Anyhow basically the argument, one of many "discussions" (last wekk we covered existentialism for some bizarre reason), was that he'd analysed the system and had pointed to the flaw. His analysis was correct but as I pointed out to him the facet of what he'd identified as the error was wrong. I merely pointed to the inconsistency and once he understood what I mean't he adopted it into his thinking, so yeah they aren't stick in the muds. However it was the process not the outcome. He repeated the same line, no new identification to try and elulde criticism/ show the other facets, just the same lines over and over. That's quite J.
To underline the point, try persuading an ENTJ that one of their personal choices is wrong and see how far you get. If they picked a car out and are knowledgable about cars, try telling them they got the wrong one. You'll fail. Mainly because they didn't get the wrong one for them. That's stability of thought.
Hmm kinda makes sense now why my sister always got more and more stubborn the more you threatened/ punished her. Oh for having these insights like twenty or more years ago
Dom "I'm not sure I am an ENFP!" ... "I object to being boxed"
Me.. relays quotes to father for further analysis.
Father "That's exactly what I'd expect an ENFP to say"
Me relays back to Dom with an evil grin as he shoots into orbit
Targo, You read ENFP to me. Strongly ENFP.
Go watch Ice Age and see how many people see Scrat as a good reflection fo you