User Tag List

First 678910 Last

Results 71 to 80 of 112

  1. #71
    Revelation Lauren Ashley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    4 sx/sp
    Socionics
    EII
    Posts
    3,067

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by purplesunset View Post
    I hate to feel like I'm taking over thread, but...

    I think it must apply to both. Both the "positive" and the negative emotions. That was something I brought up on page 5. Too intense a passion for someone else could make you give them grievous pain. Too intense a joy just gives you that much more sting as John Keats so aptly put it:


    Ah! would 'twere so with many
    A gentle girl and boy!
    But were there ever any
    Writhed not at passèd joy?

    To know the change and feel it,
    When there is [/i]none to heal it[i]
    Nor numbèd sense to steal it—
    Was never said in rhyme.
    Oh, you've won my heart by posting that. I love Keats. But I don't take the stance that feeling intensely is negative or something that needs to be changed, improved, or made to be useful. I think feeling in itself is quite useful, and reflecting on my emotions, especially the negative emotions, has always helped me to understand myself and my motivations that much better.

  2. #72
    Feelin' FiNe speculative's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    MBTI
    INFP
    Enneagram
    4w5
    Socionics
    LoL
    Posts
    929

    Default

    Has there been a thread against thinking too intensely? If so, I'd be interested to read it and perhaps post a thought or two in the thread. If not, it seems like this has perhaps turned into another T vs. F thread, albeit one with a shiny lacquer.

    I think that's why you find F people dogpiling on in a thread like this; it seems like F being under attack is the default position...
    "How can I be, all I want to be,
    When all I want to do is strip away these stilled constraints
    And crush this charade, shred this sad, masquerade"
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qGeq5v7L3WM

  3. #73
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Enneagram
    4w5
    Posts
    113

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by speculative View Post
    Has there been a thread against thinking too intensely? If so, I'd be interested to read it and perhaps post a thought or two in the thread. If not, it seems like this has perhaps turned into another T vs. F thread, albeit one with a shiny lacquer.

    I think that's why you find F people dogpiling on in a thread like this; it seems like F being under attack is the default position...
    Except that I myself am most likely an F, and I feel things intensely enough to rival any F.

    The original post had wanted to explore if there is some kind of silver lining, or usefulness (practical or otherwise) to feeling things intensely. She answered her own question which pointed to empathy. I personally saw the self-serving roots in such a form of "empathy." I point the finger at myself as much as at anyone else. Others, like proteanmix point out potential pitfalls in feeling things so intensely, and gave us alternate ways of looking at it. Those are hardly attacks against feeling.

    Since relationships are one common catalyst for these kinds of intense feeling, it is worthwhile to really examine them. We claim that we have no control over them. "I cant help feeling this way!"

    But I see one way to "help" it. Viz: Destroying the ego.

    How many women are more in love with being in love than they are with the other person? "I feel so much inside for him!" "My heart palpitates at the thought of him." Perhaps, but obviously not enough to spare him the stake through his heart.


    Going back to the benefit of empathy that the original post referred to. Let's see how the ego can play a role in that form of empathy. "I want to help people because this will give me intense happiness." Why is your happiness so important? What if the thrill of helping goes away, and you personally start feel nothing after helping others. Although the other person would still be grateful for your help, will you stop because it no longer offers you the thrill inside?


    Destroying the ego need not lead to low self esteem, and it need not turn one into an unfeeling robot. No, humans can never experience the "happy insensibility" of trees (barring psychosis).

    When we start destroying the ego, and stop giving undue weight to those intense feelings, we will go through some terrible, terrible growing pains as the ego is slowly destroyed. But ultimately it will lead to a more selfless form of happiness. A more selfless form of empathy. A more selfless form of love.

