick dogmatically to a definition that is perhaps substandard in our times, we anchor ourselves and cannot go anywhere. I want to go somewhere. Do you?
    While we're on the subject of Ni, let's talk about typical Ni mistakes. Ni has a bad habit of thinking its perspective is so unique and original that it's impossible that anyone could ever have thought of it before. Ni-ers who are relatively inexperienced in a new area often make the mistake of thinking they've discovered some fundamental flaw in the system that nobody else has ever noticed and that only they were clever and perceptive enough to pick up on. This feeds Ni's need to view its perspectives as revolutionary and to consider itself a master of "seeing through to the REAL meaning."

    Occasionally, a profoundly brilliant Ni dom actually does successfully see something nobody has ever seen before and redefines an entire previously established school of thought. Much more often, though, Ni doms who haven't yet mastered the already existing rules will erroneously believe they've discovered gaping errors because: A) they don't want to accept that their "discoveries" have already been discovered and sufficiently dealt with because this threatens their ability to view themselves as revolutionary out-of-the-box pioneers, and B) they grossly overestimate their grasp of the already existing material.

    Quote Originally Posted by aphrodite-gone-awry View Post
    I really don't think I use Ti, as much as I'd like to claim I do. If you research it a bit, and remain as open-minded as you could to learning something new, and consider that some of your ideas about functions might be fallible, you would see that I use more of a Te approach to this stuff. No, I'm not going to divulge more about that. I expect a person, especially an Ne dom, to be able to intuit some things like that. After all, I've written a lot to you, and most of it is flavored with Te. If you cannot see this, or understand it, or access it, then I really don't see that we can go any further. We will just have to agree to disagree.
    I've had about enough of your self-righteous preaching about open-mindedness. Your failure to grasp the mistakes in your interpretation doesn't translate into everyone else being "closed-minded", but rejecting anyone who points them out as "closed-minded" plays perfectly into Ni's preferred self-image. "I'm too amazingly perceptive and uniquely insightful for all these morons! They just can't see it!"

    When it comes to theories that have been around a long time, and have already had a number of great minds working on them, there's a general rule of thumb that applies: Whenever you think you've found a glaring error in the already existing theory that somehow nobody but you has ever noticed, chances are it's already been discovered and adequately explained a long time ago. Give that some consideration.


    Quote Originally Posted by aphrodite-gone-awry View Post
    Who made what up? Depends on who you're talking about. The original guru, for all intents and purposes, aligned the tertiary opposite the dominant. Was he right? Or wrong? Or someone who came after him? Who is to say what is right?
    Really? Then why do a large portion of Jungian scholars believe he meant that the tertiary and dominant are in the same direction? There's still significant debate on this topic because Jung didn't express a clear opinion on it in his work.

    Quote Originally Posted by aphrodite-gone-awry View Post
    Another Fi-er telling an Fe aux what Fe is. Gotta love it.
    For fuck's sake, my mom is an Fe dom and she doesn't have a damn clue what the term "Fe" even means. Marm is more proficient in functional theory than you are. Having a function in your top two does not entitle you to automatically understand its conceptual meaning any better than anyone else.
    If you could be anything you want, I bet you'd be disappointed--am I right?

  6. #116
    Senior Member Jaguar's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    12,431

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by simulatedworld View Post

    Just out of curiosity, what do you think are some common ENTJ weaknesses?
    Just out of curiosity, what do you think are some common weaknesses of black people?

  7. #117
    Freshman Member simulatedworld's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    7w6 sx/so
    Socionics
    ILE
    Posts
    5,554

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jaguar View Post
    Just out of curiosity, what do you think are some common weaknesses of black people?
    I'm serious here, man. Isn't typology supposed to be about recognizing the relative strengths and weaknesses of different cognition styles so that we can better identify our own shortcomings while learning to appreciate the value in the perspectives of others?

    I don't see what black people have to do with this. I see a lot of value in the way ENTJs approach things, but I find that rarely do they seem to believe they have any proportional weaknesses to their strengths.

