User Tag List

First 50909899100101102110 Last

Results 991 to 1,000 of 1370

  1. #991
    mod love baby... Lady_X's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    MBTI
    ENFP
    Enneagram
    9w1 sx/so
    Posts
    18,086

    Default

    i don't know any intjs but i saw this while looking at something else and thought it was kinda cuteish so i'm sharing.
    Dating and Your Myers-Briggs Personality Type - Associated Content - associatedcontent.com
    There can’t be any large-scale revolution until there’s a personal revolution, on an individual level. It’s got to happen inside first.
    -Jim Morrison

  2. #992
    `~~Philosoflying~~` SillySapienne's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    MBTI
    ENFP
    Enneagram
    4w5
    Posts
    9,849

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lady X View Post
    i don't know any intjs but i saw this while looking at something else and thought it was kinda cuteish so i'm sharing.
    Dating and Your Myers-Briggs Personality Type - Associated Content - associatedcontent.com
    Love it!

    And, finally, some shit that actually pertains to this thread!!!
    `
    'Cause you can't handle me...

    "A lie is a lie even if everyone believes it. The truth is the truth even if nobody believes it." - David Stevens

    "That that is, is. That that is not, is not. Is that it? It is."

    Veritatem dies aperit

    Ride si sapis

    Intelligentle sparkles

  3. #993
    Happy Dancer uumlau's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    953 sp/so
    Posts
    5,708

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Happy Puppy View Post
    btw, U, I was being terribly sarcastic regarding the "biting". I can be exceptionally biting in written form at times and quite bitchy.
    Nawwww!

    See I get all screwed here by Fi. Fi says "Be authentic". Te says "Be blunt and logical" Authentic + logical + blunt= being a total argumentative bitch. Which is great fun with younger ENTPs who are pretty blunt and argumentative I guess I take path one and we bludgeon each other for a bit...

    OMT-what if it isnt about the x y, z Ti details-what if the end point objective is just flawed? Or irrelevant? Let me think up some examples.
    Unsurprisingly, I think we have the same perspective on this, hence my comments about "tendentious" reasoning.

    The problem is opening the other person up to the possibility that one is wrong. For a Te person, the best way to open them up is be as blunt and direct as they are. For a Ti person, the best way would seem to be being as indirect and circular as they are.


    I find my ENTP gets totally pissed when I fuck with her Ti systems, but I get totally pissed when her Ti systems prohibit my progress to a final measurable Te objective. She says I am Duct Tape for everything, and can accomplish miracles, but I totally short circuit a systems approach which is more sustainable in the long term.
    I'm quite familiar with this dynamic, though I have it with an INTP. It isn't that I'm "duct tape", so much as it annoys him that my duct tape is most always preferred by management to his more extensive fix.

    Quote Originally Posted by Happy Puppy View Post
    hmmmmm, I see how you guys play..... I totally eat that second one up myself. "ooooo, reallllyyyyy, you think I am clever...awwwww" That's so funny! ENFPs are kinda slow, me thinks. just pat our heads and we will be happy...
    Note a couple of things, here:
    1. When said by an xxTJ, you read his "honesty" vibe. You know he isn't being patronizing, instinctively. He truly is happy that you demonstrated a good grasp of the facts, and only a lack of info led to an incorrect conclusion. That is so much easier to deal with than other alternatives. That you "eat it up" is just serendipitous icing on the cake, for us.
    2. OMT found the latter one to be very patronizing, implying that he is somehow inferior for not noticing other facts. I suspect I was using too much Fi to come up with that second statement. (FWIW, I was presuming that the object of my statement had presented all the facts as he knew them, and thus it would be "plain fact" that he ignored other items, or possibly that I just came across new facts, whereas before I initially agreed with him.)



    Yet I am more likely to look like version 1 in my own communications. It takes effort to use Te productively for me-not just idea generating but analytically. To then have to apply sugar or take time explaining details, is very draining.

