User Tag List

First 23456 Last

Results 31 to 40 of 60

  1. #31
    meh Salomé's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx/sp
    Posts
    10,540

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by cascadeco View Post
    I think that there are a lot of personalities who simply do not WANT to be in management, or work their way up into positions of greater power, responsibility, etc. And, I think a lot of the F types would fall into that.
    Yes, I considered this. But I also know a lot of Fs (esp EFJs) who really do like to be in charge, and a lot of Ts who don't. So I can't buy into this as a full explanation.

    And I think a lot of it has to do with my looking at those who ARE in it, and the culture behind it, and I want little to do with it - with most of the personalities in it. I'd have to morph myself quite a lot, I think. Or, even if I didn't, I'd still be stuck being the odd man out, disagreeing with the direction/culture the bulk of the time, and/or the spoken and unspoken expectations placed upon me.
    I get this. Though of course if everyone thought this way, nothing would ever change.

    Quote Originally Posted by COLORATURA View Post
    My thoughts exactly. I would think an F wanting to keep conflict at a minimum, along with seeing employees on a more personal level would make it very uncomfortable for them. I would think T's wouldn't have as much of an issue with this.
    Keeping conflict to a minimum within an organisation is a desirable thing, I would suggest. Internal competition is rarely productive. Too often big egos get in the way of getting stuff done. Waaaay too often.

    Quote Originally Posted by highlander View Post
    I've heard this before - not just from Fs. I sometimes have a hard time understanding it. There is an ISTJ Enneagram 1 who worked for me. She's very talented. She has little motivation to progress though. Has idealistic views on what she wants to do. She won't work on a couple of key weaknesses that hold her back. I did what I could.
    You have very narrow ideas. Maybe she doesn't share your views? Maybe that's a good thing. Hard to get your mind around, eh?

    There will always be greed but it's more than that. It's the actual structure of the corporation and its status as a legal person. People run the things but they are slaves to profits and investor's expectations. It's the system they are a part of and investors want short term results.
    You say that like it's inevitable and no one's fault. That's a cop out. Why are corporations structured in this way? Because of greedy individuals. Institutions aren't accountable, people are.

    The guy in the office next to mine is an INTP and very successful. He's highly entrepreneurial, diplomatic, an excellent negotiator and he cares about people. There is another INTP that I helped to groom over a period of 13 years from the time she graduated from college. She is an exceptional performer, mentor and project leader. She is one of the strongest performers I have worked with in my career. She sits around the corner from me. Both have progressed quite well up the management chain. Would either end up running the company? No. It wouldn't be the best use of their talents and they wouldn't like it but they do just fine.
    You misunderstand. I didn't say INTPs can't manage. I said I see no reason why an ESFJ couldn't do it at least as well.
    Also, groomed for 13 yrs? THIRTEEN? Wtf? Either she's not very bright /independent or you are over-estimating your importance in her life. Given what I know of you, I suspect the latter.

    it's advocating the use of MBTI in leadership development.
    You didn't tell me anything I couldn't have derived from the title...

    You are wrong when you say it is not about talent and competence. It absolutely is.
    You're wrong when you say it's about talent and competence. It absolutely isn't. See how that works? Not a very persuasive argument.
    By saying that, you are saying Fs aren't as talented or competent as Ts.
    Is that really what you want to say? Because that just makes you a bigot. And bigots don't convince anyone of anything other than their bigotry.

    It is about results. I've been around long enough to see that people who get promoted are ones their superiors think will deliver results at the level to which they are promoted at.
    One word. Dilbert.

    Unethical behavior? Failure to appreciate diversity? Generally bad for business. Bad for the leaders of those businesses because it takes money out of their pockets. Ethical lapses can destroy companies and careers. Some go to jail. Look at what happened at Enron and Arthur Andersen.
    Are you trying to prove my point or argue against it? I can't tell.

    Over time, whatever contributes more to corporate profits is what will influence behaviors. It was disfunctional for women and minorities to be discriminated against in the workplace. Companies were limiting their talent pool. Bad for business. So it changed.
    Lol. No.
    I guess you missed the revolution. Your faith in capitalism is....something.