    Having found a way to help deal with these powerful feelings, the only problem I myself still haven't fully worked out is where to draw the line between selfishness and self-preservation. For now, I believe that it is self-preservation solely within the context of life and death situations. In any other context, we must be wary of the ego, especially within the context of "intense feelings."
    The purple sun won't heal my purple bruises :ouch:

  4. #74
    Uniqueorn William K's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    MBTI
    INFP
    Enneagram
    4w5
    Posts
    986

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by purplesunset View Post
    The original post had wanted to explore if there is some kind of silver lining, or usefulness (practical or otherwise) to feeling things intensely. She answered her own question which pointed to empathy. I personally saw the self-serving roots in such a form of "empathy." I point the finger at myself as much as at anyone else. Others, like proteanmix point out potential pitfalls in feeling things so intensely, and gave us alternate ways of looking at it. Those are hardly attacks against feeling.
    Agreed. I may not agree with all you are saying, but I can see some of the viewpoints presented. I don't know if there is some form of negative vibe coming from this thread, but I don't see why we can't discuss the merits (if there are any) of being over-emotional without being over-emotional in the discussion... If that makes any sense
    4w5, Fi>Ne>Ti>Si>Ni>Fe>Te>Se, sp > so > sx

    appreciates being appreciated, conflicted over conflicts, afraid of being afraid, bad at being bad, predictably unpredictable, consistently inconsistent, remarkably unremarkable...

    I may not agree with what you are feeling, but I will defend to death your right to have a good cry over it

    The whole problem with the world is that fools & fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts. ~ Bertrand Russell

  5. #75
    Aspiring Troens Ridder KLessard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    1w2
    Posts
    595

    Default

    Purplesunset, I wanted to point out something to you regarding empathy being selfish or whatever your perception of it was.

    The reason I mentioned that being empathetic and listening to a friend made me happy was certainly not a hedonist's or egotist's point of view. Believe me, I am not a pleasure-seeking person. I said this in this light: that there is more joy in giving than receiving, and that we are the happiest when we forget ourselves to focus on others' needs and when we are doing what we have been created to do (In the INFJ's case, being a Counselor and listening to a friend in need).
    In this light, empathy is a generous and selfless thing, and having suffered emotionally enables you to be sensitive to your neighbour's pain.

    Thinking evil hidden in everything is a dangerous trap, and one I have fallen into too many times.

  6. #76
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Posts
    136

    Default

    Where I used to work, there were several emotional nutcases that the staff really dreaded having to deal with because these people always seemed to take up so much time. For whatever reason, I became the one to deal with them, partly because it took some burden off of other people, but I also got a certain amount of pleasure out of talking to them that I didn't from what you might term "normal" people. I began to wonder what was so weird about me that I liked talking to these people (up to a point) and when I thought it through, it occurred to me that because they felt things so strongly and had suffered quite a bit sometimes, they were much more interesting, much more human, essentially, than people who walked a straight and narrow path and lacked the courage, or never had much courage required of them, to venture into the uncharted emotional territory that really makes us human. It's very telling what some people who have a reputation for compassion or who are trained professionally to be compassionate will do to push a person who is truly suffering back on the "normal" path -- when what may actually be needed is stronger affirmation of the very human experience of emotions. Feeling things strongly may help you to reach out to other people in whom the need is unmet, as long as it doesn't become some sort of vicarious titillation. I remember a woman of my acquaintance whose grandson killed his brother and two friends (who were also brothers) in a car accident the day he got his driver's license. She brought her bereaved granddaughter to visit and my ENFP daughter spent a lot of time with her and told me (to my horror) after they left that they spent all their time talking about ghosts and cemetaries--my daughter has always had what I thought was an unhealthy fixation on the supernatural. Later the woman told me how beneficial the visit with my daughter had been for her granddaughter -- I don't think the woman was aware of the actual content of their discussion, and if she had been, she probably would have been as horrified as I was -- but I think my daughter helped the girl reconcile some of her feelings about her lost brother in a way that she hadn't been able to before because no one but my naive and weirdly obsessed ENFP child was willing to walk that path with her.

  7. #77
    Permabanned
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    xkcd
    Enneagram
    9w1 sx/sp
    Socionics
    INT_
    Posts
    10,733

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by speculative View Post
    Has there been a thread against thinking too intensely? If so, I'd be interested to read it and perhaps post a thought or two in the thread. If not, it seems like this has perhaps turned into another T vs. F thread, albeit one with a shiny lacquer.

    I think that's why you find F people dogpiling on in a thread like this; it seems like F being under attack is the default position...
    I don't know if there is one thread, but I know INTPs have for years complained about their "paralysis-by-analysis" and problems caused by overthinking.