    It induces a mental state some what akin to "God damn it I found the truth for you, what the hell else do you people want from me. Just fucking fix it!!!!!". Not kidding, very frustrating for me. Very hard to make the Te pretty even if I really like the other person. Often it is easy to give up then try and keep pushing the idea. Likely a combo of Ne impulsive/impatience there as well. I'll have to figure out a way to deal with this.
    I believe you'll find this perspective quite useful, when you turn it around and try to read INTJs using Fi: "Goddammit! I just told you what I felt! I didn't lie. What the hell else do you want from me?" This is especially where I'll get hit by the FJ perspective: they'll ask me how I feel, and telling the truth turns out to be the "wrong answer," because they'll interpret every feeling as a demand. (Especially had this problem with my ex. My feelings are intense and passionately expressed, but to her they were bullying her to do things for me that I didn't even want her to do.)

  4. #994
    Dreaming the life onemoretime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    3h50
    Socionics
    ILE
    Posts
    4,460

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Happy Puppy View Post
    See I get all screwed here by Fi. Fi says "Be authentic". Te says "Be blunt and logical" Authentic + logical + blunt= being a total argumentative bitch. Which is great fun with younger ENTPs who are pretty blunt and argumentative I guess I take path one and we bludgeon each other for a bit...

    OMT-what if it isnt about the x y, z Ti details-what if the end point objective is just flawed? Or irrelevant? Let me think up some examples.

    I find my ENTP gets totally pissed when I fuck with her Ti systems, but I get totally pissed when her Ti systems prohibit my progress to a final measurable Te objective. She says I am Duct Tape for everything, and can accomplish miracles, but I totally short circuit a systems approach which is more sustainable in the long term.
    If the end objective is flawed, then show the factors that make it flawed. Ti is the hypercompetitive function - it sees any assertion of "wrongness" to be a challenge to be defeated. Portraying the flawed objective as a new challenge, rather than an incorrect conclusion, more effectively harnesses its competitive energy toward the group objective, rather than focusing it on the messenger.

    Ti wants to win. Always. Telling it that it's wrong is akin to telling it that it loses... and it's not going down without a fight.

    Quote Originally Posted by uumlau View Post
    ^^^ See what I mean? Even when you TRY to be polite with Te, it offends. It's too damn direct.

    I forgot the part where one has to phrase everything as a question, and that which cannot be a question liberally carpeted with "maybe" "perhaps" or "for instance", therefore you offend no one.
    It's not about "offending", it's about redirecting the energy of the challenge toward the object, rather than the person.

    [CAVEAT: using "you" as a pronoun of convenience, hereafter, doesn't mean "you personally" but as more general class of tendencies, not necessarily shared by all of a given MBTI type ...]
    However, for those of you who rely on Ti, when talking with those who rely on Te, and trying to get along with them, that "phrase everything as a question" mode gets VERY annoying. We think, "Get to the point, please."
    Yeah, that's a problem - we're trying to get you to get to the point, so we both conquer the challenge and feel good about ourselves. This might be preaching the secondary here, but I hold as a core belief that everyone, if given the right information and nudged in the right direction, can figure anything out, and that it's better to teach a man to fish than simply give him the fish.

    We want to deal with whatever it is you think is wrong and address it directly: you won't offend us. We'll either agree or disagree. We don't want to discuss what the issue maybe is, or perhaps is or hypothetically is. That feels like your trying to lead us down your logical path (in a "veeeerrrry" tendentious manner) which we find remarkably unpersuasive, since we aren't allowed to use any reasoning to which you currently object, leaving us stuck arguing about some side issue that leads to your conclusion, rather than comparing our logical structures as a whole.
    And what you see as "remarkably unpersuasive", we see as opening up to mutual learning and understanding. When I seemingly reject your line of reasoning, that's an opportunity to explain to me why it makes sense, so I can come to the same conclusion that you do, and we both can walk away happy, since we both figured it out, and I walk away happier, since I can look ahead to the next set of problems that I've previously overlooked.

    As I type this, I realize this is the Ti equivalent to Amar's Fi-nudging. Think of it in those terms, and you might find that it's not as annoying as you think.