    Quote Originally Posted by Coriolis View Post
    Are T traits are more valued due to their association with masculinity, or are they associated with masculinity by men because they are seen to be valuable? We say and observe that women are more likely to display F preference and traits, but these are the traits that have been expected and encouraged in women and girls for generations. I wonder sometimes if the entire gender disparity on the T/F scale is "man-made".
    My honest feeling, is that it's a bit of both. I think the masculinisation of the brain (via androgens) creates changes that compromise the ability to empathise. I think those are adaptive in terms of creating a more competitive, aggressive (if short-lived) animal.
    I also think the effects are exaggerated by cultural mores that brutalise males (compared with females) and make them even more dysfunctional as a result.

    A broader question is whether every type needs to be proportionally represented in every career or occupation. As others have observed, not everyone (or every type) is interested in every job or career path.
    This is a pretty broad sweep of careers/industries. I don't buy that TJs are the only people who want to get ahead in their chosen occupation.
    Is it not OK for management to be disproportionately TJ, while art might be, say, disproportionately SP?
    No, it's not ok. It's not ok because the remuneration of management is generally far in excess of their contribution and ability as well as that of their subordinates.

    The tendency at least for NTJs is long range planning. Unfortunately, many organizations do not support this, or say they do but just undercut such plans in favor of short-term gains. This seems more SP to me, but I am sure that is an oversimplification and may not even be accurate.
    I'd say it was much more STJ. It's about targets, budgets, bottom lines and reporting cycles. It's about giving "the City" what it expects to see so as not to make waves in the market. It's a really fucked system. Built entirely on greed and speculation and rumour. No one understands real value anymore.

    And why shouldn't F's have to act like T's sometimes?
    Because balance is a good thing, and we already have way too many Ts in power?
    No one has any compunction about telling T's we have to act more like Fs to get ahead. Leadership and management seminars are full of this kind of advice.
    Because they recognise that management is about People, and Ts lose sight of that sometimes?

    Interestingly the worst supervisor I have had in recent years was also the only F, an ENFJ.
    The best manager I've ever had was INTP, but he really wasn't interested in managing people ( which was a big part of his appeal to a fellow INTP) and went back into a more challenging technical role. Most managers are nothing more than glorified paper-pushers; that's not going to satisfy an enquiring mind for long. The exceptional ones, are those who excel at understanding people and building productive teams and inspiring those teams with a shared vision of excellence. Those are F-y traits. You can't fake interest in people. I'd say all the managers at my last place of work were Ts (ESTP was considered the ideal). And they were shit. People saw through them. They couldn't get buy in from anyone because it was obvious that all they cared about was paying lip-service to company ideals, while stabbing people in the back to advance their own careers. It was a really shitty place to work. All the talent left. I don't give that company very long.

    We all have anecdotes, but I don't think there can be any foundation to justify Fs being passed over for management in favour of Ts on such a scale. It's discrimination, pure and simple.
    If it's unsurprising that Ts prefer to be managed by Ts, perhaps it's equally unsurprising that Fs prefer to be managed by Fs. And since Fs are the majority, we ought to have many more Fs running the show.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ivy View Post
    Gosh, the world looks so small from up here on my high horse of menstruation.

  2. #32
    Analytical Dreamer Coriolis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5w6 sp/sx
    Posts
    17,522

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Salomé View Post
    Yes, I considered this. But I also know a lot of Fs (esp EFJs) who really do like to be in charge, and a lot of Ts who don't. So I can't buy into this as a full explanation.
    Desire to do something does not always translate into success. Witness all the wannabe pop stars and pro athletes.

    Quote Originally Posted by Salomé View Post
    Keeping conflict to a minimum within an organisation is a desirable thing, I would suggest. Internal competition is rarely productive. Too often big egos get in the way of getting stuff done. Waaaay too often.
    Depends on the conflict. Internal competition and in-fighting might be bad, but a group of yes-"men" is just as counterproductive. When we conflict over how best to do something, working through that conflict rationally tends to improve the overall outcome.