    I think proteanmix said it best:

    Quote Originally Posted by proteanmix View Post
    In my perception, I find there is an overvaluing of being emotional in threads like these. The more extreme the emotional reaction, the more eviscerating it is, the more real it is. There's very little advocacy to attempt moderation or regulation. If you're oversensitive, then that's beautiful. And then there's the pile on.
    Whereas overthinking is not really valued among the Ts.

  8. #78
    Plumage and Moult proteanmix's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Enneagram
    1w2
    Posts
    5,514

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lily Bart View Post
    Where I used to work, there were several emotional nutcases that the staff really dreaded having to deal with because these people always seemed to take up so much time. For whatever reason, I became the one to deal with them, partly because it took some burden off of other people, but I also got a certain amount of pleasure out of talking to them that I didn't from what you might term "normal" people. I began to wonder what was so weird about me that I liked talking to these people (up to a point) and when I thought it through, it occurred to me that because they felt things so strongly and had suffered quite a bit sometimes, they were much more interesting, much more human, essentially, than people who walked a straight and narrow path and lacked the courage, or never had much courage required of them, to venture into the uncharted emotional territory that really makes us human. It's very telling what some people who have a reputation for compassion or who are trained professionally to be compassionate will do to push a person who is truly suffering back on the "normal" path -- when what may actually be needed is stronger affirmation of the very human experience of emotions. Feeling things strongly may help you to reach out to other people in whom the need is unmet, as long as it doesn't become some sort of vicarious titillation. I remember a woman of my acquaintance whose grandson killed his brother and two friends (who were also brothers) in a car accident the day he got his driver's license. She brought her bereaved granddaughter to visit and my ENFP daughter spent a lot of time with her and told me (to my horror) after they left that they spent all their time talking about ghosts and cemetaries--my daughter has always had what I thought was an unhealthy fixation on the supernatural. Later the woman told me how beneficial the visit with my daughter had been for her granddaughter -- I don't think the woman was aware of the actual content of their discussion, and if she had been, she probably would have been as horrified as I was -- but I think my daughter helped the girl reconcile some of her feelings about her lost brother in a way that she hadn't been able to before because no one but my naive and weirdly obsessed ENFP child was willing to walk that path with her.
    Lily, this is a very interesting post.

    I work in a similar situation, there is one person who is especially difficult but the person's knowledge and skillset of our particular department is so valuable that leadership tends to let them do whatever they want.

    I agree with you to a certain extent and I'm happy you highlighted this, but I disagree with how you categorize the "difficult" people as being more human and in greater need of affirmation. I think that you are valorizing these difficult people to some extent. I do not view people who throw adult tantrums and basically create a toxic environment in the workplace as having more courage required of them.

    It often requires as much strength to remain positive and upbeat and not be a negative energy drain on those around you, while everything else in your life is crumbling around your feet than it does to give vent to emotions in a nonproductive way. Venting their emotions like that at work is poisonous. They were basically making everyone else's life a living hell. This seems to me to be a case of the squeaky wheel getting the grease.

    Also, just because someone doesn't obviously show signs and symptoms of emotional trauma, doesn't mean emotional trauma is absent. To say that your other coworkers seeming "normality" means that they've had less required of them is difficult to ascertain. I do agree with you though partially. I think you can tell the people who have had to deal with life at it's worse in how they respond to things. For example, I couldn't tell if that person I mentioned earlier who is over 60 was serious when she said she didn't know what chemotherapy was. I thought to myself, "How can you not know what chemo is, especially at your age? Have you never had a loved one battle cancer?" Upon further inquiry I found out this was in fact the case. That let me know this person has very little personal framework available for knowing what it's like to have a loved one deal with cancer and there's not a lot of associations already mapped out in their brain and aside from basically knowing that Cancer Is Bad, there's not much else going on. Compare this to a person who does know and can empathize with you on a level that you know they're not just spouting empty platitudes. I've got more real life examples of how this lack of knowing plays out, but I won't go into it here.