    (NOTE: I can become Te-direct when frustrated, but as you may have noticed, this often directs toward the person with the aim of defeating them, than toward the issue)

    The tendentious phrasing of the question, "I see what you're saying, but if you take x, y, and z into account, doesn't it end up like this?" is just as patronizingly insulting to us, as our direct statement of the facts as we see them is patronizingly insulting to you. The "doesn't it end up like this?" often appears to be a conclusion drawn from the circular logic of assuming that "x, y, and z" are not only true, but that they must imply your conclusion. It takes forever to deconstruct that argument, and the argument feels like deliberate obfuscation to one who prefers Te, and is saying "Look, X is true. We both agree X is true. If X is true, Y cannot be true." However, you don't buy this argument, and keep on insisting, for example, that Y might be true, and keep on making me prove and re-prove to you that Y cannot be true.
    It seems both of us are arguing from the same position: "you don't know that." It's not intended to be obstinate - it's just that if X = 1 and Y = 1, then the problem's solved and we can move on. It takes a lot more effort to modify the logical chain than to modify the variables, so I'll see if there's any way to modify the variables so we can be finished with the issue.

    "Y cannot be true" - my problem is that unless it logically follows that Y cannot be true, and I understand why this is the case, then I cannot ignore the possibility that Y is true, especially if it makes the solution much more elegant. We're meticulous in our internal thought in much the same way a person who highly values cleanliness is in their external interaction.

    We'd rather see both paths (yours and ours) of logic, instantaneously, side-by-side, and compare their relative strengths and weaknesses out in the open. We believe that this lets us perceive the foundational axioms of both points of view and work from there. (This is a very Ni-biased perspective, btw, switching out axioms in order to determine which axioms are the best hypothesis, and disproving falsifiable axioms in the Karl Popper sense.)
    I'd like the same thing too. The problem is that I can't portray my logical pattern instantaneously (Ne perspective) - since it's a continual chain of connections, and each time I run through the permutation of it, I'm evaluating it, looking for things to improve. Ti's a tinkerer - I remember as a child that whenever I played with Lego blocks, I could never leave a creation "finished." There was always something more to add on.

    So in a sense, the inducement into following our logical chain has a self-serving purpose as well - I want to see you go through it to make sure I haven't left anything out.

    That endless phrasing of everything as a question means that you can seem (to a "Te user") to always place the burden of proof on others to convince you, rather than on you to convince others. When the cycle of questioning ends, a "Te user" feels empty, unsure whether you have finally agreed or have simply given up out of sheer frustration. It also feels as if you simply ignore all our points, since every point is answered with yet another question, without any declarative statements indicating agreement or disagreement.
    Think of it this way - if you were designing a car, wouldn't you want to run the brake system through countless stress tests to make sure it operates as intended? That's the way I approach seemingly completed logical chains. I'm inclined to run it through as many variable factors to make sure it works before considering it a given component of a larger logical framework. If it's gotten to that point, sometimes I'll fail to outwardly accept it as valid, because if we've both come to the same conclusion, mentioning that I accept it is as pedestrian as saying that water is wet.

    I realize that it is simply a differing perspective. For logic, I prefer to be to-the-point and direct, while others prefer to be indirect and actually perceive issues as questions to be asked, rather than as points to be made. The point I'm making here, however, is that with many listeners (perhaps about half? how do the statistics work out?), your carefully polite "questioning" mode might not only fail to persuade, but in fact be so unpersuasive as to bias others to disregard your opinion.
    I see what you're saying. I'm disinclined to be that direct, because to me, it seems like I'm lording my intelligence over the other person, which I personally would resent in their shoes.

    If I were to be more direct in my answer to your scenario, it would come out like "The way I see it, because of x, y and z, this is the way things are. (You sure about that?) One hundred percent."

  5. #995
    Dreaming the life onemoretime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    3h50
    Socionics
    ILE
    Posts
    4,460

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Happy Puppy View Post
    It induces a mental state some what akin to "God damn it I found the truth for you, what the hell else do you people want from me. Just fucking fix it!!!!!". Not kidding, very frustrating for me. Very hard to make the Te pretty even if I really like the other person. Often it is easy to give up then try and keep pushing the idea. Likely a combo of Ne impulsive/impatience there as well. I'll have to figure out a way to deal with this.
    You see, the problem with this is that we on the other end get to take no pleasure in helping find the solution, and as a result this feels very oppressive. It's the same reason I can't stand dogmatic religion.

