User Tag List

First 789

Results 81 to 89 of 89

  1. #81
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    2

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The_Liquid_Laser View Post
    Here are some that I disagree with:

    Isaac Newton - I believe is INTJ. His discoveries rely more on insight than logic. Also his discoveries were more toward the physical world than of a purely theoretical nature. He really was the first to have the basic insight (Ni) into calculus, but viewed it as an application toward physics rather than a purely theoretical system like Leibniz (Ti).
    .
    Perhaps, but I feel like this is polarizing type functionality into too neat, or perhaps mislabeled boxes. I've no doubt you could have articulated more clearly what you mean by this. And I have little doubt if I am understanding it correctly, but hell, with over 3k post I'm sure I'll get the chance to learn more where you're coming from. I'm sharing the impact of this statement really; "His discoveries rely more on insight than logic". At least to start.

    First, for as much as I love MBTI, I believe it has its flaws, or moreover our ability to comprehend it organically in action (and apart from our own type specific myopia) is very limited. Coming to MBTI as a derivative of Jung's works is even further removed from a pure understanding (albeit if there's one). But I'm grateful that we have this to provide such interesting dialog as can be afforded thanks to these predecessors.

    A few points just felt too mechanical for me as far as a working comprehension goes. To my shame *this INTP just couldn't leave alone.

    So, yeah, as one who grew up with and knows many INTJs, I had to laugh at; "His discoveries rely more on insight than logic". Not because this isn't true (not going there, will just accept and move on), but because I don't think I would use this to support a case for an INTJ Isaac. Although I certainly see that you could. But there were a few things that I wanted to clear up.

    In my opinion, INTPs are more insightful than INTJs, if by insight we mean gaining a "clear" perception into a thing, and to that end I don't know how to separate logic from this. But this is not to downplay their great strengths which can cast many an INTP in the shadows (I'm speaking generically here of course). But this is because T(i), which we (INTPs and ENTPs) both share, is more 'logical' as you say (although that's not quite what I infer by it). But this lends to clearer insights in a lot of ways than T(e) is willing to allow. This is not necessarily confining T(e) to what it is capable of (although sometimes this can be the case), but what I've noticed is a bent that is usually too busy pushing forward and out (especially when paired with the J). Not to mention N(i) pulls its insights in a subjective manner towards the object it is dealing with. This can isolate it, as compared to N(e) which randomly explodes it.

    These insights drive the J power house forward, but it isn't always leading to a better or more congruous understanding if you will. The J wants to move forward, the T(e) wants something workable and usable outside of himself, and the N(i) master tends to isolate multiple streams of insight onto a single target. It's not as inertial and much more attenuated insight from my experience and reading than an N(e) feeding a T(i) chore will provide.

    I think we get this 'logic' label on the INTP with his T(i) dominated core, and I can understand applying 'insight' to a N(i) dominate. However, I just felt like this deserved to be fleshed out with a little more body to it. Because we cannot surmise a whole and working functionality of a type or individual by merely comparing two traits, albeit even their dominate ones. Although comparing single traits is still very helpful.

    While N(i) may do very well dealing with a closed system they don't always have the 'insights' as to how that system connects in a non contradictory fashion to criteria outside that system. And with T(e) as auxiliary this is even more the case. And let's face it, little is isolated to this degree, certainly not on the quantum level and this is why INTPs do make such great physicist and scientist. A great exception to this where N(i) is concerned can be found in the INFJ, where they still have that dominate N(i) but a tertiary T(i) to direct this.

    It's just not in the same way T(i) caters to the insights it develops though (adding to their 'logical' whole). I have 2 INTJ brothers and several INTJ friends. They are all about getting things hammered out; nailing down the procrustean bed so to speak. ENTJ's are even worse (I say this coming from the disposition of sequestering gainful insights) not to the apprising of such traits on the whole. In the grand scheme such traits pull a double as their blessing and cursing all rolled into one.

    Much to the same degree that T(i) is my greatest bane as it is where I may show the most aptitude. Since T(e) is external it is actually considered more objective if you will than T(i), however, again, here it's easy to misrepresent this. Where they are objective and where they are subjective are pretty much in just the opposite arenas (shadow functions to boot).

    I will definitely give you mathematics though as a bent to the T(e), however in applying this as Isaac does this is more indicative of an INTP to see how this 'system' applies, wait for it....'theoretically' to the outside world; 'physics' if you will. Certainly though points could be made for both cases. I just felt like this reasoning was actually a bit askew. Working directly with numbers like that is actually pretty T(e)J, even when it remains only mathematical if you will. Applying this to the literal world makes more sense to an INTP because his theory does not exist isolated as it could to the N(i)T(e)J, where the concrete numbers themselves represent what is tangible and external. There right there in front of him or on paper and he can deal with them. As to the INTP such numbers are just an abstraction of reality, it represents something real, but it is itself not the real thing (nor does he have to play with this tangibly). He would be driven however to flesh this verisimilitude out into reality, not to deal with it, but to see if such a 'theory' holds up. So applying it to physics isn't really indicative of an INTJ, not necessarily, and I get a rather sneaking suspicion this is an INTP driven move. But I'm trying to not polarize on any two facets here either and for me the case is still out.

    As an INTP I literally feel a part of everything around me in such a complete way it's scary. Except for people, at which point I really feel like the alien. I've want to lie stripped in freezing cold rivers at times (and have though I was clothed), or just in some way become one with what is around me (and in very odd ways at times). Not sexually speaking, I think I should clarify with that whole "become one" bit. Lol, but I can be standing on top of a high cliff and want to leap, or staring into the depths of the ocean and want to drown in the waves. Not that I want to die...It's quite odd and been this way from youth, but I understand it now as far as MBTI functionality can explain. My oddness is also something that's really driven me to understand these things a little more. It's a great sense of relief to me to know I'm not broken in ways that I thought I was. Though I can tell the jury is still out with many of my friends and family. I may have to clean my canvas, but I don't need a new one altogether.

    Lol, I should probably extrapolate a little on this, but this is where I think a lot of people can misunderstand us INTPs. We live in our heads, true. We live in the realm of theory/abstraction, yes. We're highly intuitive and often unaware of our surroundings, or it would seem, but whatever were dreaming up in our heads, its connected, it has to be to the real world. That's because we really do see ourselves as the independent arbiters of reality. It's not theory to us, and that may sound arrogant, but we truly at times are trying to transcend any subjectivity so much so to the degree that we can feel like just raw bits of energy and matter projected out onto a stage, its all the same. And it all has to agree for us. We may not want to interact or push forward, but we do very much want to apply what is inside of us, not generally for the sake of anything, that would be subjective, but just to make sure we're harmonized with this 'whole' if you will. We want to make sure we're on the same channel as the rest of the universe, not as the rest of the people, uhck, how would they know?...This is unfortunately why many an INTP can become pretty grumpy. It's safe to say that we do look down on the subjectivity and 'smallness' of other types. Another area where MBTI has really helped me see the worth and value in EVERYONE'S uniqueness. I've always believed it, but I guess I was a doubting Thomas. Now I can see it with my own two eyes.

    Hmmm, well, I think I took that off in a direction I had not intended. I will leave it though, I suppose it could be informational to some as to how at least this INTP would relate it. But what I'm trying to say is that we feel very connected with what's in our heads to the outer world. We're not trying to have reality surrender to our logic, but rather trying to surrender our reality to logic, and that's where the insight comes from. We see the two as congruous. I feel like INTJs and INTPs are ALWAYS acting on different suppositions, in debate I can rarely agree with an INTJs axiom and when I can again rarely with how they would apply it.

    INTJs seem more connected to the external and are engaging it more adamantly, but the INTP reaches in and tries to conform what is inside to that which he believes is unifying truth to all that he sees, feels, touches, and hears externally N(e). The INTJ tries to form the external to match what logic he believes, and hence could in some ways be considered more logical on his subject matter and its relevancy. But the INTP is more objective in his approach to whatever he deems worthy of investigation. I guess it all depends on how you look at it and what presuppositions you're starting at. We could go all the way back to square one I suppose, and actually that's how myself as an INTP approaches most things, by going as far back as is necessary...This is why T(i) is MUCH slower than T(e), but will usually be more refined....they may just never settle on an answer though.

    At least this is my experience as an INTP, so for me, I could have no interest looking at math from a strictly logical basis. And this is also why I've said they consider T(i) to be more subjective. Where is T(e) could literally take some dead numbers and work with them w/out direct attachment and meaning to themselves.

    And this is where I think you could also make the argument for the INTJ concerning your point on mathematics applying it to say physics too because they could very well do the same thing as an INTP and for the very same reasons, or very different reasons. I'm not just throwing that out there either to cover my basis, it's very plausible I believe. It's really hard to know and there's always variation that type classification cannot account for. At least not in our limited understanding of how the brain and spirit works, people just don't fit into neat little boxes.

    Of course even if we did, OTHER people couldn't ever fully understand the complexity and organizing systems of these boxes and how they all fit together (not even for ourselves). With that said, the few boxes that we can handle, I like to have fully fleshed out to the degree in which we can handle them.

    I guess that's why I'm just not sure what you meant by insights vs logic if you're attributing insights to the INTJ and logic to the INTP. As far as dealing with the logic right in front of them I would say that an INTJ is going to be more adept. However, but give the INTP time to think on this and he will not miss ANYTHING that the INTJ might. He will take the time to draw more from his insights imo than the INTJ would. Even if the INTJ is fueled on insights or intuition if you will. Inspiration is funny like that too though. While intuition is much more abstracted and arbitrary, Thinking is not. The differences obviously being their introversion or extroversion, but also that the INTP is a Thinking core while the INTJ an iNtuiting one. It's hard to compare the two side by side or in isolation of complete functional analysis. I'm in no way implying this has been stated either. I say it to guard against my own words being understood as it's hard to speak of this on a whole w/out breaking it down bit by bit. My mind, however, understands it as a whole, so breaking it down is doubly hard for me. Seeing the big picture is much easier. I thank whoever muddled through this, and hope that if they are interested in this as am I, it was not a total waste of their time. Even if they disagree as well as I'm aware that my communication was rather poor and choppy at times, thank you.

  2. #82
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    2

    Default

    Whoa, not trying to practice necromancy, but I just realized when the last reply was from!!!...so much for late night surfing and random interjections...Damn N(e) explodes on one little point before I get a grip on any of the other parameters...

  3. #83
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    2

    Default

    First, I want to say I like the way you put thoughts together.


    Quote Originally Posted by Chris View Post
    "Lol, I should probably extrapolate a little on this, but this is where I think a lot of people can misunderstand us INTPs. We live in our heads, true. We live in the realm of theory/abstraction, yes. We're highly intuitive and often unaware of our surroundings, or it would seem, but whatever were dreaming up in our heads, its connected, it has to be to the real world. That's because we really do see ourselves as the independent arbiters of reality. It's not theory to us, and that may sound arrogant, but we truly at times are trying to transcend any subjectivity so much so to the degree that we can feel like just raw bits of energy and matter projected out onto a stage, its all the same. And it all has to agree for us. We may not want to interact or push forward, but we do very much want to apply what is inside of us, not generally for the sake of anything, that would be subjective, but just to make sure we're harmonized with this 'whole' if you will. We want to make sure we're on the same channel as the rest of the universe, not as the rest of the people, uhck, how would they know?...This is unfortunately why many an INTP can become pretty grumpy. It's safe to say that we do look down on the subjectivity and 'smallness' of other types. Another area where MBTI has really helped me see the worth and value in EVERYONE'S uniqueness. I've always believed it, but I guess I was a doubting Thomas. Now I can see it with my own two eyes."

    1. We live in the realm of theory/abstraction...
    2. ...unaware of our surroundings...
    3. ...whatever were dreaming up in our heads, its connected, it has to be to the real world.
    4. ...we truly at times are trying to transcend any subjectivity...
    5. And it all has to agree for us.
    6. ...we do very much want to apply what is inside of us...
    7. ...just to make sure we're harmonized with this 'whole', if you will.
    8. We want to make sure we're on the same channel as the rest of the universe.

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

    I also have this point in which something is triggered and I start writing or thinking. All of these eight points I made from this paragraph caught my attention at the moment of reading.
    About "subjectivity" and "objectivity" of introverted thinking types. It really has nothing to do with objective truth, as far as I understood from Jungs book. It rather has to do with the one who is observing (subject) and the one or thing that is observed (object). Jung says that extroverts are more oriented towards object, so he calls them objective. It doesn't mean that they are right about what they are saying or that they see things objectively. Let me quote Jung from his book Psychological types from the section about introverted thinking. He says: "Introverted thinking is primarily oriented by subjective factor. At the least, subjective factor is represented by a subjective feeling of direction, which, in the last resort, determines judgement. ... This thinking may be conceived either with concrete or with abstract factors, but always with the decisive points it is oriented by subjective data. Hence it does not lead from objective things but always to the subjective data. ... For this kind of thinking facts are of secondary importance; what, apparently, is of absolute paramount importance is the development and presentation of the subjective idea, that primordial symbolical image standing more or less darkly before the inner vision. Its aim, therefor, is never concerned with intellectual reconstruction of concrete actuality, but with the shaping of the dim image into a resplendent idea. It's desire is to reach reality; it's goal is to see how external facts fit into and fulfill, the framework of the idea; its actual creative power is proved by the fact that this thinking can also create that idea which, though not present in the external facts, is yet the most suitable, abstract expression of them. Its task is accomplished when the idea it has fashioned seems to emerge so inevitably from the external facts that they actually prove it's validity."

    a) External facts - I assume this is objective.

    ----------

    1. As Jung said, yes these people do live in a world full of ideas, which you called theory/abstraction which refers to the same thing., "This thinking may be conceived either with concrete or with abstract factors..."

    2. "For this kind of thinking facts are of secondary importance" - does this confirm unawareness of the surrounding ("from time to time", I would add)?

    3. "...with the shaping of the dim image into a resplendent idea. It's desire is to reach reality; it's goal is to see how external facts fit into and fulfill, the framework of the idea; ..." - does this resonates for you?

    4. "Introverted thinking is primarily oriented by subjective factor." and "...always with the decisive points it (thinking) is oriented by subjective data." - maybe you would like to explain more about what you think "transcending subjectivity" is.

    5. "...it's goal is to see how external facts fit into and fulfill, the framework of the idea..." and "Its task is accomplished when the idea it has fashioned seems to emerge so inevitably from the external facts that they actually prove it's validity."

    6. "...its actual creative power is proved by the fact that this thinking can also create that idea which, though not present in the external facts, is yet the most suitable, abstract expression of them."

    7. and 8. "At the least, subjective factor is represented by a subjective feeling of direction, which, in the last resort, determines judgement." - in other words they are creating their inner world by constantly projecting it to the external facts which more or less are "in tune" with projected idea. The more the idea is consistent with the reality the more is its worth personally and collectively.


    What are you thinking now?


    P.S. NNES ( Not a Native English Speaker)

  4. #84
    Senior Member ScottJames's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    4w5 sx
    Posts
    221

    Default

    A lot of those I agree with as INTP. A good bunch of them I'm not familiar with.

    Two that I disagree with:

    Jefferson (INJ, leaning INFJ)
    Jung (INTJ)

    I'd also add:

    Bill Gates
    Larry Page
    Neils Bohr
    Mark Zuckerberg
    Mark Mothersbaugh (DEVO)
    Neil Peart (RUSH)
    Keith Emerson (Emerson Lake & Palmer)
    Bob Moog (Inventor of the Moog synth)
    Marty Friedman (Megadeth)
    Eben Pagan

  5. #85
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    795

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ScottJames View Post
    A lot of those I agree with as INTP. A good bunch of them I'm not familiar with.

    Two that I disagree with:

    Jefferson (INJ, leaning INFJ)
    Jung (INTJ)

    I'd also add:

    Bill Gates
    Larry Page
    Neils Bohr
    Mark Zuckerberg
    Mark Mothersbaugh (DEVO)
    Neil Peart (RUSH)
    Keith Emerson (Emerson Lake & Palmer)
    Bob Moog (Inventor of the Moog synth)
    Marty Friedman (Megadeth)
    Eben Pagan
    Bill Gates and Mark Z seem INTJ. Larry Page seems like an INFJ. The other Google founder seems INFP or ISFP.

  6. #86
    Junior Member Architect's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    11

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by CapLawyer View Post
    Bill Gates and Mark Z seem INTJ. Larry Page seems like an INFJ. The other Google founder seems INFP or ISFP.
    I've met Sergey, I think he's an ISTP. Page has a lot of Fe and smiles into his eyes, ESFX I'd suspect. Gates is probably an INTP.

    Larry David is an INTP.

  7. #87
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    6

    Default

    I would say Luna Lovegood would be an INFP.

    Also to add to your list, Emma Watson, (Hermione Granger in Harry Potter) is an INTP as well.

  8. #88
    Member doppelganger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    93

    Default

    James Clerk Maxwell should be on the list. Greatest physicist of the 19th century--the first physicist in history to unite two of the fundamental forces of nature (electricity and magnetism).

  9. #89
    Member doppelganger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    93

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The_Liquid_Laser View Post
    Here are some that I disagree with:

    Isaac Newton - I believe is INTJ. His discoveries rely more on insight than logic. Also his discoveries were more toward the physical world than of a purely theoretical nature. He really was the first to have the basic insight (Ni) into calculus, but viewed it as an application toward physics rather than a purely theoretical system like Leibniz (Ti).
    Newton is known for his laws of mechanics, the law of gravity, his discovery of the spectrum of visible light, his invention of the reflecting telescope, and his invention of calculus! Not bad for a lifetime of work! But were these accomplishments the products of a deep Ni intuition? Was Newton really INTJ? Let's see.

    The Laws of Mechanics

    These are the laws we all learn in high school, the laws collectively known as Newton's three laws of mechanics. Where did they come from? Galileo. Galileo died in the same year Newton was born. He performed the experiments and the analyses that showed the acceleration due to gravity, g, is a constant near the surface of the earth and can be expressed as

    g=F/m

    where F is the force of gravity on an object with mass m. This is the famous result popularly illustrated in the thought experiment in a vacuum in which a bowling ball and feather are dropped from the same height at the same time and fall to the earth at the same moment. This equation, of course, can be rewritten

    F=mg

    Does that look familiar? Newton generalized Galileo's discovery by stating that any force, F, acting on any mass, m, will produce an acceleration, a, or

    F=ma

    This, of course, is Newton's 2nd law of mechanics. So the basic relation between force, mass, and acceleration had already been demonstrated by Galileo for gravity. Newton's accomplishment was to extend this relation to all forces and bodies. Did this require a leap of intuition? Yes. But was it Ni? Or Ne? Isn't it Ne that sees the abstract similarities between superficially dissimilar phenomena? And isn't it Ti-Ne that abstracts the essential principle from a concrete body of facts?

    What about Newton's 1st and 3rd laws of mechanics? They can be directly deduced from the 2nd law. If a body only accelerates when a (net) force is impressed upon it, then the absence of force will not produce any acceleration, that is, the body will continue in its state of motion and continue moving at a constant speed in the same direction or remain at rest. This, of course, is Newton's 1st law. And if a body is at rest the 2nd law tells us the net force on it must be zero. A body sitting at rest on the surface of the earth, for example, is pulled against the ground--we call this its weight. If this force of gravity was the only force acting on the body it would not remain at rest. So there must be another force acting on the body that is exactly equal in magnitude and opposite in direction to gravity. What is that force? It is the force the surface of the earth exerts on the body--eg, the pressure we feel on our feet when we stand. So for the force of gravity acting on bodies resting on the earth's surface there is an equal and opposite force of the earth pushing up on the same body. But the body is not the only object at rest; the earth is also at rest with respect to the body. So the net force on the earth arising from its interaction with the body must also be zero. One such force is the weight of the body resting on the surface of the earth. To balance this downward force, there must be an equal force pulling up on the earth. What is that force? The force of gravity the body exerts on the earth. So we see that for the force of gravity pulling down on the body there is a force of gravity pulling up on the earth equal in magnitude and opposite in direction. Likewise, for the force of the body pushing down on the earth there is a force of the earth pushing up on the body equal in magnitude and opposite in direction. We can generalize this result and state that for every force there is an equal and opposite force. This, of course, is Newton's 3rd law, a result deduced using pure Ti logic. I would argue that the generalization that produced the 3rd law, like the one used to produce the 2nd, is an Ne insight.

    Universal Law of Gravitation

    This law originates from two sources: first, Newton's insight that the force pulling objects to the surface of the earth is the same as the force holding the earth in the sun's orbit; second, Kepler's work on planetary orbits. Kepler had already shown that the planets circle the sun in elliptical-shaped orbits. So like the laws of mechanics, the experimental groundwork had already been laid for Newton. His contribution was recognizing that gravity is a universal force that acts on apples and planets alike. Kepler's work allowed Newton to deduce the inverse-square law of gravitation. Was this insight Ni? Or Ne? Again, it is Ne, or Ti-Ne--ie, seeing the same abstract principle underlying two superficially disparate phenomena.

    Newton's Experimental Work

    As a boy Newton was fond of building mechanical toys. He continued his habit of experimentation as an adult when he invented the prism that enabled him to discover the spectrum of white light and when he invented the reflecting telescope. The invention of the prism no doubt happened when he noticed that some lenses and broken glass produce colored light when shone with white light. A prism is a special kind of lens with divergent surfaces not unlike those of some lenses and glass shards; it's not hard to see the inspiration for Newton's invention owed more to a pair of color-sensitive eyes than any particular set of cognitive functions. I don't know the detailed thinking behind the reflecting telescope except that it eliminated some of the known defects of optical lens telescopes like the kind Galileo used to discover the moons of Jupiter. Like his other insights, this invention betrayed an Ne insight into another way to collect and magnify the dim light from distant objects.

    So neither of Newton's inventions required Ni or Te for their creation. And it is not unheard-of for INTPs to do experimental work. I already mentioned the pioneering experimental work in mechanics done by Galileo and his invention of the optical telescope. James Clerk Maxwell, the first physicist to unify two fundamental forces (electricity and magnetism), conducted experiments throughout his career. Marie Curie won not one but two Nobel prizes for her work in radiation and her discoveries of radium and polonium. Leonardo da Vinci, of course, was a great inventor, anatomist, botanist, and cartographer. Einstein was not an experimentalist, but he nevertheless had a keen eye for mechanical design and could quickly judge the feasibility of patents for myriad devices submitted to the Swiss patent office where he worked before his genius was discovered.

    The Calculus

    The calculus originated from the question Newton asked, how can the instantaneous speed of an object be calculated? The answer? The same way the average speed of an object is calculated, only averaged over a very, very small time interval. Newton called these tiny intervals infinitesimals (hence the name infinitesimal calculus). The mechanics of the calculus are a limiting approximation to the simple arithmetic average speed. The genius lay in seeing that the instantaneous speed could be calculated this way. Was that a Ni insight? At first it might appear so; after all, the calculation is a limiting or convergent process. But so is Ti. And the thinking behind the discovery must have been, "if I reduce the time interval over which I calculate the average speed, in the limit as that interval approaches zero the speed will approach its instantaneous value." Why? Because this is precisely what the mechanics of the calculus does! So this was a conscious Ti deduction. Not a subconcsious Ni insight.

    Taken together, then, Newton's scientific work strongly suggests he was a Ti-Ne user, not Ni-Te.
    Last edited by doppelganger; 11-19-2014 at 10:19 PM.

Similar Threads

  1. [NT] The ultimate difference between ISTP and INTP
    By RaptorWizard in forum The NT Rationale (ENTP, INTP, ENTJ, INTJ)
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 05-11-2013, 08:26 AM
  2. [INTP] God: The ultimate object of INTP analysis
    By The Unknown Essence in forum The NT Rationale (ENTP, INTP, ENTJ, INTJ)
    Replies: 24
    Last Post: 07-19-2012, 01:16 PM
  3. [INTP] The Chameleon INTP
    By Cypocalypse in forum The NT Rationale (ENTP, INTP, ENTJ, INTJ)
    Replies: 72
    Last Post: 04-17-2012, 03:01 PM
  4. [INTP] The perfect ultimate INTP type description
    By entropie in forum The NT Rationale (ENTP, INTP, ENTJ, INTJ)
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 10-02-2011, 06:37 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