[INTJ] ENFPS and INTJs

[Flybylikeahurricane]

never dated an INTJ. Most of my dates were SJ's, which is probably the reason why I got bored with my relationships and they all ended so quickly. My Best friend who is also ENFP has the same problem, but in the opposite direction. He gets dumped by every girl he meets because of his deep and conceptual style of dating. How does one meet such a great match? How do you find and get to know one of these majestic INJ's? And if it has more to do with our personalities and less to do with the type of people we pick, how do I become more settled? And how would my friend develop less of a tendency to be deep with his feelings and come off less strong?

 

[Betty Blue]

Your post discounts INTJ females and their experiences. Your post demonstrates and promotes a stereotypical view of male to female relationships. Your post also doesn't take into account how differently people develop, regardless of mbti type. The anecdotal evidence you accumulated over the years doesn't wash out that fact. Thus, you cannot comfortably speak on any authority at all about a MBTI group that's frankly in the minority, with widely variably experiences, reactions, and attitudes toward things. My post count doesn't matter in this. You have a considerable amount of posts, yet you still use typist generalizations like you just signed on here.

Lol the whole of typology is generalising and putting people into groups based on such. Also i'm pretty sure I did not proffer myself as any authority, just someone a little more along a similar road to the person I was conversing with. You seem cranky and wanting attention. So just explain your own views. I don't have the energy or inclination to chase it out of you.

Edit: that particular post may have been aimed at a female enfp dating a male intj yes... but i do not discount female INTJ's. there are several rather brilliant INTJ women on the forum who offer some amazing insight. One post may not have addressed what you wanted it to but your response was a complete overreaction without offering any alternative.

 

[1487610420]

Lol the whole of typology is generalising and putting people into groups based on such. Also i'm pretty sure I did not proffer myself as any authority, just someone a little more along a similar road to the person I was conversing with. You seem cranky and wanting attention. So just explain your own views. I don't have the energy or inclination to chase it out of you.

Edit: that particular post may have been aimed at a female enfp dating a male intj yes... but i do not discount female INTJ's. there are several rather brilliant INTJ women on the forum who offer some amazing insight. One post may not have addressed what you wanted it to but your response was a complete overreaction without offering any alternative.

With my indisputable authority, I'll had the person in question likely just needs to get laid.

 

[Belle of Kilronan]

Lol the whole of typology is generalising and putting people into groups based on such. Also i'm pretty sure I did not proffer myself as any authority, just someone a little more along a similar road to the person I was conversing with. You seem cranky and wanting attention. So just explain your own views. I don't have the energy or inclination to chase it out of you.

Edit: that particular post may have been aimed at a female enfp dating a male intj yes... but i do not discount female INTJ's. there are several rather brilliant INTJ women on the forum who offer some amazing insight. One post may not have addressed what you wanted it to but your response was a complete overreaction without offering any alternative.

I did offer my views to you on why your post was silly. You don't have to chase anything out of me and I don't necessarily have to answer to you. But I do feel the need to at least clarify myself and to correct some of the assumptions you've made. To start, personal attacks aren't something I have patience for. Calling me cranky and deriding me as a troll whose main goal is to get attention, is not really a proper way to engage with someone you disagree with. I posted something that seemed minimally cryptic and dismissive, to you. Then you asked for an explanation. I gave it to you. Nothing about that denotes a difficult temperament nor a desire to derail the thread due to my need of attention. Perhaps flaming a newbie with a sparse post count would constitute such behavior, but such isn't the case on my end. You calling me cranky, signals an emotional need for you to discredit me without looking at my ideas or even considering what was said. You rather dismiss and mischaracterize my motivations and attach an emotionally-driven agenda to me, even after I gave explanation for what I posted. The appropriate response, I feel, is why ask for an explanation if you're sure sure of the intent of the writer? Maybe, deep down you know something about your post was an over-generalization that left out a lot of people...

