• You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

[NT] Rational females - do you struggle with this?

Coriolis

Si vis pacem, para bellum
Staff member
Joined
Apr 18, 2010
Messages
27,230
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
The only thing I've heard to work is the whole Red-Pill, Game, approach. And that only works if she develops tingles for the man in question.
What man? I'm not a man, in any case. What do I do when I have to deal with an irrational woman? They seem even less amenable than men to having that pointed out to them.
 

OrangeAppled

Sugar Hiccup
Joined
Mar 20, 2009
Messages
7,626
MBTI Type
INFP
Enneagram
4w5
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
Excuse me for butting in....however, even as I am not an NT female, but an NF female, even I have had this experience. I DO express emotion to those very, very close, or anonymously online, or in mediocre art, but since childhood I have been accused of being cold, and I tend toward temperamental/passionate expressions, not softly sentimental ones nor nurturing warmth. More often though, I may appear unaffected and aloof, even if I do not feel that way internally. Coping with this is just to assert that I do care, but in my own way, and that people need to accept it as valid. I still struggle with negative judgment from others over this, and I admit I will summon some expression of emotion that doesn't feel natural and really is not there (although a "feeling-value" may be), just to appease expectations.

In my most serious past relationships, my exes remarked that I am less emotional than they are. These have been F type men, but it goes to show that being a man doesn't mean you are less emotional than a woman by default. I hesitate to pit emotionality against rationality though - I think someone can experience and express strong emotion and not necessarily be ruled by it. IMO, you can make rational decisions without being an unemotional person, and you can have weak emotional response and not be very good at rational thinking. Sometimes that is more of an intelligence issue than being passionate or stoic.

Plus the requisite: INTJs are actually irrational types in Jung's theory. Okay, okay, I know that's not the same meaning as the layman's usage. :p
 

kyuuei

Emperor/Dictator
Joined
Aug 28, 2008
Messages
13,964
MBTI Type
enfp
Enneagram
8
I talked to my boyfriend to get input on this subject. It was a cool conversation.

He said he feels two things combat the suffering in life. (He doesn't like the terminology of 'combat' in this sentence, that's my wording not his. I'm paraphrasing his very intelligent response into a small paragraph.) Spirit and sensitivity. And spirit is where the emotions tend to stem from.. passion, happiness, anger, sadness. Being involved in the things around you, versus being apathetic. Spirit is the major player--and why emotions are important in humans. And sensitivity, somewhere along the way, we sort of turned into a synonym of the word weakness. And it's a grave mistake. Sensitivity is being finely in tune. Acutely aware. Sensitivity modifies spirit, and requires discipline. And people who are emotionally charged, and angry, or sad, and are lashing out.. they lack the sensitivity to know they've strayed from the direction they want to go. They have the spirit, but no direction to funnel it into.

The idea is, both are important. You don't want apathy and direction since you'll go no where, and you don't want passion without direction because you'll go no where. I think to me, in that context, adding sensitivity to that equation (the emotionally charged person equation) can help tremendously. And to be sensitive, you have to be hyper aware of all the elements in the situation--the stem of the emotion, the body language, everything. So you can make a logical, appropriate reaction to the situation. Sensitivity and logic, in that context, can walk hand in hand.
 

grey_beard

The Typing Tabby
Joined
Jan 28, 2014
Messages
1,478
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
What man? I'm not a man, in any case. What do I do when I have to deal with an irrational woman? They seem even less amenable than men to having that pointed out to them.
I was semi-trolling, semi-teasing: in particular as you are (as you are justly confident in and of and about), a rational woman.

I agree with you that irrational women *are* less amenable than men to having that pointed out to them: so much so, in fact, that only another *woman* is allowed even to _attempt_ to point it out to them. Men must make do with distracting them.

Two more serious responses, though, since I respect you, and your mind, and your good faith. (And a tip o' the hat for not flaming / officially censuring me over my jest. (grey_bears rubs Hershey bar on nose...) )

1) Though I note that you have once noted you don't get along with Biblical literalists/fundamentalists (and from that I infer your present attitude at least leans atheistic, as far as I can tell), nonetheless, I will quote the Bible at you:

4 Do not answer a fool according to his folly, Or you will also be like him. 5 Answer a fool as his folly deserves, That he not be wise in his own eyes. (Proverbs 26:4-6)

("Look! The Bible has a contradiction!") No; it's the rhetorical device known as paradox; more or less pointing out, that there *is* no good way to deal with someone irrational.