    It makes me feel like a cog in the machine, and that you feel I am inferior to you. This is a challenge - at this point, I'm inclined to demonstrate that I know the machine better than you do by dismantling the whole thing from within, because you've shown that you're not interested in both of us winning by working together as a team, and so, I've got to make sure you lose.

  6. #996
    Senior Member sculpting's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    4,226

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by onemoretime View Post
    You see, the problem with this is that we on the other end get to take no pleasure in helping find the solution, and as a result this feels very oppressive. It's the same reason I can't stand dogmatic religion.

    It makes me feel like a cog in the machine, and that you feel I am inferior to you. This is a challenge - at this point, I'm inclined to demonstrate that I know the machine better than you do by dismantling the whole thing from within, because you've shown that you're not interested in both of us winning by working together as a team, and so, I've got to make sure you lose.
    Typically I tag team with my NTPs-I use NeTe as a troubleshooting tool then drag the broken thing back to them and say "something is broken, I think it might be this." Then I leave them to it, to find a solution or see if my first guess was right..I'm like that dog that drags in your neighbors garbage. I have seen the "I know my machine better than you" phenomenon at work. Nowdays my NTPs will actually seek me for info and advice, so I guess I passed some competency test. Or maybe they pick up on the authenticity of my interest-it isnt about me getting any recognition or proving them wrong, it really is about my customer and a better instrument, so they respect it.

    NeTe is some weird shit-I can see trends in data a thousand miles away. Trends other people just dont see-even NTPs. It's like i can step outside of the details, see massive underlying trends, then recognize very early on there is a problem/trend/Ne connection. It comes with only about an 80% accuracy rate though. So I can just SEE the problems coming a lot sooner than most people-I may be utterly unsuited to resolve them.

    Warning NeTe potential garbage: I think Fi is really like Ti but looking for exceptionally complex data sets to analyze via a mirror effect. Maybe because my Fi is still sort of primitive compared to amar's, marm and SS-I can feel this mirroring of very complex systems-I have a distinct emotive response to complex patterns, waves, galaxies, an emotive desire to Ne blend with them. Not just appreciate their beauty but some how make them part of me? I think Fi is meant to mirror people's emotive state as an evolutionary empathic mandate, but it can be used for other stuff too. Maybe it contributes to the above as ENFPs are prolific in strategic marketing.

  7. #997
    Happy Dancer uumlau's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    953 sp/so
    Posts
    5,708

    Default

    Just so you know, right of the bat: all of your answers here are quite clear and compelling. I very much appreciate them. My replies are not intended as contradictions or counterexamples, so much as a sharing of my alternative perspective (a very Fi thing to do, where you say "this is what it is like for me", and I say "Oh, OK, this is what it's like for me").

    (and just so you know, Fi/Te needs the kind of statements as above to indicate that you actually listened and there isn't any more arguing to be done)

    Quote Originally Posted by onemoretime View Post
    If the end objective is flawed, then show the factors that make it flawed. Ti is the hypercompetitive function - it sees any assertion of "wrongness" to be a challenge to be defeated. Portraying the flawed objective as a new challenge, rather than an incorrect conclusion, more effectively harnesses its competitive energy toward the group objective, rather than focusing it on the messenger.

    Ti wants to win. Always. Telling it that it's wrong is akin to telling it that it loses... and it's not going down without a fight.
    Yeah, we Te folks sense that. However, I've observed some Ti/Fe people like that fight, and admit to deliberately starting arguments that way, (by saying, effectively, "you are wrong" and giving very few terse reasons (if any) as to why. I think this ties into your statements about wanting to share in the discovery: some people want it to be a mutually friendly discovery, while others want it to be adversarial, just for the fun of it.


    It's not about "offending", it's about redirecting the energy of the challenge toward the object, rather than the person.
    From the Te point of view, it's about "offending." As in, "OK, wtf did I say this time to piss you off?" We actually direct the energy toward the object or the idea, but as in the Ti competitiveness you express above, "them's fightin' words."