    Quote Originally Posted by Salomé View Post
    By saying that, you are saying Fs aren't as talented or competent as Ts.
    Is that really what you want to say? Because that just makes you a bigot. And bigots don't convince anyone of anything other than their bigotry.
    Fs aren't as talented or competent as Ts at certain activities/tasks, and vice versa. That's not bigotry, just diversity. Expecting everyone to demonstrate the same range of talents, skills, and interests denies individuality, and even reality.

    Quote Originally Posted by Salomé View Post
    This is a pretty broad sweep of careers/industries. I don't buy that TJs are the only people who want to get ahead in their chosen occupation. No, it's not ok. It's not ok because the remuneration of management is generally far in excess of their contribution and ability as well as that of their subordinates.
    I am not saying that TJs aren't the only ones who want to get ahead in their chosen occupation; simply that the occupations TJs choose will tend to be different from those chosen by other types/temperaments. Even "getting ahead" will mean different things to different people.

    Quote Originally Posted by Salomé View Post
    Because balance is a good thing, and we already have way too many Ts in power?

    Because they recognise that management is about People, and Ts lose sight of that sometimes?
    Do we have too many SPs in sports/entertainment? They make far more and are often more influential than business leaders. In any case, management also involves logistics, budgets, and other objective matters, and Fs lose sight of that sometimes. Do not confuse balance in an individual (e.g. having at least some basic proficiency in your weakest areas) with balance in an organization (diversity of types/skills/approaches). We can encourage people in any field to broaden their skill set without insisting on type parity.

    Quote Originally Posted by Salomé View Post
    We all have anecdotes, but I don't think there can be any foundation to justify Fs being passed over for management in favour of Ts on such a scale. It's discrimination, pure and simple.
    So, do you prefer to be managed by Fs? To call the underrepresentation of Fs in management discrimination, you must show that the traits associated with T are no more effective on the job than those associated with F. This has not been established, and what evidence exists seems to support the contrary, with significant anecdotal exceptions. To go back to your OP, though, this does go far to explain the underrepresentation of women in management.
    Last edited by Coriolis; 01-03-2013 at 02:48 AM.
    I've been called a criminal, a terrorist, and a threat to the known universe. But everything you were told is a lie. The truth is, they've taken our freedom, our home, and our future. The time has come for all humanity to take a stand...

  3. #33
    Administrator highlander's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    6w5 sx/sp
    Socionics
    ILI Ni
    Posts
    17,889

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Salomé View Post
    Keeping conflict to a minimum within an organisation is a desirable thing, I would suggest. Internal competition is rarely productive. Too often big egos get in the way of getting stuff done. Waaaay too often.
    There is healthy and unhealthy internal competition. Competition must yield some kind of positive results because of how prevalent it is. Some is ok but too much IMO is destructive in the long term.

    Quote Originally Posted by Salomé View Post
    You have very narrow ideas. Maybe she doesn't share your views? Maybe that's a good thing. Hard to get your mind around, eh?
    The view is part of it. I see her limiting herself and causing herself undue strain and stress at the same time. It is not all good.

    Quote Originally Posted by Salomé View Post
    You misunderstand. I didn't say INTPs can't manage. I said I see no reason why an ESFJ couldn't do it at least as well.
    OK

    Quote Originally Posted by Salomé View Post
    Also, groomed for 13 yrs? THIRTEEN? Wtf? Either she's not very bright /independent or you are over-estimating your importance in her life. Given what I know of you, I suspect the latter.
    That's how long it takes to get to the level she's at so you don't know what you are talking about here. I have had a not insignificant hand in supporting and helping to position a lot of people for progression over the years. In her case, I was very invested in her career - helping to position her, promoting her, helping to get her in the right roles, advising her, helping her through tough periods, etc. Believe it or not, when you work with people day in and day out, you can begin to care about them. Am I overestimating? Maybe. There is a track record though. Mentors can make a big difference in your career. Maybe I'm just good at hiring good people. Who knows. There is a guy last year who stood up in front of 50 people and said a lot of nice things relative to this when he achieved his career goal. I must be doing something right.

    Quote Originally Posted by Salomé View Post
    You didn't tell me anything I couldn't have derived from the title...
    I know. That's the answer to your question though. It's not so much advocating stuff but more informative - a compilation of research.