But, as with so many things in life, there are caveats.
One of them, is the tingles method I mentioned above, reserved for men: note also that it redirects a man away from using his stereotypically superior rational mind.
The other, appropriate more to "conventional" women, as it were, is in recognition of Proverbs. DON'T answer someone irrational...*directly*. Instead, use the female stereotypically superior *social networking* skills: make alliances with all the *other* women in the vicinity, and together, force the irrational woman to change her mind, or her ways, through *peer pressure*.

(Good luck, btw. I've had to deal with some irrational women in my time and often wished for nothing more than the existence of warp drive or teleportation capabilities: for myself or for her, after awhile I didn't care which...)

Respectful handshake tendered in lieu of :hug: to a fellow armoured unit.
 

BadOctopus

Suave y Fuerte
Joined
Oct 9, 2014
Messages
3,232
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
You're very polite and articulate, [MENTION=6561]OrangeAppled[/MENTION]. I like that.

Also, perhaps I shouldn't have said that I'm not emotional. I actually feel things very deeply. But that's the thing; they're down deep, not obvious to most people. And my actions aren't ruled by them. When making a decision, I always try to rely on common sense, because emotions can often lead us astray. But so many of the men I've known seem to wear their emotions right on the surface, and allow them to pull them every which way. I just wonder where the idea of men being the more stoic, impassive of the two genders even came from. To me, it seems like just as much of a stereotype as "All Irish people are drunkards" or "All Arabs are terrorists". (I do not agree with either of those, by the way.)
 

grey_beard

The Typing Tabby
Joined
Jan 28, 2014
Messages
1,478
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
[MENTION=6561]OrangeAppled[/MENTION] -- how on *earth* could you consider yourself to be butting in? Please set your E4 in abeyance for the moment, as your input is timely, relevant, and welcome.

You and [MENTION=9811]Coriolis[/MENTION] *both* bring up the distinctions between feeling and expressing emotion; between feeling rational and *acting* rational; between appropriate motives and (socially) appropriate (read, 'expected') behaviour.

The issue here isn't solidly one of the sex of the irrational person: it is how that irrationality is *expressed*, and the typical social response of others *to* that expression. And here, it isn't just a matter of stereotyping of the individual: for the indulgences granted, as well as the social strictures imposed, are different for each sex, *and* related to the "class" or "arena" of social behaviour considered (public vs. private, relationship vs. job role), in addition to the sex of the main players involved at the moment.

Also, [MENTION=6561]OrangeAppled[/MENTION], this line is gold:

IMO, you can make rational decisions without being an unemotional person, and you can have weak emotional response and not be very good at rational thinking. Sometimes that is more of an intelligence issue than being passionate or stoic.


Consider yourself *highly* commended -- nobody says an emotions/rationality are a zero-sum game: and nobody says a person has to have much of either one in the first place.

And just to build on what you said -- sometimes, as I am sure you have discovered, one must set aside one's own preference or style in pursuit of a higher goal, which may be at cross purposes to one's own wants at the moment.

The ability to know which one to use, and the ability to switch -- is the sign of maturity and completeness. :sage: :rock:
 

Coriolis

Si vis pacem, para bellum
Staff member
Joined
Apr 18, 2010
Messages
27,230
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
I was semi-trolling, semi-teasing: in particular as you are (as you are justly confident in and of and about), a rational woman.
I knew that, but couldn't resist an opportunity to elicit potentially useful advice on a situation I encounter all too often. (OK - not that often, but how often is acceptable??)

Two more serious responses, though, since I respect you, and your mind, and your good faith. (And a tip o' the hat for not flaming / officially censuring me over my jest. (grey_bears rubs Hershey bar on nose...) )

1) Though I note that you have once noted you don't get along with Biblical literalists/fundamentalists (and from that I infer your present attitude at least leans atheistic, as far as I can tell), nonetheless, I will quote the Bible at you:
Flaming and censuring? Not at all. It is usually far more entertaining, and more instructive, to take such posts stone cold seriously. And BTW, I'm not an atheist, but that is another discussion entirely. You are right that the many contradictions in the Bible do not recommend it to me as a customary source of guidance.

