The last time I was turned on was January 22 2010. I was at the gym, working out to my usual routine, and there was a women on the treadmill who I found quite attractive. I was attracted to her geometrical composition and economy of movement (i.e. the way the parts worked together). Of this, there are women with different economies of movement--for instance, I have observed very faminine women who walk like men; I have also observed very masculine women that move quite gracefully. Having boxed for 10 years and having gone to an arts academy (where I took music, but where there were many dancers) I have observed the art of movement for some time now. I can, for instance, point out a boxer and a dancer merely by their walk about 90 percent of the time. Further, I could tell by the way she ran that she had good rhythm, which implies that she is able to keep good time. From this I deduced that she is likely left-hemisphere dominant. However, there is only so much one can deduce from circumstancial evidence without making leaps in logic beyond what the evidence warrents. Still, she had good form and structure as far as I could tell and this I prefer to clumsy form and a slouch's structure.
Infinite Intrigue, intelligence does not turn me on as much as a lack thereof turns me off. In other words, as soon as I learn that a women is of inferior intellect I am disinterested. Now, it is also the case that I haven't met a women who I consider on par with me in my sense of intelligence (which is a highly rational/philosophical type of intelligence). And for a women to be on par with me, she would either have to be naturally brilliant or else work like a dog (i.e. do math and read books for 16 hours a day, assuming a decent level of raw intellect to begin with. Otherwise, one in-depth conversation with me will completely wear a women of average intellect out). Accordingly, the ones who work like dogs usually have very tight schedules, the type of schedules that cannot be accommodated to given my routine which has militarized all aspects of life to a strict and 100 percent predictable regiment. Then if this category of women is rendered inaccessible, as neither wants to compromise for the other, than that leaves only the naturally brilliant women who has the flexability to accommodate to my schedule as she has the resources to do it. I have not met such a women. Therefore, if intelligence was my sole criterion, and if the quantity of the future resembles patterns of the past, then a women as such is unattainable. However, I would like to eventually attain a women; therefore, this cannot be the sole criterion. Still, to be fair I think there are a lot of women out there who are smart in their own ways. A women of this variety is to be preferred to one of another.
Regarding coherence, this too seems to be necessary but it alone is not sufficient. I am, for instance, certainly not attracted to--and indeed annoyed by--women who say all kinds of dubious things and have a habit of contradicting themselves. I like women who are proper. And proper women by definition think properly. Thinking properly implies thinking in a logically valid manner. By Modus Tollens if one is not thinking in a logically valid manner, then one cannot be thinking properly. There is no substitute for logically valid and therefore fallacious-free thinking. Women who cannot meet this basic standard do not have space in my life. Again, similar to intelligence, coherence is not so much attractive as a lack thereof is simply unthinkable. Now, one might make the argument that good chemistry consists in a system where one makes knots and the other untangles and straightens them out. Through intuition I have made knots that baffle even the cleverest of professors, and through rigorous thinking I have unknotted complex puzzles. From experience, therefore, I recognize the value in each. It could be argued, therefore, that a person who has a foothold in the one would quite naturally complement a person who has a foothold in the other. And certainly I am attracted to "random women" precisely because I think everything works according to rules and nowhere in this entire universe is there any irregularity (only ignorance). Naturally, I am attracted to women who follow an algorithm that is out of sync with what I am used to. Still, this would likely be short-run curiosity that is no substitute for long-run compatability and in the long-run I require someone who is coherent and reasons in a logically valid manner. Now, it could be the case that the women intuits random things, spills it out, and then we reason through it together. This would imply that she is at least conscious of the difference between an intuition and rigorous thinking and contemplation and that she is capable of both. To that end, this women would certainly be deemed compatable. However, following the dictates of reason and logic is to be the rule and contradictions and subjective whims only the exception. Otherwise, there is no chance for compatibility as we would go together as square does to circle.
If you are really an intj, then you must know I was spoofing Provoker's post.......unless you didn't read his post, and thought I was being serious, or just being serious anyway, in which case I'm not sure you can claim intj status. But I'm sure you probably are an intj, in which case you must surely be yanking my chain. So, ha!
I usually try not to talk about people in the third person, but since he's invisible.................
