• OK, it's on.
  • Please note that many, many Email Addresses used for spam, are not accepted at registration. Select a respectable Free email.

Is Chad an INFJ?

Chad

Prolific Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2013
Messages
1,080
Location
Westbrook, Maine
#1
The Claim has been made that my online presents appears as INFJ.

I am not starting with any assumptions and if anyone wish to jump in and type me I am fine with that.

So far I have been typed as INTP (most common and the type I currently prescribe to) ENTP (I am still exploring this possibility myself.) and INFJ (I really don't understand this one and I am making this forum to better understand the reason for this typing.)

Honestly, Thank own8ge for opening my eyes to this possibility I have not seen before.
 

Jennywocky

guud languager
Joined
Sep 25, 2008
Messages
10,610
Location
Charn
#2
The Claim has been made that my online presents appears as INFJ.

I am not starting with any assumptions and if anyone wish to jump in and type me I am fine with that.

So far I have been typed as INTP (most common and the type I currently prescribe to) ENTP (I am still exploring this possibility myself.) and INFJ (I really don't understand this one and I am making this forum to better understand the reason for this typing.)

Honestly, Thank own8ge for opening my eyes to this possibility I have not seen before.
I don't really know what type you are, but even your approach in this post seems atypical INTP; there's a lot of F that guides your actions as a primary consideration and it seems to be authentically rooted, it's foundational to who you are. Your assumptions about how a particular conversation should be handled seem far more F/relational minded and not really detached-logical.

In fact, you remind me more of my ISFJ mother (who is one of the nicest people on the planet and a "if you can't say something nice about someone, don't say anything... although you can always find something nice to say" kind of person).
 

Chad

Prolific Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2013
Messages
1,080
Location
Westbrook, Maine
#3
Okay,

Just to explain my reason for this post.

I have recently been reminded constantly on several of my post that I am INFJ.

This over time become annoying mostly because its not grounded in any facts.

Therefore I decided that my passive aggressive I don't care what you think attitude to wasn't going to solve the problem. Therefore logical I decided to address the issue head on. After all he this person may be right and may have logical reasons for assuming they are right.

The choice of language used was specifically chosen to sound as least offensive as possible because I have unintentionally offended this person in the past.

I have many subjects I would love to talk about and jump into however, I don't believe this is possible if my post keep being derailed by assertions of my personality type. Therefore I wish to address it after the problem as refused to resolve it self of some time.

I fell to see how that is F/relational and not logical.

I personally happen to be very open minded to the fact that I might not completely understand myself. However, I currently contribute this to INTP open mindless. Mostly because I have learned the hard way in life that I am not always right and that other people sometimes know more then I do.
 

Jennywocky

guud languager
Joined
Sep 25, 2008
Messages
10,610
Location
Charn
#4
Okay,

Just to explain my reason for this post.

I have recently been reminded constantly on several of my post that I am INFJ.

This over time become annoying mostly because its not grounded in any facts.

Therefore I decided that my passive aggressive I don't care what you think attitude to wasn't going to solve the problem. Therefore logical I decided to address the issue head on. After all he this person may be right and may have logical reasons for assuming they are right.

The choice of language used was specifically chosen to sound as least offensive as possible because I have unintentionally offended this person in the past.

I have many subjects I would love to talk about and jump into however, I don't believe this is possible if my post keep being derailed by assertions of my personality type. Therefore I wish to address it after the problem as refused to resolve it self of some time.

I fell to see how that is F/relational and not logical.

I personally happen to be very open minded to the fact that I might not completely understand myself. However, I currently contribute this to INTP open mindless. Mostly because I have learned the hard way in life that I am not always right and that other people sometimes know more then I do.
Oops. Sorry, I didn't know the rules when I started to play the game.
 

Double_V

Active Member
Joined
Jan 15, 2013
Messages
281
#5
And ENTP w/ a ISFJ mother? How does that work out?

I have an ISFJ daughter. It does not work out. These two types usually have a very difficult time communicating.