One of them, is the tingles method I mentioned above, reserved for men: note also that it redirects a man away from using his stereotypically superior rational mind.
The other, appropriate more to "conventional" women, as it were, is in recognition of Proverbs. DON'T answer someone irrational...*directly*. Instead, use the female stereotypically superior *social networking* skills: make alliances with all the *other* women in the vicinity, and together, force the irrational woman to change her mind, or her ways, through *peer pressure*.
What is this "tingles" method, and why is it suitable only for men, presumably when dealing with women? (Can women use it when dealing with irrational men?) As for the female social networking route -- forget it. I don't know if I would be able to pull that off if I tried. The few times it has come to that, I have either made my case quite plainly, taken matters into my own hands, held my tongue entirely and let them shoot themselves in the foot, or simply left.
 

LonestarCowgirl

New member
Joined
Oct 21, 2013
Messages
482
I am a female INTJ. It's been my personal experience that almost every man I've ever known has been more emotional than me.
I understand, believe me, I do. What makes more sense to me is you're inadvertently bringing out the worst in others. I say that respectfully. Consider reflecting on your own behavior.

(I tend to interpret 'emotional' as unstable.)

The only thing I've heard to work is the whole Red-Pill, Game, approach.
What's a red pill for?
 

grey_beard

The Typing Tabby
Joined
Jan 28, 2014
Messages
1,478
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
I knew that, but couldn't resist an opportunity to elicit potentially useful advice on a situation I encounter all too often. (OK - not that often, but how often is acceptable??)


Flaming and censuring? Not at all. It is usually far more entertaining, and more instructive, to take such posts stone cold seriously. And BTW, I'm not an atheist, but that is another discussion entirely. You are right that the many contradictions in the Bible do not recommend it to me as a customary source of guidance.


What is this "tingles" method, and why is it suitable only for men, presumably when dealing with women? (Can women use it when dealing with irrational men?) As for the female social networking route -- forget it. I don't know if I would be able to pull that off if I tried. The few times it has come to that, I have either made my case quite plainly, taken matters into my own hands, held my tongue entirely and let them shoot themselves in the foot, or simply left.

"tingles" == "sexual attraction/attractiveness": if a woman is being cussed for the sake of being contrary, being attractive (*and* masculine) will often -- but not always -- short-circuit her defenses. When women do it to men, it's called "feminine wiles" (being charitable :D). When men do it to women, it's either called (SWOON! *thud*) or "that creep was just *using* her"...

I've found that trying to reason with a woman in the throes of irrationality usually leads to the woman attempting to take you out personally with a flame thrower, as it appears that doing so gets taken as an affront to her very sense of self. For that reason, I usually opt for the transporter room...
 

grey_beard

The Typing Tabby
Joined
Jan 28, 2014
Messages
1,478
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
I understand, believe me, I do. What makes more sense to me is you're inadvertently bringing out the worst in others. I say that respectfully. Consider reflecting on your own behavior.

(I tend to interpret 'emotional' as unstable.)


What's a red pill for?

You probably don't want to know: and it would likely be a thread hijack.

Cliff's Notes to the Cliff's Notes:

"red pill" is short hand for a body of knowledge of the realm/arena of interpersonal/intersexual dynamics, between individuals or in the broader culture; alternatively, "using masculinity and/or male attractiveness" on women. It can be used by pick-up artists for "exploitative, no-love-or-commitment-offered, but only *implied*" sex; more charitably, and more constructively, it can be used by a man to keep from being unfairly manipulated by women; best of all, it can be used to bolster a man's attractiveness in marriage.
 

BadOctopus

Suave y Fuerte
Joined
Oct 9, 2014
Messages
3,232
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
"red pill" is short hand for a body of knowledge of the realm/arena of interpersonal/intersexual dynamics, between individuals or in the broader culture; alternatively, "using masculinity and/or male attractiveness" on women. It can be used by pick-up artists for "exploitative, no-love-or-commitment-offered, but only *implied*" sex; more charitably, and more constructively, it can be used by a man to keep from being unfairly manipulated by women; best of all, it can be used to bolster a man's attractiveness in marriage.
So... not a Matrix reference, then. Got it.
 

