User Tag List

First 91011121321 Last

Results 101 to 110 of 346

  1. #101
    Ginkgo
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by burymecloser View Post
    I realise the above is applicable to many subjects, but surely you acknowledge that there are some things which are objectively, demonstrably true? And that conversely, some things are objectively, demonstrably untrue?

    If I want to prove that Hamlet is better than King Lear, or even that Babe Ruth was a better baseball player than Neifi Perez, maybe I can't do that from a purely objective and inarguable standpoint. But if I say that 2 + 2 = 4, isn't that clear cut and objectively true? If I say that Archduke Ferdinand died in 1914, isn't that clear cut and objectively true? If I say that Ruth hit 714 home runs, isn't that clear cut and objectively true? Aren't many, many things clear cut and objectively true?

    Moreover, isn't there a possibility that imprecision or expediency in a description could lead the audience to misunderstand that subject, regardless of whether the topic is objective or subjective?


    I think this is very well-said and an important question that deserves a thoughtful response, and a detailed rebuttal if you feel there's something wrong here.

    I realise I'm arguing what you call the introvert's perspective here, and that may not be inherently more valuable than what you'd call an extroverted perspective -- but from a purely literal standpoint, from an objective position, isn't Tater right? Isn't "sacrific[ing] precision in order to make the ideas more easily accessible to others" the same as sacrificing the quality of an idea for the quantity of its dissemination?

    And isn't there a danger, by emphasising quantity over quality, that a lot of people would learn bad ideas, rather than a few people learning good ones?
    Precisely.


    Quote Originally Posted by simulatedworld View Post
    Note that this doesn't make either of us right or wrong; on the contrary, it's intended to show that neither of us can ever truly be right or wrong in a purely objective sense!
    Typological solipsism. Sad. If this is true, then how could I know it to be true? And if listeners cannot know it to be true then nothing you say about typology or otherwise can be proven in an objective sense. In which case, how is it more appealing or applicable than anything else you could talk about?

    I'll hopefully get back to this thread in a day or two, but I need to get some sleep for a long car ride.

    Night.

  2. #102
    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 burymecloser View Post
    I realise the above is applicable to many subjects, but surely you acknowledge that there are some things which are objectively, demonstrably true? And that conversely, some things are objectively, demonstrably untrue?

    If I want to prove that Hamlet is better than King Lear, or even that Babe Ruth was a better baseball player than Neifi Perez, maybe I can't do that from a purely objective and inarguable standpoint. But if I say that 2 + 2 = 4, isn't that clear cut and objectively true? If I say that Archduke Ferdinand died in 1914, isn't that clear cut and objectively true? If I say that Ruth hit 714 home runs, isn't that clear cut and objectively true? Aren't many, many things clear cut and objectively true?
    The only things that are 100% certain are tautologies. In order to accept that 2+2=4, we first must accept a common definition of the terms "2", "+", "=", and "4" which defines 2+2 as 4 in the first place.

    So yes, if we accept the rules of mathematics as defined by human culture, then it's objectively true that 2+2=4. But that's a meaningless tautology--"If we accept a system that necessitates two plus two being four, then it's absolutely true that two plus two is four." Do you see why this is a meaningless distinction? Any "absolute truth" requires some sort of arbitrary assumption to build from.

    Quote Originally Posted by burymecloser View Post
    Moreover, isn't there a possibility that imprecision or expediency in a description could lead the audience to misunderstand that subject, regardless of whether the topic is objective or subjective?
    Sure. What's your point?

    Quote Originally Posted by burymecloser View Post
    I think this is very well-said and an important question that deserves a thoughtful response, and a detailed rebuttal if you feel there's something wrong here.

    I realise I'm arguing what you call the introvert's perspective here, and that may not be inherently more valuable than what you'd call an extroverted perspective -- but from a purely literal standpoint, from an objective position, isn't Tater right? Isn't "sacrific[ing] precision in order to make the ideas more easily accessible to others" the same as sacrificing the quality of an idea for the quantity of its dissemination?
    Yes, it's precisely the same. Introversion chooses quality; extroversion chooses quantity. Now I want you to ask yourself why quality is inherently better than quantity.

