sriv, yes. the wisdom of a child is something that is underrated. It is perhaps only a child's eyes, and a child's voice, that will dare to point out the fact that the Emperor wears nothing.
Tho, in modern times, is it a wise thing to do? At what cost, truth?
But on to other, more interesting topics, shall we?
Apollonian brought up some good ideas. (i shall have to take the issue of measurement another time. it's 230 am my time now, and i'm
)
I would think that good character is one which allows you to follow your own beliefs, yet not tread upon those of others: essentially, the balance of the self between the idealism of individuality, and the realistic demands of society.
The strengths of an INTJ (if we're going into type): would be his/her quiet strength, the meticulousness of thought, and the ability to follow-through.
I had mentioned once in some other thread, that INTJs seem to have trouble with initiation though? Because they think and consider so much, that sometimes, they may miss an opportunity that just arises? (not sure if this is true for all INTJs though.). In this specific sense: by learning at times to follow instinct--Ne, instead of Ni--an INTJ may seize the moment, upon which his natural strength of ordering his environment would see a project to due completion.
Emotion tends to be the main weakness of the INTJ, i think. They are seldom aware how they come across to others, or the need for social niceties. This may actually hinder an INTJ's progress in the real world, especially if the INTJ is working in a high context society/job, where little subtle gestures matter.
The message of an INTJ is always clear. Perhaps it is the style that can be worked upon?
because in any communication, there are three levels: what is said, what is unsaid, and then, there is the language of the body.
If an INTJ--for that matter, any type--can learn all three, he can do well in what he wishes to implement.
After all, one can't quite rule without having people who'd follow you, isn't it?
And, as much as i agree with machiavelli, personally, my thought is that influence is far better for leading people than outright authority.
which is what i mean: that type is really no excuse for a lack of character. The idea should be to recognise one's blind spots, and to work on shoring them up, while strengthening your strengths.
for me, i deliberately throw myself into situations i am afraid of/uncomfortable with, just to see if i sink or swim. Yeps, the old style rip-off-that-bandaid-in-one-shot! school of thought.
edit: oh, and i always, always hold the possibility that i may be wrong. because life is so wide, how can one person ever expect to know it all, to be right all the time? There must always exist other perspectives, other thoughts. The key is to give them all space, and not shut out what's different. No sense being a frog in a well, when there's a whole wide world out there.