Coriolis

Si vis pacem, para bellum
Staff member
Joined
Apr 18, 2010
Messages
27,230
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
I understand, believe me, I do. What makes more sense to me is you're inadvertently bringing out the worst in others. I say that respectfully. Consider reflecting on your own behavior.
Why does this make more sense to you? It seems reasonable to me that someone who is relatively unemotional will find most other people more emotional by comparison. This isn't the worst in them, it's just who they are.

I understand how you feel that way, but the truth is, there are no contradictions in the Bible, only misinterpretations.
My comment was not a feeling, but rather an observation. Do not presume to know my feelings.
 

LonestarCowgirl

New member
Joined
Oct 21, 2013
Messages
482
Why does this make more sense to you? It seems reasonable to me that someone who is relatively unemotional will find most other people more emotional by comparison. This isn't the worst in them, it's just who they are.
You're fine. You make a lot of sense to me. I'm just bouncing my ideas off of y'all. My thought is, if the OP and others chronically encounter a negative form of emotionalism in men, there may be something else at play; I'm reading between the lines.
 

BadOctopus

Suave y Fuerte
Joined
Oct 9, 2014
Messages
3,232
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
I understand how you feel that way, but the truth is, there are no contradictions in the Bible, only misinterpretations.
I actually agree that there's a lot of good, timelesss advice in the Bible, particularly in Proverbs and in Jesus's Sermon on the Mount. Some of the advice in Proverbs is also hilarious. Like how it's better to dwell on the corner of a rooftop than with a quarrelsome wife. lol

However, this thread is quickly becoming a festival of off-topicness. I fear some of these posts will end up in the Graveyard.
 

OrangeAppled

Sugar Hiccup
Joined
Mar 20, 2009
Messages
7,626
MBTI Type
INFP
Enneagram
4w5
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
You're very polite and articulate, [MENTION=6561]OrangeAppled[/MENTION]. I like that.

Also, perhaps I shouldn't have said that I'm not emotional. I actually feel things very deeply. But that's the thing; they're down deep, not obvious to most people. And my actions aren't ruled by them. When making a decision, I always try to rely on common sense, because emotions can often lead us astray. But so many of the men I've known seem to wear their emotions right on the surface, and allow them to pull them every which way. I just wonder where the idea of men being the more stoic, impassive of the two genders even came from. To me, it seems like just as much of a stereotype as "All Irish people are drunkards" or "All Arabs are terrorists". (I do not agree with either of those, by the way.)


It's rooted in a need to invalidate women as a way to excuse treating them as inferiors, IMO. What's weird to me is when women support this view also.

It's also an anima/animus thing, where our experience of our inferior function represents the "other", as in, "not oneself", and so it gets projected onto the opposite gender. The experience of it is far more emotional and less differentiated from non-cognitive aspects of the psyche, so "the other" is naturally seen as less rational/more emotional, and even untrustworthy or mysterious.

Not having obvious emotion for a woman can actually be more of a problem than it is for men showing obvious emotion... and it's because people interpret lack of

In teaching from pre-school to middle school, I have noticed that little boys are waaaaay more dramatic and emotionally disruptive than little girls, by a big margin. Little girls are taught from a very, very young age that they should be pleasing and non-disruptive, but instead accommodating of others and expressing emotion that is appropriate to a situation. But lack of emotional expression at times is seen as lack of feeling, which is seen as cold, and that can be deemed inappropriate. This is where women get shamed, because we're supposed to show signs of "nurturing" or ability to accommodate, and so not oohing over babies gets us pegged as "unnatural".

However, boys are taught that their emotion is valid, ie. it's linked to a legit concern, and so they are free to disrupt with it, or ask for it to be accommodated. This is why male emotion is often more violent/angry than sentimental, because it's okay for them to disrupt, but appeasing others is seen as a "feminine" quality. If a woman has a disruptive emotion, then she is being "masculine", which is seen as a threat (as it implies others must accommodate her, not vice versa), and so she is invalidated as irrational, because then her concern is not legit and doesn't have to be accommodated. She's being forced to be the one to accommodate.