    Quote Originally Posted by burymecloser View Post
    And isn't there a danger, by emphasising quantity over quality, that a lot of people would learn bad ideas, rather than a few people learning good ones?
    From the extroverted perspective, quantity is preferable to quality because if we focus too much on quality we never actually apply our ideas to anything. We become obsessed with making them perfect and lose any and all realistic application in the process.

    What you've just asked effectively reduces to: "But isn't introversion clearly better than extroversion?"

    And that's just the sort of bias we're studying here. Nice post.
    If you could be anything you want, I bet you'd be disappointed--am I right?

  3. #103
    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 Mystic Tater View Post
    Typological solipsism. Sad. If this is true, then how could I know it to be true? And if listeners cannot know it to be true then nothing you say about typology or otherwise can be proven in an objective sense. In which case, how is it more appealing or applicable than anything else you could talk about?

    I'll hopefully get back to this thread in a day or two, but I need to get some sleep for a long car ride.

    Night.
    Um, actually it's the polar opposite of solipsism. It's the idea that no perspective is inherently better than any other--how do you figure this to be solipsistic? Typological solipsism would be the assumption that one's own perspective is inherently better or more important...you seem confused about the definition of solipsism here.

    Anyway, you're correct that nothing can ever be proven in a purely objective sense, because there is always the minute chance that our senses are being deceived by some unknown force. That's basically Decartes' "Evil Genius" argument.

    I like the way Nietzsche approaches it--he says the only thing we can ever really be 100% certain of is that something exists. We can't even be certain we exist, just that something does. Beyond that, we can never know anything for certain.

    So here you've actually stumbled upon the reason we need extroverted perspectives--pure introversion refuses to settle for anything less than perfect precision. Without some influence from extroversion, we wouldn't be able to do anything in life at all because we'd never be absolutely certain of anything, which would invalidate all inductive reasoning and make life awfully difficult. Extroverted perspectives allow us to accept a margin of error in the name of practicality.

    Obviously in practice, real people have both extroverted and introverted influences, but you've just provided an excellent example of why pure introversion on its own is totally impractical.

    All depth and no breadth and we never interact with the outside world or get anything done, because information is never perfectly deep or complete enough.

    All breadth and no depth and we never fully understand anything, instead just skimming the surface of a million different ideas without ever completely grasping the significance of any of them.

    Here's an example:

    Ti users seem to enjoy solving purely hypothetical problems just for the sake of completing the system and understanding exactly what would happen in some bizarre set of circumstances that will probably never come up in real life. The Ti user wants to prove to himself that his understanding of the system is complete enough, deep enough and precise enough that he could theoretically solve any problem, no matter how unlikely it is to happen in real life.

    Te users tend to avoid this sort of problem if they can't see any real application for it. If the problem would virtually never occur in real life and solving it does not contribute to any tangible external goal, there's simply no reason to bother. Te doesn't want or need the depth of understanding required to solve any situation imaginable; it only wants enough to garner a set of rules that can be widely applied to many realistically useful external contexts.

    Te sacrifices depth in favor of breadth. Sometimes, that's exactly what we need.
    If you could be anything you want, I bet you'd be disappointed--am I right?

  4. #104
    Ginkgo
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by simulatedworld View Post
    Um, actually it's the polar opposite of solipsism. It's the idea that no perspective is inherently better than any other--how do you figure this to be solipsistic? Typological solipsism would be the assumption that one's own perspective is inherently better or more important...you seem confused about the definition of solipsism here.
    No. Solipsism is the belief that all one knows is that they exist. It seems as though you claim that there is no objective truth to be had, and this is why I called you out on that. We aren't talking about the quality of perspective by using words like "better". We're talking about the truth to be had in those perspectives. "Better" may refer to any number of things other than truth. There are certainly a lot of "good" lies and untruths out there. And there are also many "bad" truths.