    I think I'd be regarded as one of your 'normal' coworkers, because I'm very much about not leaking at work. That doesn't mean I don't leak our of pure frustration, it just means I self-monitor very greatly. Since I lack humility (), I was just commended by another director in my division of how I've comported myself over the last year and remained professional even though I've had a lot going on personally. I've also had to wrestle within myself over the last year about how much sympathy/empathy/flexiblity can I realistically expect from my job about accommodating personal circumstances.

    A couple of my coworkers have a steady track record of coming back from lunch drunk, will tell you every antidepressant they're taking, have yelled at and belittled (one has even plunked another person on the forehead!) their subordinates and colleagues and been all around treacherous. These are the type of people you find more psychologically interesting? I can see their allure, but I'm not sure...
    Relationships have normal ebbs and flows. They do not automatically get better and better when the participants learn more and more about each other. Instead, the participants have to work through the tensions of the relationship (the dialectic) while they learn and group themselves and a parties in a relationships. At times the relationships is very open and sharing. Other time, one or both parties to the relationship need their space, or have other concerns, and the relationship is less open. The theory posits that these cycles occur throughout the life of the relationship as the persons try to balance their needs for privacy and open relationship.
    Interpersonal Communication Theories and Concepts
    Social Penetration Theory 1
    Social Penetration Theory 2
    Social Penetration Theory 3

  9. #79
    Allergic to Mornings ergophobe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    MBTI
    ENFP
    Enneagram
    7w6
    Socionics
    ENFP
    Posts
    1,210

    Default

    Great question. I think the answer is related to how much agency we think we have in controlling how we feel, what events/circumstances we devote intense emotions to and how much we can control them, as Proteanmix said.

    Quote Originally Posted by William K View Post
    It's kind of like going to the gym and torturing yourself to build your muscles, except here the muscle is your F.
    I like this analogy. I think some of the answer lies here. I also think of the ability to feel (I don't think feelers have a monopoly over this, of course) as a muscle. The better developed it is, over time, the more discerning we are of when to allow ourselves to feel things deeply and when we can let things go or step back because a deeply emotional reaction would be less useful.

    Quote Originally Posted by proteanmix View Post
    Of course there's something positive to have strong emotional reactions at times. That's human. But people sound like they live is a state of constant emotional reactivity. I don't believe that's a defining feature of being NF nor should people pass it off as one.
    I agree.

    In my perception, I find there is an overvaluing of being emotional in threads like these. The more extreme the emotional reaction, the more eviscerating it is, the more real it is. There's very little advocacy to attempt moderation or regulation. If you're oversensitive, then that's beautiful. And then there's the pile on.

    I think this makes you a slave to your own emotions. You're at their whim and mercy. That's not emotional processing. Is this empathy or is this empathy without discernment, without context, or without proportion? So yes this a contribution to the question of why NFs supposedly "need to feel upset so easily." I say they don't! It's not a prerequisite to being an NF as people are trying to pass it off as.
    I see what you're saying but there seem to be a variety of experiences reflected here. Without knowing what these circumstances were that led to the emotions people are sharing, it's hard to assign value (less, balanced, more depend on the situation). I agree about moderation as a goal or some sort of modulator for feeling. It's important, without that, we seem to be constantly reacting without processing. I'm not sure that's useful for anyone, the feeler in particular.

    The periods described here when everything is felt intensely describe a process without much control or modulation but perhaps not just over feeling but life more generally (I extrapolate from my own experience). Periods of high stress/weak physical health/overwhelming life circumstances....these are periods where everything seems to be felt intensely and we lose our ability to discern where emotional investment is wise and where it may be wasted.

    However there are circumstances where I would argue modulation is not appropriate and may be counterproductive. Allowing oneself the ability to feel intensely may be a form of processing or at least necessary before one can detach and go through the process of healing. Loss of a loved one through death or separation is one such circumstance where trying to modulate the emotional reaction could be counterproductive. Modulation in this circumstance, for me, especially as an Enneagram 7 has meant burying the feelings and trucking on. As I get older, I don't find that useful because eventually those feelings catch you unaware and in a worse position to handle them. I'd rather deal with them in the circumstance where they were appropriate. I also find, however, that I am much better equipped to decide where the events/circumstances are not worthy of this investment and are best let go.