And, to the OP I can see it might be a little bit possible to not be sure of INTP or INFJ... but there is no way it would ever be an INFJ or ENTP question. They are beyond different. At entpdotorg many, many ENTP's expressed their severe dislike & outright frustration of INFJ's and their bizarre recreation of reality based on their emotions. About the only thing I am convinced of is that INFJ's create and image of what/who the ENTP is in their head. And no matter how many zillion times they've been told they are wrong and just don't get it.... they just don't get it. And they will not go away. ENTP's often loathe them.

The corresponding alternative to being an ENTP is being an INTJ. They are very open minded & like thinking of 'the possibilities'.
 

Jennywocky

guud languager
Joined
Sep 25, 2008
Messages
10,610
Location
Charn
#6
And ENTP w/ a ISFJ mother? How does that work out?
My mother and I get along okay now, but that is only after many years of craziness (she was really insecure, and I had some of my own issues that didn't help). I'm actually an I, but with a number of ENTP tendencies... .so I actually was really aware of the differences and took those in consideration, and was capable of perceiving her expectations and her responses... but for many years after I entered adulthood, I just needed to get away from her. I hated having her emotional stability dependent on me giving her all the "right cues" back to express my love, and I just can't stand codependency.

The situation now is that I know she loves me and has always been the most considerate/compassionate person in my family towards me (I deal with two basic types of ISFJ, and the one is very judgmental and the other is sweet if undiscerning, and she's much more the latter), but I have had to accept that she will never "get" me. I feel much more understood by the average person on this forum, for example, than by my mom.

However, she actually has a very good heart and gave a lot of material help to me over the years as her sign of love. So to honor that, I have learned how to relate to her in a way she appreciates; I also do "stretch" her a little by telling her things that I'm thinking or give a perspective that I know she won't quite understand, so that I don't go completely crazy / feel as stilted. So we've met in the middle, although it's more on "her middle" than mine.

I know sometimes she just looks at me as if I have two heads.

I have an ISFJ daughter. It does not work out. These two types usually have a very difficult time communicating.
It can be very difficult. The two types have different assumptions about life, and then different ways of processing data. My sister is also an ISFJ, but she's more of a judgmental type; she understands more of what I'm saying but simply rejects my ideas because they don't fit with her traditional religious values. We don't really talk; she wants to talk superficially and never engage on substance (so her values are never challenged by my ideas) while pretending that we are close, and I don't want to do that anymore.
 
Joined
Dec 24, 2012
Messages
575
Location
Far away from All This
#7
Chad, I see ENTP. I do not see INFJ.

In the discussions I've had with you, you seem rather dominant and extraverted. However, you repeatedly use logic in your arguments before appealing to emotions. I think you (and own8ge) are mistaking your extraversion for feeling. You are very open, but you do not discuss yourself in the manner that I see many INFJs do. You do not talk about how different you are, as own8ge (who may be an INFJ) does. You mention your interests and opinions, but you have not disclosed much personal information except in the "About You" thread.

I hope that this was helpful.

SW
 

Chad

Prolific Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2013
Messages
1,080
Location
Westbrook, Maine
#8
I have hard the ENTP claim before. Part of me believes that is something to it. However, I not nearly that extroverted in real life.

Thank for sharing your thoughts.
 

own8ge

Existential Nihilist
Joined
May 31, 2012
Messages
1,040
#10
J= inductive reasoning.
P= deductive reasong.

All of your posts are results of inductive reasoning. Ergo you are J, which is irrefutable.

IJ= Specificating of subjective perspective. (thoughts with a subjective informing purpose)
EJ= Specification of objective judgment. (thoughts with an objective justice purpose)

All of your posts are the specifications of your perspective. Ergo it is irrefutable that you are an IJ.

IFJ= Specifying subjective perspective for the sake of clarification. (Ti)
ITJ= Specifying subjective perspective for the sake of achieving. (Te)

Obviously you have Ti. You are specifying perspective to improve your own logic which is black and white and subjective (it must makes sense to you, otherwise you refuse it). Ergo it is irrefutable that you are an IFJ.

N= interpretive, NJ is reaching for the unknown.
S= literal, SJ is staying within the known.

You are an SJ mimick as I would call it. Highly common under INFJs whom take themselves as T. You treat your own thought which explore the unknown as if it has been concluded by the known. However, this is puedo. You are reaching the unknown and afterwards rationalize it by contrasting it with the known.