    Quote Originally Posted by Salomé View Post
    You're wrong when you say it's about talent and competence. It absolutely isn't. See how that works? Not a very persuasive argument.
    By saying that, you are saying Fs aren't as talented or competent as Ts.
    Is that really what you want to say? Because that just makes you a bigot. And bigots don't convince anyone of anything other than their bigotry.

    One word. Dilbert.
    I will say that the Peter Principle is true to an extent. There is also luck. There are always exceptions. But no, I am not wrong. Your lack of practical insight leads me to believe that you may not have a great deal of knowledge or experience in this area. On the rest - Fs vs Ts - Preposterous. Stop putting words in my mouth. Read my post more carefully because it is clear you either don't understand what I'm saying or you are twisting and distorting my words in an attempt to prove yourself right.

    Quote Originally Posted by Salomé View Post
    Are you trying to prove my point or argue against it? I can't tell.

    Lol. No.
    I guess you missed the revolution. Your faith in capitalism is....something.
    I'm stating my opinion. I'm not saying Capitalism is good or bad. Corporations will do whatever it takes to make money. It's their sole purpose. Think about it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Salomé View Post
    I'd say it was much more STJ. It's about targets, budgets, bottom lines and reporting cycles.
    Yes exactly.

    Quote Originally Posted by Salomé View Post
    It's about giving "the City" what it expects to see so as not to make waves in the market. It's a really fucked system. Built entirely on greed and speculation and rumour. No one understands real value anymore.
    I agree with you in spirit. However, absolute statements ("No one") are almost guaranteed to be wrong. Warren Buffet is someone who probably does understand something about value.

    Quote Originally Posted by Salomé View Post
    Most managers are nothing more than glorified paper-pushers; that's not going to satisfy an enquiring mind for long.
    I have felt like that about several managers earlier in my career. Is it most? No. It usually seemed to be first line managers who have been somewhere a long time and ultimately got promoted. At higher levels - you can generally bet they got where they are for a reason.

    Quote Originally Posted by Salomé View Post
    The exceptional ones, are those who excel at understanding people and building productive teams and inspiring those teams with a shared vision of excellence. Those are F-y traits. You can't fake interest in people.
    First sentence is right. People can and do fake interest however. Some see through it. Many unfortunately do not.

    Quote Originally Posted by Salomé View Post
    We all have anecdotes, but I don't think there can be any foundation to justify Fs being passed over for management in favour of Ts on such a scale. It's discrimination, pure and simple.
    If it's unsurprising that Ts prefer to be managed by Ts, perhaps it's equally unsurprising that Fs prefer to be managed by Fs. And since Fs are the majority, we ought to have many more Fs running the show.
    I agree there should be more Fs in management/leadership roles in the workplace. Do T's prefer to be managed by Ts and Fs by Fs? Hmm - I don't know. I have never worked for an F. Isn't that interesting?

    Please provide feedback on my Nohari and Johari Window by clicking here: Nohari/Johari

    Tri-type 639

  4. #34
    Wake, See, Sing, Dance Cellmold's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    5,806

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Salomé View Post
    And since Fs are the majority, we ought to have many more Fs running the show.
    Are they? I didn't know that.

    All the statistics i've seen point towards a 50/50 split between T and F in most populations. But i'm fine with being shown evidence to the contrary.

    Certainly id say F's are perhaps more vocal than T's on average and modern societies, especially in the west, are usually geared towards F values, which of course makes sense; as anything involving people socially is going to involve F in some way.

    Actually scratch that, I don't give MBTI statistics any merit anyway, on the wonderfully illogical basis that no one, (besides the individual in question), can really be sure that the type someone claims to be is correct.

    ps: I always find it amusing that we call it the west; yes I know it's west from OUR various positions, but I still laugh at the idea that we find ourselves locating west on a sphere.
    'One of (Lucas) Cranach's masterpieces, discussed by (Joseph) Koerner, is in it's self-referentiality the perfect expression of left-hemisphere emptiness and a precursor of post-modernism. There is no longer anything to point to beyond, nothing Other, so it points pointlessly to itself.' - Iain McGilChrist

    Suppose a tree fell down, Pooh, when we were underneath it?"
    "Suppose it didn't," said Pooh, after careful thought.
    Piglet was comforted by this.
    - A.A. Milne.