    How you handle this in a work environment has more to do with professionalism than your ability to feel things intensely, in my opinion. It's a different question. We all have the ability to separate professional from personal even if some of us choose not to do so.

    Quote Originally Posted by purplesunset View Post
    To clarify, though, I wasn't trying to imply that I'm biased against women, I meant that the scenario I illustrated above was over-simplifying the issue to be biased towards the cold, calculating guy.
    Actually I don't see a bias here against cold, calculating men or women. The gender bias in your statements, however is not implied, it is clearly present.

    The point you make is a valid one - feeling things intensely could be related to being selfish. Selfishness, however is not a trait exclusive to NFs or women. This could be the case for anyone who is blinded by their own emotions with no emotional space to "feel" for anyone else. There are periods in our lives where this is understandable but feeling this way all the time and particularly under the guise of empathy is a false indicator of empathy and more an indicator of a feeling junkie who gets off (mind my language) on any feelings, theirs or others.

    One thing I have been doing a lot lately is getting to the heart of an issue. I want to take any issue and honestly examine it. Sometimes, in order to get in to the heart, it takes jumping out and watching it from an alternative viewpoint.

    I hope my post caused a few people here to jump out and view a comfortably accepted position (e.g. the belief that empathy always stems from altruistic foundations) from an alternative viewpoint.
    There is no issue with this - I commend your effort. I would commend it more if you could do the same to try and understand why you keep using the example of selfish women to illustrate your points. What is at the heart of this issue?

    Quote Originally Posted by ajblaise View Post
    I think purplesunset was admitting to being bitter, rather than biased.
    Ajblaise offers some clues to help answer the question.



    Quote Originally Posted by purplesunset View Post
    Since relationships are one common catalyst for these kinds of intense feeling, it is worthwhile to really examine them. We claim that we have no control over them. "I cant help feeling this way!"

    But I see one way to "help" it. Viz: Destroying the ego.

    How many women are more in love with being in love than they are with the other person? "I feel so much inside for him!" "My heart palpitates at the thought of him." Perhaps, but obviously not enough to spare him the stake through his heart.
    What makes you think this emotional blindness is particular to women? there is no perfect 100% altruism. We're all human. We feel the most empathy for people we love because we are invested in them. Hence we feel angry/upset/sad on behalf of someone we love precisely because we love them. It's natural. This does not equal 100% selfishness either. At the other end of this spectrum, being emotionally blinded leads to men and women giving up on their own needs to fulfill the perceived needs of the partner.

    Going back to the benefit of empathy that the original post referred to. Let's see how the ego can play a role in that form of empathy. "I want to help people because this will give me intense happiness." Why is your happiness so important? What if the thrill of helping goes away, and you personally start feel nothing after helping others. Although the other person would still be grateful for your help, will you stop because it no longer offers you the thrill inside?

    Destroying the ego need not lead to low self esteem, and it need not turn one into an unfeeling robot. No, humans can never experience the "happy insensibility" of trees (barring psychosis).

    Having found a way to help deal with these powerful feelings, the only problem I myself still haven't fully worked out is where to draw the line between selfishness and self-preservation. For now, I believe that it is self-preservation solely within the context of life and death situations. In any other context, we must be wary of the ego, especially within the context of "intense feelings."
    There is confusion here, it seems between the value of stepping back and being able to examine what kind of help would be useful to the person in need versus what kind of help would give the provider satisfaction. That's very fair and could be easily confused when the provider gets carried away with emotions in this context. Destroying the ego, however, seems too unnecessary and not very useful. Why should we change our motivations? What's wrong with attaching value to providing help? What's wrong with deriving happiness from it? The idea that deriving satisfaction from this process and actually being of help are necessarily contradictory seems false. The idea of killing ego for 100% altruism seems unrealistic because the idea of 100% altruism is unrealistic and not human. We are motivated by a complex set of concerns - part altruism and part selfishness seems like a safe, human mix for the self-preservation/help balance.