But I digress. That you are N was known by yourself already.

Before responding to my post, please think about it for a day or so. Don't rush it and try to accept my logic before clarifying your own. Remember, I am doing this for you.

As far as I know there is simply no possibility that you are an E, P or T. And that you are N is what you already agree on. So yeah, there is that. And before disagreeing with me on specifics, instead ask me to clarify that what you disagree with. Don't act on your impulses, but think it over first. (that is my advice)
 

Jennywocky

guud languager
Joined
Sep 25, 2008
Messages
10,610
Location
Charn
#11
I have hard the ENTP claim before. Part of me believes that is something to it. However, I not nearly that extroverted in real life.

Thank for sharing your thoughts.
It's too bad there aren't any active ENTPs here, to contrast and compare to. I think that would give people a better feel for things.
 

Chad

Prolific Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2013
Messages
1,080
Location
Westbrook, Maine
#14
J= inductive reasoning.
P= deductive reasong.

All of your posts are results of inductive reasoning. Ergo you are J, which is irrefutable.

IJ= Specificating of subjective perspective. (thoughts with a subjective informing purpose)
EJ= Specification of objective judgment. (thoughts with an objective justice purpose)

All of your posts are the specifications of your perspective. Ergo it is irrefutable that you are an IJ.

IFJ= Specifying subjective perspective for the sake of clarification. (Ti)
ITJ= Specifying subjective perspective for the sake of achieving. (Te)

Obviously you have Ti. You are specifying perspective to improve your own logic which is black and white and subjective (it must makes sense to you, otherwise you refuse it). Ergo it is irrefutable that you are an IFJ.

N= interpretive, NJ is reaching for the unknown.
S= literal, SJ is staying within the known.

You are an SJ mimick as I would call it. Highly common under INFJs whom take themselves as T. You treat your own thought which explore the unknown as if it has been concluded by the known. However, this is puedo. You are reaching the unknown and afterwards rationalize it by contrasting it with the known.

But I digress. That you are N was known by yourself already.

Before responding to my post, please think about it for a day or so. Don't rush it and try to accept my logic before clarifying your own. Remember, I am doing this for you.

As far as I know there is simply no possibility that you are an E, P or T. And that you are N is what you already agree on. So yeah, there is that. And before disagreeing with me on specifics, instead ask me to clarify that what you disagree with. Don't act on your impulses, but think it over first. (that is my advice)
I will play your game.

I will respond tomorrow have a good night.
 

Chad

Prolific Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2013
Messages
1,080
Location
Westbrook, Maine
#23
Well Own8ge lets start form the beginning as see where that takes us.

Your first statement is that I am a J because I use Inductive Reasoning and not Deductive Reasoning.

So to start are let define Inductive and Deductive reasoning so were all on the same page.

Inductive Reasoning


Description

Inductive reasoning, or induction, is reasoning from a specific case or cases and deriving a general rule. It draws inferences from observations in order to make generalizations.

Inference can be done in four stages:

Observation: collect facts, without bias.
Analysis: classify the facts, identifying patterns of regularity.
Inference: From the patterns, infer generalizations about the relations between the facts.
Confirmation: Testing the inference through further observation.

In an argument, you might:

Derive a general rule in an accepted area and then apply the rule in the area where you want the person to behave.
Give them lots of detail, then explain what it all means.
Talk about the benefits of the parts and only get to the overall benefits later.
Take what has happened and give a plausible explanation for why it has happened.

Inductive arguments can include:

Part-to-whole: where the whole is assumed to be like individual parts (only bigger).
Extrapolations: where areas beyond the area of study are assumed to be like the studied area.
Predictions: where the future is assumed to be like the past.


Deductive Reasoning


Description

Deductive reasoning, or deduction, starts with a general case and deduces specific instances.

Deduction starts with an assumed hypothesis or theory, which is why it has been called 'hypothetico-deduction'. This assumption may be well-accepted or it may be rather more shaky -- nevertheless, for the argument it is not questioned.

Deduction is used by scientists who take a general scientific law and apply it to a certain case, as they assume that the law is true. Deduction can also be used to test an induction by applying it elsewhere, although in this case the initial theory is assumed to be true only temporarily.