    Yeah, that's a problem - we're trying to get you to get to the point, so we both conquer the challenge and feel good about ourselves. This might be preaching the secondary here, but I hold as a core belief that everyone, if given the right information and nudged in the right direction, can figure anything out, and that it's better to teach a man to fish than simply give him the fish.
    True, and we share that philosophy, but our styles are different. Ti seems very tempted to be precise and nitpicky, when Te wants to, for example, start with the "training wheels" explanation, suitable for beginners, and then gradually go into more depth. I.e., teach the guy to put worms on a hook, first, rather than tell him to buy a boat with huge nets to tug through feeding/breeding grounds.


    And what you see as "remarkably unpersuasive", we see as opening up to mutual learning and understanding. When I seemingly reject your line of reasoning, that's an opportunity to explain to me why it makes sense, so I can come to the same conclusion that you do, and we both can walk away happy, since we both figured it out, and I walk away happier, since I can look ahead to the next set of problems that I've previously overlooked.
    Which from the Te point of view turns a simple question of correct vs incorrect into a long, tedious lesson (which, from the Te, and especially the NiTe, perspective has already been learned).


    As I type this, I realize this is the Ti equivalent to Amar's Fi-nudging. Think of it in those terms, and you might find that it's not as annoying as you think.

    (NOTE: I can become Te-direct when frustrated, but as you may have noticed, this often directs toward the person with the aim of defeating them, than toward the issue)
    I'm wondering whether this is Te-direct or Fe-mimicking-Te. Both are possible, but I suspect that if it feels "personal," it's Fe. This is a vibe I get from various INTPs and especially INFJs with a strong Ti.

    I believe that "directness" makes {Ti/Fe} invoke Fe, due to the synergy with being direct, and thus become personal. The same "directness" makes {Fi/Te} invoke Te, which is actually quite impersonal, but is perceived as personal through an Fe lens.

    It seems both of us are arguing from the same position: "you don't know that." It's not intended to be obstinate - it's just that if X = 1 and Y = 1, then the problem's solved and we can move on. It takes a lot more effort to modify the logical chain than to modify the variables, so I'll see if there's any way to modify the variables so we can be finished with the issue.
    Yes, except that for IxTJ, especially INTJ, it is easier to switch out the logical chain than to modify the variables. It's how our brains work. That's why it seems so fast and mysterious: we switch out patterns as fast as you switch out variables, and in some cases, this leads to "miraculously" finding solutions very quickly with a single functional/logical change, while changing the values of variables often turns out to be rather slow in comparison.

    "Y cannot be true" - my problem is that unless it logically follows that Y cannot be true, and I understand why this is the case, then I cannot ignore the possibility that Y is true, especially if it makes the solution much more elegant. We're meticulous in our internal thought in much the same way a person who highly values cleanliness is in their external interaction.
    Yeah, I understand this bit. Where Te and Ti conflict here is that Te cannot read which particular piece of logic you have wrong, so we're stuck fishing through your logic with you, and we often aren't aware when we come across it and finally fix it (often, Ti will just phrase more questions in its style, rather than say, "Oh, OK, I think I've got it, now.")

    I'd like the same thing too. The problem is that I can't portray my logical pattern instantaneously (Ne perspective) - since it's a continual chain of connections, and each time I run through the permutation of it, I'm evaluating it, looking for things to improve. Ti's a tinkerer - I remember as a child that whenever I played with Lego blocks, I could never leave a creation "finished." There was always something more to add on.
    Right. It's almost as much Ne vs Ni as Ti vs Te.

    So in a sense, the inducement into following our logical chain has a self-serving purpose as well - I want to see you go through it to make sure I haven't left anything out.
    Wanna know what this feels like to an INTJ? It feels like you're stealing our thought processes for your own selfish purposes. Usually, for the first few iterations, it can be cool. After that, however, it becomes tiresome. We have our own projects, or perhaps even OUR project, to finish, and that's being postponed as you refine your understanding. Something to watch out for in your communication style.

    Think of it this way - if you were designing a car, wouldn't you want to run the brake system through countless stress tests to make sure it operates as intended? That's the way I approach seemingly completed logical chains. I'm inclined to run it through as many variable factors to make sure it works before considering it a given component of a larger logical framework. If it's gotten to that point, sometimes I'll fail to outwardly accept it as valid, because if we've both come to the same conclusion, mentioning that I accept it is as pedestrian as saying that water is wet.
    I fully understand stress tests and testing ideas. INTJs (NiTe) are all about that. Ni throws all sorts of random ideas at us, and Te tests them against the real world. What's left over is really very solid, empirically tested. You're doing a different kind of stress test: it's testing Ti against Ne (as opposed to Ni against Te). Ni/Te fully vets an idea for functionality, while Ti/Ne fully vets an idea for logical consistency.