If typology is about generalizing other's behaviors to better understand how to interact with a wide cross section section of people overall, great. That is the purpose. But to use it to over-generalize others' behaviors, to stereotype and place others in a box, while disregarding how other people might take offense to it, is childish and misses the point. Using it in an attempt to rectify gender-biased behaviors and views, also serves to miss the point entirely. You didn't proffer your authority, yet you speak on the subject as if your a 20-year expert. All you can say is "in my experience". I would even find issue with that, because your experience isn't sufficient enough in giving others advice on how to interact with another person, who might be INTJ. If you were confiding in a friend or confidant, that's different. But here is my "cranky" gripe on sites like these with posts made by people such as yourself: This is online for other viewers to see, who may not get sarcasm, tongue-in-cheek references and other in-group specific banter. They may not understand that your (ignorant) advice to the poster is highly idiosyncratic or nuanced to that specific situation, depending. That was the issue INTJs ran in with when silly memes and posts brandishing the "Mastermind" title circulated the internet. It was a joke, 'haha', but people took it seriously. Now, these stereotypes pretty much poison the idea of INTJs and rather harmful ideas on my type are proliferated and used as "advice". I feel it's being continued here with the post you made, the one that I so eloquently debunked with "Naw." These things don't exist in a vacuum. It spreads. It's then used to reinforced stale attitudes that are in desperate need of dismantling.

TL/DR: You didn't distinguish whether or not this could apply to INTJ males only. Some of the things you listed like "INTJs won't engage until it benefits them" and "INTJs don't easily commit", sound like stereotypically male behaviors, and not only that, but stereotypically shallow male behaviors, that most INTJ men would balk at, because INTJs aren't typical in any sense.

 

[PeaceBaby]

I did offer my views to you on why your post was silly. You don't have to chase anything out of me and I don't necessarily have to answer to you. But I do feel the need to at least clarify myself and to correct some of the assumptions you've made. To start, personal attacks aren't something I have patience for. Calling me cranky and deriding me as a troll whose main goal is to get attention, is not really a proper way to engage with someone you disagree with. I posted something that seemed minimally cryptic and dismissive, to you. Then you asked for an explanation. I gave it to you. Nothing about that denotes a difficult temperament nor a desire to derail the thread due to my need of attention. Perhaps flaming a newbie with a sparse post count would constitute such behavior, but such isn't the case on my end. You calling me cranky, signals an emotional need for you to discredit me without looking at my ideas or even considering what was said. You rather dismiss and mischaracterize my motivations and attach an emotionally-driven agenda to me, even after I gave explanation for what I posted. The appropriate response, I feel, is why ask for an explanation if you're sure sure of the intent of the writer? Maybe, deep down you know something about your post was an over-generalization that left out a lot of people...

If typology is about generalizing other's behaviors to better understand how to interact with a wide cross section section of people overall, great. That is the purpose. But to use it to over-generalize others' behaviors, to stereotype and place others in a box, while disregarding how other people might take offense to it, is childish and misses the point. Using it in an attempt to rectify gender-biased behaviors and views, also serves to miss the point entirely. You didn't proffer your authority, yet you speak on the subject as if your a 20-year expert. All you can say is "in my experience". I would even find issue with that, because your experience isn't sufficient enough in giving others advice on how to interact with another person, who might be INTJ. If you were confiding in a friend or confidant, that's different. But here is my "cranky" gripe on sites like these with posts made by people such as yourself: This is online for other viewers to see, who may not get sarcasm, tongue-in-cheek references and other in-group specific banter. They may not understand that your (ignorant) advice to the poster is highly idiosyncratic or nuanced to that specific situation, depending. That was the issue INTJs ran in with when silly memes and posts brandishing the "Mastermind" title circulated the internet. It was a joke, 'haha', but people took it seriously. Now, these stereotypes pretty much poison the idea of INTJs and rather harmful ideas on my type are proliferated and used as "advice". I feel it's being continued here with the post you made, the one that I so eloquently debunked with "Naw." These things don't exist in a vacuum. It spreads. It's then used to reinforced stale attitudes that are in desperate need of dismantling.

TL/DR: You didn't distinguish whether or not this could apply to INTJ males only. Some of the things you listed like "INTJs won't engage until it benefits them" and "INTJs don't easily commit", sound like stereotypically male behaviors, and not only that, but stereotypically shallow male behaviors, that most INTJ men would balk at, because INTJs aren't typical in any sense.

o·ver·re·act
ˌōvə(r)rēˈakt/
verb
gerund or present participle: overreacting
>> respond more emotionally or forcibly than is justified

Your objections are statements of the obvious; they are the premise, essentially. Subjective system is subjective.

 

[Belle of Kilronan]

With my indisputable authority, I'll had the person in question likely just needs to get laid.