Discussion

Deductive reasoning assumes that the basic law from which you are arguing is applicable in all cases. This can let you take a rule and apply it perhaps where it was not really meant to be applied.

Scientists will prove a general law for a particular case and then do many deductive experiments (and often get PhDs in the process) to demonstrate that the law holds true in many different circumstances.

In set theory, a deduction is a subset of the rule that is taken as the start point. If the rule is true and deduction is a true subset (not a conjunction) then the deduction is almost certainly true.

Using deductive reasoning usually is a credible and 'safe' form of reasoning, but is based on the assumed truth of the rule or law on which it is founded.
Validity and soundness

Deductive conclusions can be valid or invalid. Valid arguments obey the initial rule. For validity, the truth or falsehood of the initial rule is not considered. Thus valid conclusions need not be true, and invalid conclusions may not be false.

When a conclusion is both valid and true, it is considered to be sound. When it is valid, but untrue, then it is considered to be unsound.

This is definitions are from http://changingminds.org/disciplines/argument/types_reasoning and since the are quite close to my logic text books definitions I figure they should be acceptable.

So with that in mind I need to understand your two points.

One that J = Inductive Reasoning.

You can't make this argument with out something to back it up.

It like saying the Sky = Purple pockadots.

Given the definition of what Inductive reasoning is why do you believe it is J?

Your second claim that you make in your first statement is that I use Inductive Reasoning not Deductive Reasoning.

The truth is I use both but why do you believe that my reasoning is Inductive and not Deductive?

Your turn.
 

own8ge

Existential Nihilist
Joined
May 31, 2012
Messages
1,040
#24
Chad

Nicely done. I tried to trick you :D

I will hereby explain truth and nothing but the truth. (I might start rather abstract, perhaps one should read it twice. Oh. And try to visualize it.)
J= Deductive Reasoning
P= Inductive Reasoning


So why is this? Well..

See it as simple as this analogy:
(J =) Deduction = Top-down logic.
(P =) Induction = Bottom-up logic.

J = PiJe > PeJi, which concludes that logic gos through that hierarchy. Any PiJe (J) thought stream is by definition that of specifying. PeJi (P) is by definition that of generalizing.

More specifically... Pi is based on a fraction of Pe in order to draw Pi to Pi conclusions (by the usage of judgment). Pi to Pi conclusions is literally introversion. Introversion, by definition is based on an external premise.

Ergo... J = The act of specifying a generalization. And P = The act of generalizing a specification.

To reach depth in thinking. (To actually draw Pi to Pi or Pe to Pe conclusions). When a Pi specification of Pe generalization has been made, that judgment (conclusiveness) will be visualized by Pi and will be taken as a generalization in order to specify it again. This is what enables a person to endlessly think from 1 premise.

Do you understand this so far?

Being J, or being P; simply means having a preference for 1 or the other. Both of them require a whole different state of consciousness. If you are being P within J, it is still J. If you are being J within P, it is still P.

So don't say you use both, which you might, but is highly improbably. By definition, 1 or the other will have a rather high preference. Otherwise, dedication of consciousness would be impossible and you wouldn't be able to think within your dedication. Switching from J to P completely, sort off will mean that all your knowledge has become irrelevant.

If you understand this so far, I can, if you want, take a post of yours as example and explain to you why I believe you are J. (But please make sure you understand that what I explained above, ask questions as you please. I'm sure you'll have some as I tried to keep this post as condense as possible.)
 

Chad

Prolific Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2013
Messages
1,080
Location
Westbrook, Maine
#25
I am sorry but I see some gaping wholes in your logic all over the place but lets start here.

J = PiJe > PeJi, which concludes that logic gos through that hierarchy. Any PiJe (J) thought stream is by definition that of specifying. PeJi (P) is by definition that of generalizing.
First "J=PiJe > PeJi"

I only slightly understand what this means and it very vague at the least. So I will try to clarify it and see if we are on the same page.

Your are trying to say that (J) Judgment = (Pi)Introverted Perceiving/(Je)Extroverted Judgment. (>)moving towards (Pe)Extroverted Perceiving/(Ji)Introverted Judginment.