    In an attempt to escape this kind of "singularity" of perspective, you have chosen to use typology as a means to understand other perspectives, or at least you advocate that sort of practice. However, you cannot truly understand a perspective without actually having it - that is the essence of perspective itself. You cannot read about Ni and claim that you know how an Ni oriented person thinks because you have never experienced the function itself to that degree, or under the same constraints as that person.

    Even so, you may also attempt to understand and predict behavior rather than perspective. Unfortunately, personality has been shown not to be a clear forecaster of behavior because behavior operates on a variety of constraints that are situational and not merely confined by personality.

    Anyway, you're correct that nothing can ever be proven in a purely objective sense, because there is always the minute chance that our senses are being deceived by some unknown force. That's basically Decartes' "Evil Genius" argument.

    I like the way Nietzsche approaches it--he says the only thing we can ever really be 100% certain of is that something exists. We can't even be certain we exist, just that something does. Beyond that, we can never know anything for certain.
    Huh??? You tell me I'm incorrect, then you go on to expound upon why I'm correct.

    I'm rejecting your "I don't know anything statement" by exposing it as a paradox.

    So here you've actually stumbled upon the reason we need extroverted perspectives--pure introversion refuses to settle for anything less than perfect precision. Without some influence from extroversion, we wouldn't be able to do anything in life at all because we'd never be absolutely certain of anything, which would invalidate all inductive reasoning and make life awfully difficult. Extroverted perspectives allow us to accept a margin of error in the name of practicality.
    Introversion has nothing to do with precision. I think you're attributing some aspect of your own preference for Ti onto the whole of introversion. I'm really not sure what you're rambling about other than yourself, to be honest. Inductive reasoning can be had using both introverted and extraverted functions. In fact, I'd hazard to say that reasoning itself is a separate entity all together from any particular function and is probably the result of multiple functions working en tandem.

    Obviously in practice, real people have both extroverted and introverted influences, but you've just provided an excellent example of why pure introversion on its own is totally impractical.

    All depth and no breadth and we never interact with the outside world or get anything done, because information is never perfectly deep or complete enough.
    Luckily, no one has to worry about pure introversion or extraversion because no one operates in that manner, even if they are deaf, blind and mute. And even if they are in what you call a "Dominant-Tertiary Loop", this does not mean they are imbalanced as individuals. Rather, it means they are imbalanced according to the MBTI system, which is not a clear indicator of what healthy behavior is.

    All breadth and no depth and we never fully understand anything, instead just skimming the surface of a million different ideas without ever completely grasping the significance of any of them.
    Yes but this is irrelevent if neither introversion or extraversion entail either one of these things, respectively.

    Here's an example:

    Ti users seem to enjoy solving purely hypothetical problems just for the sake of completing the system and understanding exactly what would happen in some bizarre set of circumstances that will probably never come up in real life. The Ti user wants to prove to himself that his understanding of the system is complete enough, deep enough and precise enough that he could theoretically solve any problem, no matter how unlikely it is to happen in real life.

    Te users tend to avoid this sort of problem if they can't see any real application for it. If the problem would virtually never occur in real life and solving it does not contribute to any tangible external goal, there's simply no reason to bother. Te doesn't want or need the depth of understanding required to solve any situation imaginable; it only wants enough to garner a set of rules that can be widely applied to many realistically useful external contexts.
    And... how exactly are you applying this knowledge other than lambasting Te users? Most of your posts in this thread are devoted to somehow expose Te users for "the greedy utilitarians" they are without actually understanding that perspective. And you want to know why? Because you're not those people, regardless of what type they are.

    Te sacrifices depth in favor of breadth. Sometimes, that's exactly what we need.
    You seem to have not picked up on my earlier comment about the concepts of "depth" and "breadth". Really, the only thing to distinguish the thinking functions from each other is their preference of reference, one being introverted and one being extraverted.

  5. #105
    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 Mystic Tater View Post
    No. Solipsism is the belief that all one knows is that they exist. It seems as though you claim that there is no objective truth to be had, and this is why I called you out on that. We aren't talking about the quality of perspective by using words like "better". We're talking about the truth to be had in those perspectives. "Better" may refer to any number of things other than truth. There are certainly a lot of "good" lies and untruths out there. And there are also many "bad" truths.
    Solipsism has different meanings depending on whether you mean it in a philosophical or colloquial context, but point taken.