That's usually the response a woman gets when she argues keenly for anything, really. Tired misogyny is tired.

o·ver·re·act
ˌōvə(r)rēˈakt/
verb
gerund or present participle: overreacting
>> respond more emotionally or forcibly than is justified

Your objections are statements of the obvious; they are the premise, essentially. Subjective system is subjective.

I didn't overreact at all. Plus, this wasn't directed toward you. I posted it for [MENTION=9160]HelenOfTroy[/MENTION] (??) to read. I guess she wanted an overreaction to an overreaction. I don't expect you to understand.

 

[1487610420]

That's usually the response a woman gets when she argues keenly for anything, really. Tired misogyny is tired.

rly?

 

[Betty Blue]

That's usually the response a woman gets when she argues keenly for anything, really. Tired misogyny is tired.



I didn't overreact at all. Plus, this wasn't directed toward you. I posted it for [MENTION=9160]HelenOfTroy[/MENTION] (??) to read. I guess she wanted an overreaction to an overreaction. I don't expect you to understand.

But quite (case in point?), I posted my response to someone else. You steeped in and overreacted. I'm starting to think you may be trolling me....

 

[Betty Blue]

I did offer my views to you on why your post was silly. You don't have to chase anything out of me and I don't necessarily have to answer to you. But I do feel the need to at least clarify myself and to correct some of the assumptions you've made. To start, personal attacks aren't something I have patience for. Calling me cranky and deriding me as a troll whose main goal is to get attention, is not really a proper way to engage with someone you disagree with. I posted something that seemed minimally cryptic and dismissive, to you. Then you asked for an explanation. I gave it to you. Nothing about that denotes a difficult temperament nor a desire to derail the thread due to my need of attention. Perhaps flaming a newbie with a sparse post count would constitute such behavior, but such isn't the case on my end. You calling me cranky, signals an emotional need for you to discredit me without looking at my ideas or even considering what was said. You rather dismiss and mischaracterize my motivations and attach an emotionally-driven agenda to me, even after I gave explanation for what I posted. The appropriate response, I feel, is why ask for an explanation if you're sure sure of the intent of the writer? Maybe, deep down you know something about your post was an over-generalization that left out a lot of people...

If typology is about generalizing other's behaviors to better understand how to interact with a wide cross section section of people overall, great. That is the purpose. But to use it to over-generalize others' behaviors, to stereotype and place others in a box, while disregarding how other people might take offense to it, is childish and misses the point. Using it in an attempt to rectify gender-biased behaviors and views, also serves to miss the point entirely. You didn't proffer your authority, yet you speak on the subject as if your a 20-year expert. All you can say is "in my experience". I would even find issue with that, because your experience isn't sufficient enough in giving others advice on how to interact with another person, who might be INTJ. If you were confiding in a friend or confidant, that's different. But here is my "cranky" gripe on sites like these with posts made by people such as yourself: This is online for other viewers to see, who may not get sarcasm, tongue-in-cheek references and other in-group specific banter. They may not understand that your (ignorant) advice to the poster is highly idiosyncratic or nuanced to that specific situation, depending. That was the issue INTJs ran in with when silly memes and posts brandishing the "Mastermind" title circulated the internet. It was a joke, 'haha', but people took it seriously. Now, these stereotypes pretty much poison the idea of INTJs and rather harmful ideas on my type are proliferated and used as "advice". I feel it's being continued here with the post you made, the one that I so eloquently debunked with "Naw." These things don't exist in a vacuum. It spreads. It's then used to reinforced stale attitudes that are in desperate need of dismantling.

TL/DR: You didn't distinguish whether or not this could apply to INTJ males only. Some of the things you listed like "INTJs won't engage until it benefits them" and "INTJs don't easily commit", sound like stereotypically male behaviors, and not only that, but stereotypically shallow male behaviors, that most INTJ men would balk at, because INTJs aren't typical in any sense.

These may sound like (not a solid argument huh) stereotypically male behaviours to you but that says mores about your own bias's than mine. Assumptions are more in your court here, I have plenty of TypoC posts for you to look at to see my opinions on gender roles... most recently in the gender roles thread, you may be surprised in what you read. Another thing here is that female and male INTJ's are often the most difficult to distinguish between on the forum, owing to their not being very obviously feminine in posts, but more objective and insightful.

 

[Hapyniss]

For you? Or do you speak on behalf of INTJ's? Male INTJ'? Female INTJ's? Please elaborate.