So men can be more emotional, and yet maintain they are more rational, simply because they are defining what is valid or not and have been given that right through their environment from a young age.

FYI, these are my own ideas from my own observations, not an ideology I've adopted.

The other, appropriate more to "conventional" women, as it were, is in recognition of Proverbs. DON'T answer someone irrational...*directly*. Instead, use the female stereotypically superior *social networking* skills: make alliances with all the *other* women in the vicinity, and together, force the irrational woman to change her mind, or her ways, through *peer pressure*.

This is triggering my social PTSD...

Seriously though, I read how FPs supposedly tend to block out social feedback (especially NFP females). True to Jung's description, we resist being affected by others feelings, aka, their opinions of how people should feel.

INTJs being tertiary Fi may have this tendency too. This means the Fe social shaming technique (which has its place in life, really it does; some evil things are rightfully suppressed more successfully this way than with laws) can not only be ineffective, but go right over our heads, not even registering enough for us to be called defiant of it. You see the problems this creates...

But in dealing with "irrational" people, the best way, for me, has been to shift my perspective, to match theirs, and then I can follow the line of how they came to where they are. In order to do this, I have to suspend what I think is the "obviously right" conclusion, and instead source their premise and follow it with their experiences and situation, etc, to their conclusion. Then I can find a, er, "weak spot", or a point where breakdown happened, and from there I try to lead them to a new place. In the end, the other person has shifted their perspective to something more "reasonable", and often it's more productive and they may thank you for it. The important part is to not invalidate, and that will immediately calm them down as they feel you are on "their side" and not dismissing them or attacking them. Then, appeal to the reasoning they do possess, as it does exist somewhere in there, and then to gently lead them using that. Often what people appear upset or irrational over is not even the root issue, and to get hung up on that leads to petty drama and shaming people as a nasty reaction to discontentment with things unrelated to them. Fe types can "repress" a lot, and then they project it onto others, and the idea is to get them to see their own feelings as valid, as opposed to asking them to further repress them to meet a list of "shoulds".

Some people are not open enough for this, but I'm pretty good at "blocking out", which is Plan B.
 

grey_beard

The Typing Tabby
Joined
Jan 28, 2014
Messages
1,478
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
It's rooted in a need to invalidate women as a way to excuse treating them as inferiors, IMO. What's weird to me is when women support this view also.


It's also an anima/animus thing, where our experience of our inferior function represents the "other", as in, "not oneself", and so it gets projected onto the opposite gender. The experience of it is far more emotional and less differentiated from non-cognitive aspects of the psyche, so "the other" is naturally seen as less rational/more emotional, and even untrustworthy or mysterious.
My response would lead to a thread hijack and flamewar. I think it relates to other things. PM me for anecdotal instances, it being a "center of the bell curve" and "social norming" phenomenon.

Not having obvious emotion for a woman can actually be more of a problem than it is for men showing obvious emotion... and it's because people interpret lack of

In teaching from pre-school to middle school, I have noticed that little boys are waaaaay more dramatic and emotionally disruptive than little girls, by a big margin. Little girls are taught from a very, very young age that they should be pleasing and non-disruptive, but instead accommodating of others and expressing emotion that is appropriate to a situation. But lack of emotional expression at times is seen as lack of feeling, which is seen as cold, and that can be deemed inappropriate. This is where women get shamed, because we're supposed to show signs of "nurturing" or ability to accommodate, and so not oohing over babies gets us pegged as "unnatural".
Part of the expectation of nurturing is due to the biological process of gestation and lactation *causing* oohing and aahing over babies; and for many, the remembrance or anticipation of such, together with the tendency of women to seek "commonality" with one another (see below). Hence the appellation of "unnatural." (Or as the crowd would say, "Just conform already, d@mmit!")

However, boys are taught that their emotion is valid, ie. it's linked to a legit concern, and so they are free to disrupt with it, or ask for it to be accommodated. This is why male emotion is often more violent/angry than sentimental, because it's okay for them to disrupt, but appeasing others is seen as a "feminine" quality. If a woman has a disruptive emotion, then she is being "masculine", which is seen as a threat (as it implies others must accommodate her, not vice versa), and so she is invalidated as irrational, because then her concern is not legit and doesn't have to be accommodated. She's being forced to be the one to accommodate.