    I am definitely claiming that there is no objective truth to be had. If you want to show that there is such a thing, you need to provide an argument for it other than simply contradicting my claim that there isn't.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mystic Tater View Post
    In an attempt to escape this kind of "singularity" of perspective, you have chosen to use typology as a means to understand other perspectives, or at least you advocate that sort of practice. However, you cannot truly understand a perspective without actually having it - that is the essence of perspective itself. You cannot read about Ni and claim that you know how an Ni oriented person thinks because you have never experienced the function itself to that degree, or under the same constraints as that person.
    That's true; typology is a way of approximating an understanding of a perspective that we cannot ever truly understand firsthand.

    So no, we cannot know for certain--but we can approximate using induction...hence the value of extroverted perspectives.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mystic Tater View Post
    Even so, you may also attempt to understand and predict behavior rather than perspective. Unfortunately, personality has been shown not to be a clear forecaster of behavior because behavior operates on a variety of constraints that are situational and not merely confined by personality.
    Except when we introduce extroverted perspectives, we use induction and allow a margin of error for the sake of broader applicability. You are literally acting out the introversion bias that I'm working on explaining here! You're complaining that using typology to predict behavior is invalid because it requires induction and a margin of error. That's exactly what I'm talking about when I say you're undervaluing the extroverted perspective. Extroversion chooses quantity over quality--some precision is sacrificed in the name of expediency.

    So far the only point you're making is, "But introversion is the best because it's more precise, so the extroverted approach is invalid"...and I can't say it surprises me that that's the position you're taking. I guess you don't feel like doing brain stretches right now.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mystic Tater View Post
    Huh??? You tell me I'm incorrect, then you go on to expound upon why I'm correct.

    I'm rejecting your "I don't know anything statement" by exposing it as a paradox.
    I have no idea what you're talking about.


    Quote Originally Posted by Mystic Tater View Post
    Introversion has nothing to do with precision. I think you're attributing some aspect of your own preference for Ti onto the whole of introversion. I'm really not sure what you're rambling about other than yourself, to be honest. Inductive reasoning can be had using both introverted and extraverted functions. In fact, I'd hazard to say that reasoning itself is a separate entity all together from any particular function and is probably the result of multiple functions working en tandem.
    You have a lot to learn about intro/extroversion and the values those perspectives represent.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mystic Tater View Post
    Luckily, no one has to worry about pure introversion or extraversion because no one operates in that manner, even if they are deaf, blind and mute. And even if they are in what you call a "Dominant-Tertiary Loop", this does not mean they are imbalanced as individuals. Rather, it means they are imbalanced according to the MBTI system, which is not a clear indicator of what healthy behavior is.
    For the 9848975479547905407th time, I use Jungian functions, NOT MBTI.

    I've explained any number of times why excessive introversion or extroversion creates personality imbalance, and it has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with MBTI.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mystic Tater View Post
    Yes but this is irrelevent if neither introversion or extraversion entail either one of these things, respectively.
    However, if you had any idea what you're talking about, you'd know that these concepts are central to the ideas of intro and extroversion, so your response above is, in fact, the irrelevant part.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mystic Tater View Post
    And... how exactly are you applying this knowledge other than lambasting Te users? Most of your posts in this thread are devoted to somehow expose Te users for "the greedy utilitarians" they are without actually understanding that perspective. And you want to know why? Because you're not those people, regardless of what type they are.
    Please stop attaching hostility to my words when none exists. My point was quite obviously that in some situations Te is vastly preferable to Ti, because sometimes breadth is more important than depth. It's all context-dependent.

    I don't know what the hell you're talking about, and you haven't done this bad a job interpreting my posts in the entire time I've been interacting with you.