  5. #35
    Senior Member the state i am in's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    MBTI
    infj
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx/sp
    Posts
    2,460

    Default

    well, when we run our business organizations as machines rather than as communities, T will always win. replaceable cogs rather than sincere development of selves. we all become tools for something that is simply not human, and we allow ourselves to make each other the tools we use to leverage our own positions in the machine.

    T is only checked by F binding together through such strong social bonds that it can withstand the sharpness that would threaten to sever it.

  6. #36
    meh Salomé's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx/sp
    Posts
    10,540

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AffirmitiveAnxiety View Post
    Are they? I didn't know that.
    54 vs 46%. It's not a massive majority, but it is a majority, nonetheless.

    ps: I always find it amusing that we call it the west; yes I know it's west from OUR various positions, but I still laugh at the idea that we find ourselves locating west on a sphere.
    It's not really west of "our" position ... I have a theory about this, but it's not worth mentioning because some wanker will turn it into an argument.

    Quote Originally Posted by highlander View Post
    I must be doing something right.
    Thanks for the demo of the nauseating self-promotion of TJs.

    Your lack of practical insight leads me to believe that you may not have a great deal of knowledge or experience in this area.
    ..and the demo of disregarding anyone who disagrees with you as ignorant. I don't know how you think this will benefit you.
    If you have spent 13 yrs in the same company, I have a great deal more "practical insight" than you do. Note that I (very practically ) base my judgment on the facts, rather than prejudice (as you do).

    On the rest - Fs vs Ts - Preposterous. Stop putting words in my mouth. Read my post more carefully because it is clear you either don't understand what I'm saying or you are twisting and distorting my words in an attempt to prove yourself right.
    Not a bit of it. It's clear you don't understand the implications of your own argument. I've noticed you struggle with logic and sometimes need the obvious spelled out to you, so here ya go:-
    For there to be twice as many Ts in management as one would expect by chance, there is a bias towards Ts. Either this bias is a result of the innate superior ability of Ts (which appears to be your argument) or else it's discrimination. There are no other options.

    I have never worked for an F. Isn't that interesting?
    Not really. It's predictable, (much like your arguments) and therefore, the opposite of interesting.

    Quote Originally Posted by Coriolis View Post
    Fs aren't as talented or competent as Ts at certain activities/tasks, and vice versa. That's not bigotry, just diversity.
    I'm sorry, I must have missed that research, perhaps you can point it out to me? If you can't, guess what? It's bigotry.

    Do we have too many SPs in sports/entertainment?
    Not a fair comparison. Sports/entertainment is meritocratic. Senior management often is not. If you doubt this, you only have to look at the huge golden handshakes with which they are rewarded for failure.
    I think you could argue that TJs are better at negotiating on their own behalf than other types, but that doesnt make them better managers, it just makes them selfish assholes. Should we reward people for being selfish assholes? I don't see why we should.

    So, do you prefer to be managed by Fs? To call the underrepresentation of Fs in management discrimination, you must show that the traits associated with T are no more effective on the job than those associated with F.
    I prefer not to be managed, which is why I work for myself.
    You are wrong. I don't have to show T is no more effective (although I'm sure this is possible), you have to show that it IS more effective, to prove that no discrimination exists.
    I'm surprised I have to tell you this.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ivy View Post
    Gosh, the world looks so small from up here on my high horse of menstruation.

  7. #37
    resonance entropie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    MBTI
    entp
    Enneagram
    783
    Posts
    16,761

    Default

    ENTPs are managers ? Now I know why the US is in a recession !
    [URL]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tEBvftJUwDw&t=0s[/URL]

  8. #38
    Administrator highlander's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    6w5 sx/sp
    Socionics
    ILI Ni
    Posts
    17,889

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Salomé View Post
    If you have spent 13 yrs in the same company, I have a great deal more "practical insight" than you do.
    The 13 years were across two different companies. She followed me. In either case, that metric that you appear to be using - how many companies either one of us may have worked for - is irrelevant.