I'm going on personal experience, experience of others I know and experience of five years on this and other Mbti/personality forums (does not mean i think my experience better or myself more knowledgeable but it's pretty annoying when a 27 post member comes along and says 'naaawwww' with nothing to back it up.... appreciate my experience is mainly from male INTJ to female ENFP but it certainly can work pretty similarly the other way round too, however the poster was female ENFP with a male INTJ... sooo...


Edit to say I don't think INTJ ENFP is the best pairing, i'm not all gung-ho feck yeah unstoppable force+immovable object=nirvana

Your post discounts INTJ females and their experiences. Your post demonstrates and promotes a stereotypical view of male to female relationships. Your post also doesn't take into account how differently people develop, regardless of mbti type. The anecdotal evidence you accumulated over the years doesn't wash out that fact. Thus, you cannot comfortably speak on any authority at all about a MBTI group that's frankly in the minority, with widely variably experiences, reactions, and attitudes toward things. My post count doesn't matter in this. You have a considerable amount of posts, yet you still use typist generalizations like you just signed on here.

Lol the whole of typology is generalising and putting people into groups based on such. Also i'm pretty sure I did not proffer myself as any authority, just someone a little more along a similar road to the person I was conversing with. You seem cranky and wanting attention. So just explain your own views. I don't have the energy or inclination to chase it out of you.

Edit: that particular post may have been aimed at a female enfp dating a male intj yes... but i do not discount female INTJ's. there are several rather brilliant INTJ women on the forum who offer some amazing insight. One post may not have addressed what you wanted it to but your response was a complete overreaction without offering any alternative.

I did offer my views to you on why your post was silly. You don't have to chase anything out of me and I don't necessarily have to answer to you. But I do feel the need to at least clarify myself and to correct some of the assumptions you've made. To start, personal attacks aren't something I have patience for. Calling me cranky and deriding me as a troll whose main goal is to get attention, is not really a proper way to engage with someone you disagree with. I posted something that seemed minimally cryptic and dismissive, to you. Then you asked for an explanation. I gave it to you. Nothing about that denotes a difficult temperament nor a desire to derail the thread due to my need of attention. Perhaps flaming a newbie with a sparse post count would constitute such behavior, but such isn't the case on my end. You calling me cranky, signals an emotional need for you to discredit me without looking at my ideas or even considering what was said. You rather dismiss and mischaracterize my motivations and attach an emotionally-driven agenda to me, even after I gave explanation for what I posted. The appropriate response, I feel, is why ask for an explanation if you're sure sure of the intent of the writer? Maybe, deep down you know something about your post was an over-generalization that left out a lot of people...

If typology is about generalizing other's behaviors to better understand how to interact with a wide cross section section of people overall, great. That is the purpose. But to use it to over-generalize others' behaviors, to stereotype and place others in a box, while disregarding how other people might take offense to it, is childish and misses the point. Using it in an attempt to rectify gender-biased behaviors and views, also serves to miss the point entirely. You didn't proffer your authority, yet you speak on the subject as if your a 20-year expert. All you can say is "in my experience". I would even find issue with that, because your experience isn't sufficient enough in giving others advice on how to interact with another person, who might be INTJ. If you were confiding in a friend or confidant, that's different. But here is my "cranky" gripe on sites like these with posts made by people such as yourself: This is online for other viewers to see, who may not get sarcasm, tongue-in-cheek references and other in-group specific banter. They may not understand that your (ignorant) advice to the poster is highly idiosyncratic or nuanced to that specific situation, depending. That was the issue INTJs ran in with when silly memes and posts brandishing the "Mastermind" title circulated the internet. It was a joke, 'haha', but people took it seriously. Now, these stereotypes pretty much poison the idea of INTJs and rather harmful ideas on my type are proliferated and used as "advice". I feel it's being continued here with the post you made, the one that I so eloquently debunked with "Naw." These things don't exist in a vacuum. It spreads. It's then used to reinforced stale attitudes that are in desperate need of dismantling.

TL/DR: You didn't distinguish whether or not this could apply to INTJ males only. Some of the things you listed like "INTJs won't engage until it benefits them" and "INTJs don't easily commit", sound like stereotypically male behaviors, and not only that, but stereotypically shallow male behaviors, that most INTJ men would balk at, because INTJs aren't typical in any sense.