    So I'm asking you, an ENTJ, because I want an answer straight from the horse's mouth: We all know the variety of advantages to being an ENTJ, but what are some of the disadvantages?
    If you could be anything you want, I bet you'd be disappointed--am I right?

  8. #118
    Senior Member Jaguar's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    12,431

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by simulatedworld View Post
    I'm serious here, man.
    That's the scary part.


    "To be clear: Decisions on hiring or promotion should never be based on the results of a personality inventory, say licensed MBTI administrators.
    In fact, such use is considered unethical by the Myers & Briggs Foundation.
    MBTI manages fundamental preferences, not how an individual manages those preferences, says Rollin, and 'preference does not equal skill.' "

  9. #119
    Freshman Member simulatedworld's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    7w6 sx/so
    Socionics
    ILE
    Posts
    5,554

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jaguar View Post
    That's the scary part.


    "To be clear: Decisions on hiring or promotion should never be based on the results of a personality inventory, say licensed MBTI administrators.
    In fact, such use is considered unethical by the Myers & Briggs Foundation.
    MBTI manages fundamental preferences, not how an individual manages those preferences, says Rollin, and 'preference does not equal skill.' "
    That's fine. I'm not talking about jobs here.

    I'm just talking about perspectives. Preference might not equal skill, but when you look at a large sample, you can see that some types clearly have a tendency to perform some tasks better than others.

    For instance, I would expect that the average ENTJ is a better CEO than the average ISFP. Does that mean all ENTJs are automatically better CEOs than all ISFPs? No, but it does mean we can make statements about trends in different skillsets based on cognitive preferences.

    So keeping that in mind, what do you think are some areas that ENTJs tend to be weak in? (Note that I'm not asking you to name anything that all ENTJs are weak in--because there'd be no answer to that. I'm asking for your idea on the overall trend.)
    If you could be anything you want, I bet you'd be disappointed--am I right?

  10. #120
    Senior Member Jaguar's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    12,431

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by simulatedworld View Post
    No, but it does mean we can make statements about trends in different skillsets based on cognitive preferences.
    Preference doesn't equal skill. Preference doesn't equal skill. Preference doesn't equal skill.
    Preference doesn't equal skill. Preference doesn't equal skill. Preference doesn't equal skill.
    Preference doesn't equal skill. Preference doesn't equal skill. Preference doesn't equal skill.
    Preference doesn't equal skill. Preference doesn't equal skill. Preference doesn't equal skill.
    Preference doesn't equal skill. Preference doesn't equal skill. Preference doesn't equal skill.
    Preference doesn't equal skill. Preference doesn't equal skill. Preference doesn't equal skill.
    Preference doesn't equal skill. Preference doesn't equal skill. Preference doesn't equal skill.
    Preference doesn't equal skill. Preference doesn't equal skill. Preference doesn't equal skill.
    Preference doesn't equal skill. Preference doesn't equal skill. Preference doesn't equal skill.
    Preference doesn't equal skill. Preference doesn't equal skill. Preference doesn't equal skill.
    Preference doesn't equal skill. Preference doesn't equal skill. Preference doesn't equal skill.
    Preference doesn't equal skill. Preference doesn't equal skill. Preference doesn't equal skill.
    Preference doesn't equal skill. Preference doesn't equal skill. Preference doesn't equal skill.
    Preference doesn't equal skill. Preference doesn't equal skill. Preference doesn't equal skill.
    Preference doesn't equal skill. Preference doesn't equal skill. Preference doesn't equal skill.
    Preference doesn't equal skill. Preference doesn't equal skill. Preference doesn't equal skill.

Similar Threads

  1. Long Hair V.S. Short Hair
    By kyuuei in forum The Fluff Zone
    Replies: 95
    Last Post: 12-06-2017, 08:07 PM
  2. [NF] NF: since we think 'differently' than normal folks...
    By niki in forum The NF Idyllic (ENFP, INFP, ENFJ, INFJ)
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: 02-07-2009, 10:54 AM
  3. Range in MBTI types.
    By Nillerz in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: 12-01-2008, 06:10 PM
  4. Thinking/Feeling game: Same Difference
    By rivercrow in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 26
    Last Post: 05-14-2007, 08:17 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO