User Tag List

12 Last

Results 1 to 10 of 11

  1. #1
    Senior Member Shadow Play's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2018
    Posts
    208

    Default S-J and N-P correlation

    The test tendencies from the MBTI instrument show a correlation between S-J and N-P.

    Here are the approximate US stats:
    46% SJ
    27% SP
    19% NP
    8% NJ

    In other words, it's the equivalent of one NJ to six SJs, and two NPs to three SPs. To expand further on this, I took each S type and divided it by its N counterpart. Curiously enough, there also appears to be a slight correlation between I-S and E-N - which refutes Jung's connection between E/I and concrete or abstract.

    ISFJ per INFJ: 9.2
    ISTJ per INTJ: 5.5
    ESFJ per ENFJ: 4.9
    ESTJ per ENTJ: 4.8
    ISFP per INFP: 2
    ISTP per INTP: 1.6
    ESTP per ENTP: 1.3
    ESFP per ENFP: 1

    There are two possible explanations for this.

    One is that the indicator contains "dirty" test items which appeal more to those with a different preference, so that someone with an S preference might be more inclined to prefer J responses, and vice versa, with the inverse also applying to N and P.

    The second is that there is indeed a temperamental connection between whichever facets have been labelled S/N and J/P, to the point where they could potentially be at least partly sub-facets of the same dimension of personality. If so, this is another reason to doubt whether the four dichotomies are meaningful labels of personality.

    Is there also an equivalent correlation between Openness and Conscientiousness in the FFM?
    Likes Luminous liked this post

  2. #2
    Senior Member Turi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2017
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w4 sp/so
    Socionics
    ILI Ni
    Posts
    252

    Default

    Where are those statistics sourced from? Have you considered looking at the statistics from 16personalities?
    I ask because even though it's technically a Big 5 test, they represent the letters the same way as the MBTI does, not really any inconsistencies between how MBTI sees each dichotomy facet and how 16p perceives it.

    Considering this and that it's got some 188,256,261 tests taken I think the results could be worth looking at, I understand there is no way to discern how many are repeat test-takers etc and I don't know how up to date the statistics part of the page is either, so there's that.

    But even in there, 16p has statistics that contradict what is supposedly common knowledge in the MBTI community:
    - Intuitives outnumber Sensors.
    - Introverts outnumber Extroverts.

    Thinkers outnumber Feelers and Perceivers outnumber Judgers fwiw.

    Which means of course these statistics question the ones you've provided - how can there be 9.2x as many ISFJs as INFJs, if N outnumbers S? So on and so forth. There's more than one statistic to consider - where are you sourcing your information?
    Theorising on one specific data set seems a little useless to me. Too cherry-picky.

    The "rarest type" according to MBTI mythology is the supposedly elusive INFJ however, they actually make up a massive 7.55% of respondents in North America, ISTP is the rarest type on that website making up only 2.26%. How could there be 1.6x ISTPs as there is INTPs, if INTPs make up 5.73% of respondents there? I know, I shouldn't bring in statistics from whatever source you've got and use them like this, the point is there's more than one source for statistics and 16personalities is wildly popular, massive sample size.

    I understand the sample size is skewed - it's online only, the MBTI has statistics for people that have taken written tests etc in workplaces and whatnot - so they've got a different database, but even with the official MBTI test, the statistics you see when you take the test online pertain to and only to the official MBTI online test. Is this the source you're using? Don't tell me you're using those 20-something year old statistics that reckful keeps posting everywhere.

    I've got access to the statistics from the official MBTI online test statistics - posted them on PerC a while back - these statistics are from the online test only obviously (but not limited to typology-lovers), but the numbers are different from what you've posted again, they're more up to date than the 20+ year old statistics that keep getting bandied about, however.

    Just some things to think about.

  3. #3
    Senior Member Shadow Play's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2018
    Posts
    208

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Turi View Post
    Where are those statistics sourced from? Have you considered looking at the statistics from 16personalities?
    I ask because even though it's technically a Big 5 test, they represent the letters the same way as the MBTI does, not really any inconsistencies between how MBTI sees each dichotomy facet and how 16p perceives it.

    Considering this and that it's got some 188,256,261 tests taken I think the results could be worth looking at, I understand there is no way to discern how many are repeat test-takers etc and I don't know how up to date the statistics part of the page is either, so there's that.

    But even in there, 16p has statistics that contradict what is supposedly common knowledge in the MBTI community:
    - Intuitives outnumber Sensors.
    - Introverts outnumber Extroverts.

    Thinkers outnumber Feelers and Perceivers outnumber Judgers fwiw.

    Which means of course these statistics question the ones you've provided - how can there be 9.2x as many ISFJs as INFJs, if N outnumbers S? So on and so forth. There's more than one statistic to consider - where are you sourcing your information?
    Theorising on one specific data set seems a little useless to me. Too cherry-picky.

    The "rarest type" according to MBTI mythology is the supposedly elusive INFJ however, they actually make up a massive 7.55% of respondents in North America, ISTP is the rarest type on that website making up only 2.26%. How could there be 1.6x ISTPs as there is INTPs, if INTPs make up 5.73% of respondents there? I know, I shouldn't bring in statistics from whatever source you've got and use them like this, the point is there's more than one source for statistics and 16personalities is wildly popular, massive sample size.

    I understand the sample size is skewed - it's online only, the MBTI has statistics for people that have taken written tests etc in workplaces and whatnot - so they've got a different database, but even with the official MBTI test, the statistics you see when you take the test online pertain to and only to the official MBTI online test. Is this the source you're using? Don't tell me you're using those 20-something year old statistics that reckful keeps posting everywhere.

    I've got access to the statistics from the official MBTI online test statistics - posted them on PerC a while back - these statistics are from the online test only obviously (but not limited to typology-lovers), but the numbers are different from what you've posted again, they're more up to date than the 20+ year old statistics that keep getting bandied about, however.

    Just some things to think about.


    My stats are sourced from the official MBTI instrument, published in the MBTI Manual. Those are the "20+ year old" stats you're referring to. Okay, so let's compare the older stats with the current ones you sourced from the official MBTI online test stats.

    39% SJ
    25% NP
    21% SP
    15% NJ

    The main difference is that the S skew is weaker, with nearly twice the number of NJs than before and more NPs than SPs. However, what's consistent between both of them is there's still a very noticeable correlation between S-J and N-P, so you haven't refuted the main point I made in the OP.

    And guess what? INFJ is still the rarest type at 2.8%.

    As for 16personalities, I agree that it's essentially a Big 5 test with MBTI labels, but I don't consider it to be a reliable indicator of general population trends because it has more of a niche userbase (which you've acknowledged) - geeks who either do tests for fun or frequent online communities where the test is posted. Its type tendencies are consistent with those on typology forums, which are strongly skewered towards I, N, and P (I suspect nearly half the INJs of being mistyped INPs because they're "Ni doms"). Also, we can't rule out the possibility that many tests on 16personalities are retests by the same individuals.

  4. #4
    Senior Member Turi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2017
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w4 sp/so
    Socionics
    ILI Ni
    Posts
    252

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Shadow Play View Post
    My stats are sourced from the official MBTI instrument, published in the MBTI Manual. Those are the "20+ year old" stats you're referring to. Okay, so let's compare the older stats with the current ones you sourced from the official MBTI online test stats.

    SJ: 39%
    NP: 25%
    SP: 21%
    NJ: 15%

    The main difference is that the S skew is weaker, with nearly twice the number of NJs than before and more NPs than SPs. However, what's consistent between both of them is there's still a very noticeable correlation between S-J and N-P, so you haven't refuted the main point I made in the OP.

    And guess what? INFJ is still the rarest type at 2.8%.

    As for 16personalities, I agree that it's essentially a Big 5 test with MBTI labels, but I don't consider it to be a reliable indicator of general population trends because it has more of a niche userbase (which you've acknowledged) - geeks who either do tests for fun or frequent online communities where the test is posted. Its type tendencies are consistent with those on typology forums, which are strongly skewered towards I, N, and P (I suspect nearly half the INJs of being mistyped INPs because they're "Ni doms"). Also, we can't rule out the possibility that many tests on 16personalities are retests by the same individuals.
    Ah yes, those ancient statistics. I think we should throw them in the bin but maybe that's just me. The world was a different place back then, I think those stats are super meaningless for so many reasons.

    I didn't refute the points you were making because I agree with it, I've got multiple problems with how the MBTI portrays each dichotomy facet.

    I think introversion has too many aspects from intuition and thinking in its MBTI understanding.
    I think extroversion has too many aspects from sensation and feeling in its MBTI understanding.
    I think intuition has too many aspects from introversion and thinking in its MBTI understanding.
    I think sensation has too many aspects of extroversion in its understanding.
    I think feeling has too many irrational aspects to it and is not properly understood as a rational decision making process by the MBTI.
    I think thinking has too many introverted and intuitive aspects to it.
    I think perceiving has a lot of introverted aspects (contrary to Red Panda on PerC who thinks something closer to P=E).
    I think judging has a lot of extroverted aspects (contrary to Red Panda on PerC who thinks something closer to J=I).

    I agree re: some INxJs probably really being INxPs and only really testing as INxJ due to "Ni dom" - I agree with it because I'm literally one of those people, I'm kinda iffy on T/F but whatever, I am an example of someone that struggled to make sense of how I know I'm an "Ni dom" but test as INxP (INTP initially) in dichotomy, and then starting actually testing as a J after discovering "Ni dom" is INxJ in MBTI dichotomy (because Myers failed to understand introversion and extroversion correctly, imo). Simple fact is it doesn't make sense, function stacks are slapped on after-the-fact so, not tested for at all, which means "Ni dom" and INxP does not contradict each other and in fact makes way more sense than INxJ.
    Where it gets tricky is a lot of type descriptors speak from a functions-in-attitudes perspective which makes the INxJ descriptors fit actual INxP types more, because they're speaking to their true preferences (ie INTJ descriptors talking about introverted intuition and thinking supporting it etc will match an actual INTP by dichotomy because introverted intuition = INxP, really, lol). Shit gets confusing. Gotta accept function-stacks and dichotomy are completely different models etc and not force things to fit where they simply don't.


    Re: 16p, it's definitely a Big 5 test using MBTI labels they even say so themselves in their "Our Theory" section and even go to great lengths to emphasise that they are definitely not testing for Jungs functions-in-attitudes:
    However, unlike Myers-Briggs or other theories based on the Jungian model, we have not incorporated Jungian concepts such as cognitive functions, or their prioritization. Jungian concepts are very difficult to measure and validate scientifically, so we’ve instead chosen to rework and rebalance the dimensions of personality called the Big Five personality traits, a model that dominates modern psychological and social research.
    Isn't it weird that ISFJ was the most popular type back in those prehistoric times when those stats came out, but ENTP wasn't the least popular type.

  5. #5
    Senior Member Shadow Play's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2018
    Posts
    208

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Turi View Post
    Ah yes, those ancient statistics. I think we should throw them in the bin but maybe that's just me. The world was a different place back then, I think those stats are super meaningless for so many reasons.
    I'm all for keeping stats current and up to date. What would be more of an issue is if the stats were produced using different versions of the MBTI, but I think the Form M was used for both.

    I didn't refute the points you were making because I agree with it, I've got multiple problems with how the MBTI portrays each dichotomy facet.
    I see. Yeah, I have my own issues with how the MBTI portrays each dimension.

    I think introversion has too many aspects from intuition and thinking in its MBTI understanding.
    I think extroversion has too many aspects from sensation and feeling in its MBTI understanding.
    I think intuition has too many aspects from introversion and thinking in its MBTI understanding.
    I think sensation has too many aspects of extroversion in its understanding.
    I think feeling has too many irrational aspects to it and is not properly understood as a rational decision making process by the MBTI.
    I think thinking has too many introverted and intuitive aspects to it.
    I think perceiving has a lot of introverted aspects (contrary to Red Panda on PerC who thinks something closer to P=E).
    I think judging has a lot of extroverted aspects (contrary to Red Panda on PerC who thinks something closer to J=I).
    E/I: Agreed, and this conceptualisation of extraversion and introversion hearkens all the way back to Jung's original theory.

    S/N: I disagree. I think Sensing has too many aspects of Thinking and Judging in its characterisation, whereas Intuition has too many aspects of Feeling and Perceiving in its characterisation. We're on the same page with J/P, so I'll elaborate on T/F. The emphasis of practicality in Sensing suggests a goal-oriented approach at the expense of the personal element. A lot of descriptions of Intuition have a flaky, mystical aspect to them which tend to emphasise the deprioritisation of logical processes and objective data. If someone was asked to describe an intuitive person, they would likely describe them as "introverted, empathetic, creative, free-spirited, and not bound by objective considerations", or something along those lines. Basically, they'd describe an INFP. ENTJs are sometimes described as the least Intuitive N types for a reason.

    T/F: I agree with F, because I also take issue with the irrational aspects to it. I don't see how a logical approach towards problems is incompatible with an interpersonal outlook. Big 5 Agreeableness is a more meaningful dimension of personality.

    J/P: I strongly agree with you, and I also disagree with Red Panda's characterisation of this dimension. Judging is concerned with organising the external world, often to the point of meddling in the affairs of others and attempting to make them conform to the status quo. Perceiving is concerned with experiencing the world on an individual level, and prefers a live-and-let-live approach of minding your own business.

    I agree re: some INxJs probably really being INxPs and only really testing as INxJ due to "Ni dom" - I agree with it because I'm literally one of those people, I'm kinda iffy on T/F but whatever, I am an example of someone that struggled to make sense of how I know I'm an "Ni dom" but test as INxP (INTP initially) in dichotomy, and then starting actually testing as a J after discovering "Ni dom" is INxJ in MBTI dichotomy (because Myers failed to understand introversion and extroversion correctly, imo). Simple fact is it doesn't make sense, function stacks are slapped on after-the-fact so, not tested for at all, which means "Ni dom" and INxP does not contradict each other and in fact makes way more sense than INxJ.
    Where it gets tricky is a lot of type descriptors speak from a functions-in-attitudes perspective which makes the INxJ descriptors fit actual INxP types more, because they're speaking to their true preferences (ie INTJ descriptors talking about introverted intuition and thinking supporting it etc will match an actual INTP by dichotomy because introverted intuition = INxP, really, lol). Shit gets confusing. Gotta accept function-stacks and dichotomy are completely different models etc and not force things to fit where they simply don't.
    Even though INTP is my best fitting type by dichotomies, I could easily argue for ENFP (Ne-Fi-Te-Si) using the forum famous Grant stacks, if I so wished. Modern Ne descriptions tend to describe all NPs equally well, not just ENPs. Inferior Si works regardless of whose definition you use, be it Jung's reality-challenged Introverted Sensing, or MBTI Si (which describes SJs, instead). I relate well to both Fi and Ti, which is apparently a common experience for most INs (even when they don't have either function in their stack), but I relate better to Te than Fe. Well, why would an INTP relate to Fe when it better describes FJs than TPs? A recent functions test gave me 38 for Ti and 16 for Fe, and 30 for both Fi and Te. So, Fi/Te > Ti/Fe.

    I love how easily I can justify any typing using function magic.

    Isn't it weird that ISFJ was the most popular type back in those prehistoric times when those stats came out, but ENTP wasn't the least popular type.
    Eh, MBTI stats don't always constitute logical opposites. To give one example, INFJs and ISTPs were "ranked first among all the types in using spiritual/philosophical coping resources" despite only sharing one preference, while ESTP was ranked second lowest. Perhaps some preferences have a stronger influence in others in producing inconsistencies, and this inconsistency could be explained by a greater influence from E/I, but it still doesn't make sense.
    Likes Turi liked this post

  6. #6
    Somber and irritated cascadeco's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    9w1 sp/sx
    Posts
    8,166

    Default

    Actually I find it extremely fascinating that the 'ancient stats' are so different from the newer stats.

    To me there is a pretty straightforward answer to that -- cultural values and traits that are esteemed (say, in the workplace, or in social media) have shifted a lot from pre-2000 to post-2000. The entire working world was a lot more stable, easier to get a foot in the door (for college degrees at least) pre-2000 vs post. Historically S and J traits were much more esteemed, I'd say - looking at job descriptions, what is 'trendy' and looked up to culturally, and so on. In the recent couple of decades there's been a big shift in sought-after traits -- descriptions often accentuate needing people to be adaptable, 'ok in a fast-paced changing environment', creative, 'big box thinker', and so on. Essentially culturally N has become more valued (at least - stereotypical N, which isn't necessarily actual N), as well as P. Look at all of those zany youtube video makers - I bet a bunch of them are SJ's, who very well will identify more with NP since much of the social world revolves around NP sorts of quirkiness and fast-paced movement. The entire environment has changed, more dynamic. Everyone trying to 'make it big' as entrepreneurs online, and so on. Any SJ growing up in todays' world is basically being primed to be more NP --- so in my opinion that is a big reason a lot more people could be testing as NP.

    I say all of this though with my usual eye-rolling reaction to these stats; I feel mbti stats should be taken with a pretty big grain of salt, in terms of the peoples' actual types. Still, though, a lot of useful stuff can be seen around what everyone VALUES / aspires to, at the very least.
    "...On and on and on and on he strode, far out over the sands, singing wildly to the sea, crying to greet the advent of the life that had cried to him." - James Joyce

    My Photography and Watercolor Fine Art Prints!!! Cascade Colors Fine Art Prints

  7. #7
    Senior Member Shadow Play's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2018
    Posts
    208

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by cascadeco View Post
    Actually I find it extremely fascinating that the 'ancient stats' are so different from the newer stats.

    To me there is a pretty straightforward answer to that -- cultural values and traits that are esteemed (say, in the workplace, or in social media) have shifted a lot from pre-2000 to post-2000. The entire working world was a lot more stable, easier to get a foot in the door (for college degrees at least) pre-2000 vs post. Historically S and J traits were much more esteemed, I'd say - looking at job descriptions, what is 'trendy' and looked up to culturally, and so on. In the recent couple of decades there's been a big shift in sought-after traits -- descriptions often accentuate needing people to be adaptable, 'ok in a fast-paced changing environment', creative, 'big box thinker', and so on. Essentially culturally N has become more valued (at least - stereotypical N, which isn't necessarily actual N), as well as P. Look at all of those zany youtube video makers - I bet a bunch of them are SJ's, who very well will identify more with NP since much of the social world revolves around NP sorts of quirkiness and fast-paced movement. The entire environment has changed, more dynamic. Everyone trying to 'make it big' as entrepreneurs online, and so on. Any SJ growing up in todays' world is basically being primed to be more NP --- so in my opinion that is a big reason a lot more people could be testing as NP.

    I say all of this though with my usual eye-rolling reaction to these stats; I feel mbti stats should be taken with a pretty big grain of salt, in terms of the peoples' actual types. Still, though, a lot of useful stuff can be seen around what everyone VALUES / aspires to, at the very least.
    Interesting comment about changing cultural values. I agree that some individuals of one 'type' can over-idealise traits of another and seek to emulate them. You mentioned those "zany youtube video makers" you suspect are SJs who overidentify with NP values. What sticks out for me are those self-help video makers and TED Talks speakers. They espouse the virtues of creativity and adaptability, but their advice consists of rules sometimes delivered in list formats (think of those top 10 lists), with an emphasis on practical advice and on what to do or not do to develop those qualities.

    During my time studying design, the projects I've done required me to develop concepts in copious detail, using an elaborate methodology of brainstorming, research, surveying, and mood boards. It's about starting with the details and piecing them together to form a bigger picture. That's not to say such an approach doesn't have it's merits, but it seems like an SJ-ish approach towards creativity. Usually, I just came up with an idea straight off the bat, which would be my first draft, and then I'd tinker around with it through trial and error. That worked out fine for me.

    It's certainly possible for an individual to receive mixed results across their lifetime, but the probability of consistency is higher for single dimensions than it is across overall types. So, I think it's far more likely that someone who previously tested as SJ would retest as NJ than they would NP, demonstrated by the fact there's almost double the percentage of NJs from approximately 8% to 15%.

    The overall percentages of J and P are identical, with approximately 54% J and 46% P for both stats. It's primarily S/N that's changed, because the recent stats showed 40% N, whereas before it was only 27% N. Even then, SJs still constitute a plurality of types at 39%.

    Also, I think the traits concerning being a quick mover are just as attributable, if not more so, to EP than NP. I'm an NP, but I'm also an introvert, and Neurotic according to the Big 5. My introversion means that I need time and space to process things. Although I'm generally below average on Conscientiousness facets, I'm fairly high on risk aversion, and I attribute that to a combination of needing to look before I leap, and to worrying about what could go wrong if I screw up.

    Studies of fish showed that extraversion and introversion affects risk taking tendencies in other animals.
    Last edited by Shadow Play; 06-09-2019 at 04:39 AM. Reason: Couldn't find a better link to research on fish.

  8. #8
    Somber and irritated cascadeco's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    9w1 sp/sx
    Posts
    8,166

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Shadow Play View Post

    It's certainly possible for an individual to receive mixed results across their lifetime, but the probability of consistency is higher for single dimensions than it is across overall types. So, I think it's far more likely that someone who previously tested as SJ would test again as NJ than they would NP, demonstrated by the fact there's almost double the percentage of NJs from approximately 8% to 15%.
    Ah. With my comments I was thinking of first-time people taking the test - say, young SJ's of post-2000 generation who personally might identify with the traits of NP, due to expectations culturally, who have taken the test in the past 20 years. Regarding repeat-takers, sure, I could see how a first-time SJ twenty years ago might re-test as NJ today, vs do a two-trait switch. But I was really trying to express cultural shifts and the difference in the generations and what young SJ's are surrounded with today vs what they were surrounded with.. in the 1960's or something. I guarantee an SJ growing up in the 60's and an SJ of the same type graduating from high school in 2019 is going to have pretty significant differences and might test quite differently based on how the questions are framed and how they view themselves as fitting and behaving in the world they are a part of. Thus statistics and typing results/identification can morph over time as the culture changes, due to traits that are esteemed and 'necessary' in the world.

    The overall percentages of J and P are identical, with approximately 54% J and 46% P for both stats. It's primarily S/N that's changed, because the recent stats showed 40% N, whereas before it was only 27% N. Even then, SJs still constitute a plurality of types at 39%.
    Yeah, I think culturally N has become more esteemed - again, at least the more superficial trappings of it used in dichotomy tests - 'creative', 'imaginative', and so on.

    Also, I think the traits concerning being a quick mover are just as attributable, if not more so, to EP than NP. I'm an NP, but I'm also an introvert, and Neurotic according to the Big 5. My introversion means that I need time and space to process things. Although I'm generally below average on Conscientiousness facets, I'm fairly high on risk aversion, and I attribute that to a combination of needing to look before I leap, and to worrying about what could go wrong if I screw up.
    True, highly adaptable is probably best suited for EP, over IP, though I'd say IP will generally be more adaptable/able to adjust on the fly vs IJ. Though maybe it's more ISP that would be the case. Though a lot depends on whether it's external adaptability to moving pieces or adaptability to ideas, I guess. But regardless I think I just meant that this sort of thing seems to be looked for and highlighted more in the job world these days / just a less 'stable' and more fast-paced world overall.
    "...On and on and on and on he strode, far out over the sands, singing wildly to the sea, crying to greet the advent of the life that had cried to him." - James Joyce

    My Photography and Watercolor Fine Art Prints!!! Cascade Colors Fine Art Prints

  9. #9
    FRACTALICIOUS phobik's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    MBTI
    ESTJ
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx/so
    Posts
    9,596

    Default

    To avoid criticism, do nothing, say nothing, be nothing.
    ~ Elbert Hubbard

    Music provides one of the clearest examples of a much deeper relation between mathematics and human experience.

  10. #10
    Senior Member Shadow Play's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2018
    Posts
    208

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by phobik View Post
    All hail the glorious Intuitive Übermenschen!


Similar Threads

  1. [Enne] Enneagram Type and MBTI function correlations...
    By yeghor in forum Enneagram
    Replies: 254
    Last Post: 11-13-2017, 04:35 PM
  2. Replies: 125
    Last Post: 01-23-2013, 09:13 PM
  3. INTP and Enneagram Correlations
    By FFF in forum Enneagram
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 10-01-2007, 01:47 PM
  4. Is there a correlation between type and military enlistment?
    By Cindyrella in forum Politics, History, and Current Events (Temporarily Closed)
    Replies: 29
    Last Post: 07-20-2007, 10:04 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