  10. #80
    Plumage and Moult proteanmix's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Enneagram
    1w2
    Posts
    5,514

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ergophobe View Post
    Great question. I think the answer is related to how much agency we think we have in controlling how we feel, what events/circumstances we devote intense emotions to and how much we can control them, as Proteanmix said.
    I think part of my reaction to this is I'm a high agency person. Good concept to throw into the mix!

    Quote Originally Posted by ergophobe View Post
    I see what you're saying but there seem to be a variety of experiences reflected here. Without knowing what these circumstances were that led to the emotions people are sharing, it's hard to assign value (less, balanced, more depend on the situation). I agree about moderation as a goal or some sort of modulator for feeling. It's important, without that, we seem to be constantly reacting without processing. I'm not sure that's useful for anyone, the feeler in particular.

    The periods described here when everything is felt intensely describe a process without much control or modulation but perhaps not just over feeling but life more generally (I extrapolate from my own experience). Periods of high stress/weak physical health/overwhelming life circumstances....these are periods where everything seems to be felt intensely and we lose our ability to discern where emotional investment is wise and where it may be wasted.
    I agree. I can only speak from my perspective...when those periods occur for me, I have checks and balances (basically people) around me saying, 'hey you're acting out, you're tearing things apart. You're doing more harm than good. Check yourself.' If lost the ability to self-regulate and this is my reboot. As far as the OP is concerned, I wonder is if these checks and balances are being given in the form of 'you're being too sensitive, taking things too personally.' Maybe not everyone has people around them to say that, or for whatever reasons those sources are unreliable. I suppose if it becomes a pattern of this being said, then at when/if/should a person take heed?

    Quote Originally Posted by ergophobe View Post
    However there are circumstances where I would argue modulation is not appropriate and may be counterproductive. Allowing oneself the ability to feel intensely may be a form of processing or at least necessary before one can detach and go through the process of healing. Loss of a loved one through death or separation is one such circumstance where trying to modulate the emotional reaction could be counterproductive. Modulation in this circumstance, for me, especially as an Enneagram 7 has meant burying the feelings and trucking on. As I get older, I don't find that useful because eventually those feelings catch you unaware and in a worse position to handle them. I'd rather deal with them in the circumstance where they were appropriate. I also find, however, that I am much better equipped to decide where the events/circumstances are not worthy of this investment and are best let go.
    Agreed, I hope I didn't come across as saying the opposite. That's what I was getting at when I asked the appropriateness of time and place. As the thread progressed, I realized that context to these situations was highly variable.
    How you handle this in a work environment has more to do with professionalism than your ability to feel things intensely, in my opinion. It's a different question. We all have the ability to separate professional from personal even if some of us choose not to do so.
    I think that a predisposition to experience emotions intensely (without modulation and context) strongly contributes to how people react to situations ranging from minor annoyances to serious setbacks. People don't turn on and off when they step inside of the workplace. When I think about the fact that I spend 40 hours of my week with the same group of people, I have to make myself remember I'm at work. Some people don't actively try to sift and sort like that. Not when people begin to think that no one cares about the work they do (especially when work becomes a component of their identity), feel unsupported, overworked and overwhelmed, and fearful of the security of their job. This has become especially apparent during this financial disaster.

    Great post, thanks for adding your perspective.
    Relationships have normal ebbs and flows. They do not automatically get better and better when the participants learn more and more about each other. Instead, the participants have to work through the tensions of the relationship (the dialectic) while they learn and group themselves and a parties in a relationships. At times the relationships is very open and sharing. Other time, one or both parties to the relationship need their space, or have other concerns, and the relationship is less open. The theory posits that these cycles occur throughout the life of the relationship as the persons try to balance their needs for privacy and open relationship.
    Interpersonal Communication Theories and Concepts
    Social Penetration Theory 1
    Social Penetration Theory 2
    Social Penetration Theory 3

Similar Threads

  1. What is the point of Feeling?
    By Cellmold in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 80
    Last Post: 02-16-2013, 12:51 PM
  2. What is the point of literary analysis?
    By Haphazard in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 08-29-2009, 09:17 AM
  3. What is the point of the 16-Types?
    By ygolo in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 09-09-2008, 03:54 PM
  4. What is the point of the MBTI?
    By Dufresne in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 05-31-2007, 04:37 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