    Quote Originally Posted by Salomé View Post
    Note that I (very practically ) base my judgment on the facts, rather than prejudice (as you do).
    Surely you jest.

    Quote Originally Posted by Salomé View Post
    For there to be twice as many Ts in management as one would expect by chance, there is a bias towards Ts. Either this bias is a result of the innate superior ability of Ts (which appears to be your argument) or else it's discrimination. There are no other options.
    Let's look at the two options you laid out.

    Discrimination. "Discrimination is the prejudicial or distinguishing treatment of an individual based on their actual or perceived membership in a certain group or category, such as their race, gender, sexual orientation, ethnicity, national origin, or religion. It involves the group's initial reaction or interaction, influencing the individual's actual behavior towards the group or the group leader, restricting members of one group from opportunities or privileges that are available to another group, leading to the exclusion of the individual or entities based on logical or irrational decision making."

    This definition implies there is an external force, outside of one's control that is impeding their advancement. The Fs are "oppressed" in a manner of speaking.

    Innate superior ability. Ability is not performance. Those are two very different things. To use that as one of two options leading to this bias is inherently flawed. Also, cognitive function preferences are not the same as strengths. They are simply preferences.

    I can see a number of factors that could be at play - ambition, motivation, hours spent working, what type of work one prefers to do. Those factors imply a personal choice or preference . It is not a factor outside of one's control.

    Let's compare an ISFP to an ESTJ. Which one would on average be more motivated to progress in management? Most would say the ESTJ would be more likely to want to do that. On average, they are more likely to want to be running things. The ISFP on average would rather not be running things. Odds are they would more likely be in a service oriented job rather than directing people and managing to deadlines. That's not discrimination. It's not necessarily superior ability. It's personal preference.

    Quote Originally Posted by Salomé View Post
    Not a fair comparison. Sports/entertainment is meritocratic. Senior management often is not. If you doubt this, you only have to look at the huge golden handshakes with which they are rewarded for failure.
    You speak of two different things as if they're the same. The level someone rises to in management is not the same as what that person is compensated. Compensation is used to attract and retain high performers. Does it get out of whack at the executive levels? I think it does. It makes no more sense to me than the outrageous salaries some professional athletes are paid. A great deal of individual wealth is created from investment activity such as IPOs. That seems unfair too. Those things all happen because someone is looking to make money - the one paying them directly or indirectly. It doesn't necessarily mean the person on the receiving end is a selfish asshole as you describe it for accepting what they are being offered or negotiating the best deal they can for themselves.

    Please provide feedback on my Nohari and Johari Window by clicking here: Nohari/Johari

    Tri-type 639

  9. #39
    pathwise dependent FDG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Enneagram
    7w8
    Socionics
    ENTj
    Posts
    5,908

    Default

    Whatever their "true" underlying type is, managers will represent themselves as thinking type because that's the "role" they are playing for the vast majority of their time. It's not so easy to "trust" these self-reporting statistics. I would however trust a similar study which was either done during college (and showed that people who later became managers are majorly prediagnosed as T), or after some years of retirement. I do agree though that corporate culture is too cut-troath and tends to encourage psychopathy rather than performance.
    ENTj 7-3-8 sx/sp

  10. #40
    Senior Member burymecloser's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    6w5
    Posts
    514

    Default

    This might help explain why so many people hate their bosses. Maybe if we got some Feelers into management positions those relationships would be a little smoother.

    I also wonder, though, if some F's don't intentionally stay away from authority positions where they'd have to discipline/fire/etc. their co-workers.

Similar Threads

  1. I think an almost universally typed INTJ is actually ISTJ
    By Jet Stream in forum Popular Culture and Type
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: 08-14-2015, 07:05 PM
  2. [ENTJ] ENTJ women - Is there something I should know ?
    By FireLion in forum The NT Rationale (ENTP, INTP, ENTJ, INTJ)
    Replies: 27
    Last Post: 06-16-2011, 08:55 PM
  3. What type is actually suited to physics research?
    By BlueScreen in forum Academics and Careers
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: 11-11-2009, 11:03 PM
  4. why nobody is actually borderline P/J
    By simulatedworld in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 90
    Last Post: 11-03-2009, 05:56 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