The dichotomy of the ENFP/INTJ relationship, from what I've experienced, is more about playing to strengths. Yes. He "can" be an immovable object. So, I don't even try to move him. He's inspired to move himself by observing me be myself. It's not about my influence on him, but our influence on each other. I'm a better person with him in my life. But, I can only speak from my perspective as I have no empirical evidence based in scientific theory. (That, however, does not discount my experience altogether. If you were in the hospital being cared for by a nurse: would you want the brand new baby nurse fresh out of school? Or, how about that seasoned Vet with 20 years experience that whittles circles around the physicians?)
But observation is the fundamental basis for everything scientific and there is a call to reason based on a priori probability. Typology may be a generalization, but so is string theory, and there's warrant to that from - ding, ding, ding - you guessed it...observation! Truth is, no INTJ does anything easily in the estimation of most people because they aren't MOST people. They cannot be swayed without heavy evidence. They're notoriously hard headed (I'm going to include the female INTJ's so you don't feel left out), have a hard time understanding the way other people work, vice versa, because they are such a small percentage of the population...most individuals are not accustomed to interacting with someone in this fashion. INTJ's are known to avoid the social constructs (because they don't understand them, or don't pick up on them), wishing to abruptly deviate the status quo (see no value in small talk), overlook the value of nicety (feels disingenuous), and grossly focus on minutia (ooooo ooooo. A problem to solve say you?) despite their engagement in the big picture (I can tell you how the next 2 years of your life is going to go). And as you've done...reading one post, using it out of context, and not taking into consideration the previous banter and context experiences of the two original posters. Which, come to think of it, isn't all that INTJ, so you're probably right. You are a different type of INTJ, but not because you're female I'd wager. Your misconduct in reading one post, using the contents to drop an encrypted response, and making a near-sided...wait for it...judgement is however congruent with most MBTI descriptions of the negative aspects of the INTJ. This may be no different, I say, than a believer misquoting scripture out of context to play sway to a group of non-believers.
It's not irresponsible to discuss, in a (eh hmmm) "discussion" (eh hmm) forum, even at length, the personal experiences that both of us have had with our INTJ's. It does not speak to the female INTJ's because in our relationships, we're the ENFP's (both female) and our INTJ's (male). So we are actually well within context to speak from our own experiences; and we have found similarities in our INTJ's since texting with each other. Actually, it would be irresponsible of us to assume we know what female INTJ's are exactly like and even include them in the conversation.
People don't typically visit forums such as this looking for empirical data findings on typology. That is here The Myers & Briggs Foundation - MBTI® Basics ... or here Myers-Briggs Type Indicator: The 16 Personality Types
I imagine, folks come here looking for that personal speculation and insight from others. It's called commiserating/relating through connectivity. So I say this as a parting observation - I see London, I see France, Belle of Kilronan - your Fi is showing.

 

[Belle of Kilronan]

These may sound like (not a solid argument huh) stereotypically male behaviours to you but that says mores about your own bias's than mine. Assumptions are more in your court here, I have plenty of TypoC posts for you to look at to see my opinions on gender roles... most recently in the gender roles thread, you may be surprised in what you read. Another thing here is that female and male INTJ's are often the most difficult to distinguish between on the forum, owing to their not being very obviously feminine in posts, but more objective and insightful.

I disagree but, whatever.