    My ongoing point throughout the whole thread has been that no function is fundamentally superior to any other, and that both introversion and extroversion are important aspects of a healthy individual. EACH PERSPECTIVE IS PREFERABLE IN DIFFERENT SITUATIONS. NEITHER IS FUNDAMENTALLY SUPERIOR.

    EACH PERSPECTIVE IS PREFERABLE IN DIFFERENT SITUATIONS. NEITHER IS FUNDAMENTALLY SUPERIOR.

    EACH PERSPECTIVE IS PREFERABLE IN DIFFERENT SITUATIONS. NEITHER IS FUNDAMENTALLY SUPERIOR.

    EACH PERSPECTIVE IS PREFERABLE IN DIFFERENT SITUATIONS. NEITHER IS FUNDAMENTALLY SUPERIOR.


    So any time you'd like to stop putting words in my mouth/inventing nonsensical bullshit about my ideas on functions and their relationships to each other, I'd be much obliged. No one is "lambasting" anything; try reading.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mystic Tater View Post
    You seem to have not picked up on my earlier comment about the concepts of "depth" and "breadth". Really, the only thing to distinguish the thinking functions from each other is their preference of reference, one being introverted and one being extraverted.
    Yes, that's correct, and the introverted Thinking function, like all introverted functions, focuses on depth, while the extroverted Thinking function, like all extroverted functions, focuses on breadth.

    It's like you're just going out of your way to find nefarious intent/attacks on your feelings and personal individuality here. It's hysterical to me that I'm making posts extolling the virtues of appreciating the value in both kinds of perspectives and you're twisting them into some kind of attack. I don't even know what to say to that.

    Calm down and try again tomorrow. You've grossly misinterpreted about 90% of what you've read here.
    If you could be anything you want, I bet you'd be disappointed--am I right?

  6. #106
    Ginkgo
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by simulatedworld View Post
    So far the only point you're making is, "But introversion is the best because it's more precise, so the extroverted approach is invalid"...and I can't say it surprises me that that's the position you're taking. I guess you don't feel like doing brain stretches right now.

    -------------------------------------------------------------------


    So any time you'd like to stop putting words in my mouth/inventing nonsensical bullshit about my ideas on functions and their relationships to each other, I'd be much obliged. No one is "lambasting" anything; try reading.
    lol. Are you talking to yourself?

  7. #107
    Freshman Member simulatedworld's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    7w6 sx/so
    Socionics
    ILE
    Posts
    5,554

    Default

    You're smarter than this, Tater. Dial down the "get offended" instinct and think critically about what I'm saying.

    Your position is that I am misusing typology because:

    A) It has not been proven with absolute certainty to predict behavior, and
    B) I do not have perfect knowledge of the perspectives of others since I do not share their consciousness.

    Both of these criticisms are clearly introversion-oriented. You've declared my approach invalid because it chooses breadth over depth. You don't seem to grasp the relative value in the extroverted perspective.

    Having perfect knowledge or being right about 100% of type guesses isn't the point. If we can guess accurately more often than not, we have a useful tool, whether or not we have 100% certainty.

    I'll use an example that I posted on personalitycafe:

    How is it that some people are able to consistently make a living playing poker? In poker we never have absolute certainty about our opponents' cards, and yet some people can consistently guess their opponents' cards more accurately than their opponents can guess theirs.

    Of course, even the best poker player is wrong sometimes. That goes with the territory whenever we use inductive reasoning--but the point is that incomplete information is not automatically invalid simply because it lacks completeness. If making educated guesses about behavior based on inductive reasoning and pattern recognition were an invalid approach, there would not be any professional poker players.

    How do you suppose such people manage to consistently win over time, despite never sharing their opponents' consciousness or having complete/definite information about their opponents' hands?



    Quote Originally Posted by Mystic Tater View Post
    lol. Are you talking to yourself?
    Evidently you're invested enough in our conversation to be editing posts for further effect, so my words must be reaching someone other than myself.
    If you could be anything you want, I bet you'd be disappointed--am I right?

  8. #108
    Reason vs Being ragashree's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    MBTI
    Mine
    Enneagram
    1w9
    Posts
    1,770

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by simulatedworld View Post
    You're smarter than this, Tater. Dial down the "get offended" instinct and think critically about what I'm saying.