So men can be more emotional, and yet maintain they are more rational, simply because they are defining what is valid or not and have been given that right through their environment from a young age.

FYI, these are my own ideas from my own observations, not an ideology I've adopted.

You may be conflating "emotion" with "physical activity" -- I've talked to others with experience with children in this age group, as well as reading the work of social psychologists and the like; and they have noted several differences between the sexes (again, center of the bell curve and all that). Young boys tend to do better in environments where a lot of physical activity is interspersed with enforced inactivity, whereas girls do better at "sitting still"; boys, even at young ages, socialize with one another by assigning a static hierarchy, whereas women reach out even in minor social encounters, to *identify with* and establish commonality with one another; boys are much better at learning through doing, or hands-on learning.

This is triggering my social PTSD...

Seriously though, I read how FPs supposedly tend to block out social feedback (especially NFP females). True to Jung's description, we resist being affected by others feelings, aka, their opinions of how people should feel.

INTJs being tertiary Fi may have this tendency too. This means the Fe social shaming technique (which has its place in life, really it does; some evil things are rightfully suppressed more successfully this way than with laws) can not only be ineffective, but go right over our heads, not even registering enough for us to be called defiant of it. You see the problems this creates...

Hence the "space cadet / head in the clouds / dreamer" sobriquet for NFPs. Oh, what the hey, I'll yank your chain an go ahead and say it. :tongue: "Fluffy bunny." :D
I know INFPs too well to believe it, however; there is mithril underneath. :content:
(But don't think everything is well over in the INTJ armoured regiment, either. The legendary death stare wins one no friends, even when one is trying to be nice.
As another INTJ said once on another thread, they have discovered that it is impossible for an INTJ to be *too* warm and touchy-feely, no matter how hard they try...)

As for "triggering your social PTSD" ...? Holy crap. Do you mean I stepped on a values land-mine and didn't get set upon in rabid-cat mode?!!!! :freaked:("Prepare to disengage, Mr. Sulu, and reverse course at warp factor six.")

But in dealing with "irrational" people, the best way, for me, has been to shift my perspective, to match theirs, and then I can follow the line of how they came to where they are. In order to do this, I have to suspend what I think is the "obviously right" conclusion, and instead source their premise and follow it with their experiences and situation, etc, to their conclusion. Then I can find a, er, "weak spot", or a point where breakdown happened, and from there I try to lead them to a new place. In the end, the other person has shifted their perspective to something more "reasonable", and often it's more productive and they may thank you for it. The important part is to not invalidate, and that will immediately calm them down as they feel you are on "their side" and not dismissing them or attacking them. Then, appeal to the reasoning they do possess, as it does exist somewhere in there, and then to gently lead them using that. Often what people appear upset or irrational over is not even the root issue, and to get hung up on that leads to petty drama and shaming people as a nasty reaction to discontentment with things unrelated to them. Fe types can "repress" a lot, and then they project it onto others, and the idea is to get them to see their own feelings as valid, as opposed to asking them to further repress them to meet a list of "shoulds".

This isn't mere *gold* ; it's what happened when King Midas used the Charmin (think it over...:blink:). (Or, if you prefer, it's co-mingled sapphire-and-diamond dust.)

There is an analogy here which recalls to mind a passage from G.K. Chesterton's The Secret of Father Brown; and makes me realize with a start that old G.K.C. may have been an INFP...!



Some people are not open enough for this, but I'm pretty good at "blocking out", which is Plan B.

I *still* say I prefer teleportation. ("Scotty, beam me out of here!") :cheese:
 

grey_beard

The Typing Tabby
Joined
Jan 28, 2014
Messages
1,478
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
So... not a Matrix reference, then. Got it.

It is based on The Matrix, but indirectly; a reference to "seeing things as they really are" as opposed to how one has been taught they are.
 

EcK

The Memes Justify the End
Joined
Nov 21, 2008
Messages
7,708
MBTI Type
ENTP
Enneagram
738
Yes. I struggle with rational females. Its unatural :coffee:
 

PeaceBaby

reborn
Joined
Jan 7, 2009
Messages
5,950
MBTI Type
N/A
Enneagram
N/A
"Fluffy bunny."

attachment.php


meme+bunny.jpg
 
Top