    Still, it helps to mention that you accept it. One of the harder lessons to learn as an INTJ was to often state the obvious, because it is so often not obvious to many people. (Of course, this then insults everyone to whom it was obvious, but that's another topic ...)

    I see what you're saying. I'm disinclined to be that direct, because to me, it seems like I'm lording my intelligence over the other person, which I personally would resent in their shoes.

    If I were to be more direct in my answer to your scenario, it would come out like "The way I see it, because of x, y and z, this is the way things are. (You sure about that?) One hundred percent."
    Yeah, like I said above, I think this is because of the Fe effect. Really and for true, when a Te talks directly, it really really is objective and impersonal. It just sounds personal to those who prefer Fe to Te.

    Similarly, the Te user needs to realize how "personal" his direct statements sound to some people, and if people get distracted by that, then it's time to be more indirect.

  8. #998
    Senior Member sculpting's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    4,226

    Default

    onemoretime-do use Te? If so how and when do you feel you use it and does it come with Ni or Fi?

    Both Q, Jeno and my ENTP all say they feel as though they can or have used Te in the past at times.

  9. #999
    `~~Philosoflying~~` SillySapienne's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    MBTI
    ENFP
    Enneagram
    4w5
    Posts
    9,849

    Default

    Jesus crackers, this thread gives me a headache.

    Haven't caught up in a few days/pages.

    WTF/H is going on?

    Are we even discussing the INTJ/ENFP dynamic anymore?

    I wish we could have more real-life examples.

    `
    'Cause you can't handle me...

    "A lie is a lie even if everyone believes it. The truth is the truth even if nobody believes it." - David Stevens

    "That that is, is. That that is not, is not. Is that it? It is."

    Veritatem dies aperit

    Ride si sapis

    Intelligentle sparkles

  10. #1000
    Happy Dancer uumlau's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    953 sp/so
    Posts
    5,708

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Happy Puppy View Post
    NeTe is some weird shit-I can see trends in data a thousand miles away. Trends other people just dont see-even NTPs. It's like i can step outside of the details, see massive underlying trends, then recognize very early on there is a problem/trend/Ne connection. It comes with only about an 80% accuracy rate though. So I can just SEE the problems coming a lot sooner than most people-I may be utterly unsuited to resolve them.
    I'm fairly sure this is NiTe (INTJ-ness), not NeTe. And yes, it is like that. NTPs don't see it because it is NiTe, which spots functionally predictive patterns rather easily.

    Just so you know, I have an empirically different interpretation of the perceiving functions. I believe that if an INTJ uses Fi, it will invoke either Se or Ne, not Ni at all. That is to say, it is the orientation of the judging function that is "set in stone", and the perceiving function "adjusts" to the judging function. In this perspective of mine, MBTI is just I/E, N/S, and then Te/Ti/Fe/Fi.

    So my interpretation is that just as Fi invokes Ne for me, Te invokes Ni for you. Your description of the predictive power of "NeTe" supports my hypothesis, I think.

Similar Threads

  1. [ENFP] ENFP/INTJ Relationship
    By freeeekyyy in forum The NF Idyllic (ENFP, INFP, ENFJ, INFJ)
    Replies: 25
    Last Post: 07-10-2014, 10:36 AM
  2. [ENFP] A question for ENFPs and for people who love them.
    By hazelsees in forum The NF Idyllic (ENFP, INFP, ENFJ, INFJ)
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 03-04-2013, 08:44 AM
  3. [ENFP] ENFP/INTJ=Perceptive Train wreck o' love?
    By stormyapril in forum The NF Idyllic (ENFP, INFP, ENFJ, INFJ)
    Replies: 24
    Last Post: 10-21-2010, 05:11 AM
  4. [MBTItm] enfp intj marriage
    By saffron in forum The NF Idyllic (ENFP, INFP, ENFJ, INFJ)
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: 02-04-2008, 03:01 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