    Your position is that I am misusing typology because:

    A) It has not been proven with absolute certainty to predict behavior, and
    B) I do not have perfect knowledge of the perspectives of others since I do not share their consciousness.
    Quote Originally Posted by simulatedworld View Post
    Both of these criticisms are clearly introversion-oriented. You've declared my approach invalid because it chooses breadth over depth. You don't seem to grasp the relative value in the extroverted perspective.
    I can't be bothered to read back through this whole thread right now, but your attempt at rebuttal seems to be leaning too much on the ad homineum, which I believe illustrates the points Tater has been making. Tater's functional orientation is as irrelevant as yours for the purpose of addressing the question of whether or not anything useful or valid can be determined about others from the way you're using typology. Are you able to address Tater's criticisms, assuming them to be accurate representations of his view, without resorting to typologically grounded assertions?
    Look into my avatar. Look deep into my avatar...

  9. #109
    Ginkgo
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ragashree View Post
    I can't be bothered to read back through this whole thread right now, but your attempt at rebuttal seems to be leaning too much on the ad homineum, which I believe illustrates the points Tater has been making. Tater's functional orientation is as irrelevant as yours for the purpose of addressing the question of whether or not anything useful or valid can be determined about others from the way you're using typology. Are you able to address Tater's criticisms, assuming them to be accurate representations of his view, without resorting to typologically grounded assertions?
    :crazy:


  10. #110
    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 ragashree View Post
    I can't be bothered to read back through this whole thread right now, but your attempt at rebuttal seems to be leaning too much on the ad homineum, which I believe illustrates the points Tater has been making. Tater's functional orientation is as irrelevant as yours for the purpose of addressing the question of whether or not anything useful or valid can be determined about others from the way you're using typology. Are you able to address Tater's criticisms, assuming them to be accurate representations of his view, without resorting to typologically grounded assertions?
    Honestly it doesn't really make a difference to me if you and Tater don't believe me when I say that typology can be used to predict people's behaviors and viewpoints.

    It works extraordinarily well for me, so if you'd prefer to miss out on the wealth of valuable information it provides, knock yourselves out.

    As I've said before, typology is not a science and is thus not falsifiable. It's simply a philosophy, one way of looking at and categorizing the world.

    Asking for proof that the types exist is like asking for proof that Led Zeppelin was a rock band. "Rock band" is just an arbitrary label for a given set of characteristics, so there's no "proof" that Led Zeppelin was a rock band any more than there's "proof" that I'm an ENTP.

    The only potentially falsifiable assertion being made is that different people have different perspectives and that perspective influences behavior in predictable ways.

    Personally, I find these things self-evident. If you don't, then don't use typology. Doesn't bother me--just stop asking for proof of a definition. Typology is philosophy, not science; no testable, measurable or falsifiable claim is being made.

    And btw, our types are extremely relevant here because they have a strong influence on the way we interpret the ideas in question. If Tater is introverted enough that the lack of certainty/use of inductive guesswork involved in typing others makes him uncomfortable, then he has every right not to use typology. (I do have to wonder what he's doing on a typology forum if that's the case, though.)


    Quote Originally Posted by Mystic Tater View Post
    Precisely.
    Wow, all the introverts agree that depth > breadth. There's a shocker.
    If you could be anything you want, I bet you'd be disappointed--am I right?

Similar Threads

  1. [NT] intjs how good is your vizualitation skills
    By chado in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 04-06-2017, 12:55 PM
  2. How important is a good teacher?
    By yama in forum Academics and Careers
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 11-15-2015, 07:08 PM
  3. I just remembered how good Animal Collective is
    By gmanyo in forum Arts & Entertainment
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 06-08-2012, 09:27 AM
  4. Replies: 5
    Last Post: 12-29-2010, 04:34 PM
  5. [NT] How good is your sensing?
    By BrokenSword in forum The NT Rationale (ENTP, INTP, ENTJ, INTJ)
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 07-19-2010, 12:08 AM

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