The dichotomy of the ENFP/INTJ relationship, from what I've experienced, is more about playing to strengths. Yes. He "can" be an immovable object. So, I don't even try to move him. He's inspired to move himself by observing me be myself. It's not about my influence on him, but our influence on each other. I'm a better person with him in my life. But, I can only speak from my perspective as I have no empirical evidence based in scientific theory. (That, however, does not discount my experience altogether. If you were in the hospital being cared for by a nurse: would you want the brand new baby nurse fresh out of school? Or, how about that seasoned Vet with 20 years experience that whittles circles around the physicians?)
But observation is the fundamental basis for everything scientific and there is a call to reason based on a priori probability. Typology may be a generalization, but so is string theory, and there's warrant to that from - ding, ding, ding - you guessed it...observation! Truth is, no INTJ does anything easily in the estimation of most people because they aren't MOST people. They cannot be swayed without heavy evidence. They're notoriously hard headed (I'm going to include the female INTJ's so you don't feel left out), have a hard time understanding the way other people work, vice versa, because they are such a small percentage of the population...most individuals are not accustomed to interacting with someone in this fashion. INTJ's are known to avoid the social constructs (because they don't understand them, or don't pick up on them), wishing to abruptly deviate the status quo (see no value in small talk), overlook the value of nicety (feels disingenuous), and grossly focus on minutia (ooooo ooooo. A problem to solve say you?) despite their engagement in the big picture (I can tell you how the next 2 years of your life is going to go). And as you've done...reading one post, using it out of context, and not taking into consideration the previous banter and context experiences of the two original posters. Which, come to think of it, isn't all that INTJ, so you're probably right. You are a different type of INTJ, but not because you're female I'd wager. Your misconduct in reading one post, using the contents to drop an encrypted response, and making a near-sided...wait for it...judgement is however congruent with most MBTI descriptions of the negative aspects of the INTJ. This may be no different, I say, than a believer misquoting scripture out of context to play sway to a group of non-believers.
It's not irresponsible to discuss, in a (eh hmmm) "discussion" (eh hmm) forum, even at length, the personal experiences that both of us have had with our INTJ's. It does not speak to the female INTJ's because in our relationships, we're the ENFP's (both female) and our INTJ's (male). So we are actually well within context to speak from our own experiences; and we have found similarities in our INTJ's since texting with each other. Actually, it would be irresponsible of us to assume we know what female INTJ's are exactly like and even include them in the conversation.
People don't typically visit forums such as this looking for empirical data findings on typology. That is here The Myers & Briggs Foundation - MBTI® Basics ... or here Myers-Briggs Type Indicator: The 16 Personality Types
I imagine, folks come here looking for that personal speculation and insight from others. It's called commiserating/relating through connectivity. So I say this as a parting observation - I see London, I see France, Belle of Kilronan - your Fi is showing.

It's amazing that you have a wall of text here, without actually saying anything. This is thread is dead. And so is this forum.

 

[Coriolis]

I disagree but, whatever.

It's amazing that you have a wall of text here, without actually saying anything. This is thread is dead. And so is this forum.

Then should we expect to see you move on to greener pastures soon?

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

Then should we expect to see you move on to greener pastures soon?

I do feel like things are kind of stagnant here lately. I'm not sure why.

 

[Coriolis]

I do feel like things are kind of stagnant here lately. I'm not sure why.

People like you aren't creating enough thought-provoking threads???

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

People like you aren't creating enough thought-provoking threads???

I'm worried that they'd be considered fluff. Right now, I feel like the climate on the forum is not conducive to making much in the ways of meaningful contributions. If the climate changes, I may be up to doing something different.

 

[Dreamer]

I do feel like things are kind of stagnant here lately. I'm not sure why.

Possibly because of Vent? A good number of members signed on for it including myself, to test the waters thanks to that Vent thread. I know Vent sort of took over my time from spending it on the forum like usual, but I need to cut back on it. It's turning me into a secluded hermit hahaha

So you can at least expect me to post more to the forum again. Or, do you mean it's felt stagnant for a longer period of time?

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

Possibly because of Vent? A good number of members signed on for it including myself, to test the waters thanks to that Vent thread. I know Vent sort of took over my time from spending it on the forum like usual, but I need to cut back on it. It's turning me into a secluded hermit hahaha

So you can at least expect me to post more to the forum again. Or, do you mean it's felt stagnant for a longer period of time?

Vent doesn't interest me too much. The forum didn't seem stagnant until a few weeks ago. Do you think Vent might be a worthwhile experience?

 

[Dreamer]

Vent doesn't interest me too much. The forum didn't seem stagnant until a few weeks ago. Do you think Vent might be a worthwhile experience?

It's great if you're looking for more social interaction since you're getting that instant feedback. I've been feeling a sort of social deficiency lately so it's been great for my needs.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

It's great if you're looking for more social interaction since you're getting that instant feedback. I've been feeling a sort of social deficiency lately so it's been great for my needs.

Yeah, I wouldn't want to clutter up the forum with that kind of fluff.

 

[Hapyniss]

I do feel like things are kind of stagnant here lately. I'm not sure why.

I don't know how to start a thread, but I'd like to discuss the basis of effect that experiencing emotions has on memory retention. I've been reading quite a bit on it lately, finding it quite fascinating. It would be interesting to discuss how the feelers remember things vs. the thinkers, and the sensors vs. the intuitives. If there is any correlation to the emotional experiences, MBTI types, and the types of memories each has it may be worth a look. For instance, Gabor Mate discusses that early memory formation during infancy may actually indicate more in the way of personality development and how that person, as an adult, views the world; fair to say, it may actually influence the MBTI result. What do you guys think?