I have seen arguments like this on this page however if you wish to prove a point you may need to site your sources or be more informative with out the short cuts.

Because this honestly means nothing to me.

Second "which concludes that logic gos through that hierarchy"

You haven't concluded anything you just made a statement. I have no reason to believe that the way I process logic is related to the P/J function at all.

P according to me research is the character trait that states that you are an observer primarly and your and your Judgments/chooses are secondary.

If you knew anything about me you would know that this actually describes me very well.

J is the contrary to P. Therefore J's are primarily a judgment makers. The observer the word primarily to help them make chooses and not the other way around.

I may wish I was more like this but if I am honest with myself I have to admit that I don't really collect information for the justification of making concrete chooses. I collect information for its own sake and then use the information to add to my collective knowledge of everything. I use this knowledge to make choices however only with necessary are needed.

So as for your last point. I do generalize meaning I don't look for specifics I am trying to figure out the general big pig picture idea. This may lead me to make smaller picture solutions that I use on this site and in my everyday life but my mind is seek general truth not specific information. I then use the general truth to understand the specifics question or problem.

Therefore by your own argument I am a P not an J.

I will go on if need but I think this make my point quite nicely.
 

Chad

Prolific Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2013
Messages
1,080
Location
Westbrook, Maine
#26
If you wish to understand my personality. Instead of jumping to conclusions and pulling as straws just ask me questions and I will be honest with you about them. Than you can get specific information and not information you see and take out of context. This will give your logical understand of myself which you then can use to expand your system of knowledge.

You conclusion that I am INFJ at this point implies that I am retarded and have know understand of myself. Since this is not true and quite insulting at that I suggest we should start over with mutual respect if you really wish to understand my personality.

However, if you do not wish to see me more respectfully I understand. My writing is atrocious and often gives people the wrong Idea about me. I have learn to accept that as part of my online life.
 

own8ge

Existential Nihilist
Joined
May 31, 2012
Messages
1,040
#27
@Chad

You are being ridiculous. And. I don't type people based on what they think or what they do. That would be to label people. That is against my principles. I type MBTI by the way people their thoughts are formed. (How they think). How one his consciousness works.

E.g. How you interpret things can be easily extracted from your extroversion. That is what I reach for, and that is what I identify, not classify, with MBTI.
 

Chad

Prolific Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2013
Messages
1,080
Location
Westbrook, Maine
#28
Inductive reason is my main Phorta so to speak. I like finding all the evidence and then using it to make a improve my understanding of the universe and everything (note I use inductive reasoning to better understand general principles)

Whoever this in research I have had to use and successfully used deductive reasoning with ease. Basically when doing criminology research I first learned the rules or the processes then used these processes to find and understand some other truth. I am quite adapt at this type of work. I love it actually as it is my chosen career path. I also graduated college with cum laude with a chemistry degree. Also using a great deal of deductive reasoning in my lab classes.
 

Chad

Prolific Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2013
Messages
1,080
Location
Westbrook, Maine
#29
@Chad

You are being ridiculous. And. I don't type people based on what they think or what they do. That would be to label people. That is against my principles. I type MBTI by the way people their thoughts are formed. (How they think). How one his consciousness works.

E.g. How you interpret things can be easily extracted from your extroversion. That is what I reach for, and that is what I identify, not classify, with MBTI.
Being ridiculous would be typing someone incorrectly based off of incomplete and imprecise information.

I try to fill a roll on this forum a character to say. Since I am not taken serious do to my spelling and religious beliefs. I chose to use my knowledge to point out area where people are missing the point. That is my goal on this forum.

I believe you have somehow misconstrued my arguments to the point were you believe I am (I believe the word you use is autistic). I am very self aware and I understand my motivations quite well. If you wish to understand them I can explain however if you wish to just label me as something I not then we are at an impasse.
 

Hadoblado

The choicest fuckboi
Joined
Mar 17, 2011
Messages
4,935
#30
Nicely done. I tried to trick you :D
God I wish people wouldn't do that. How do you expect to communicate ideas if you also feed false ones? Now on top of evaluating whether you're wrong or right, we need to evaluate whether you're just straight up "tricking" us. When you already have ideas of a complexity that exceeds your ability to communicate them/our ability to understand them, why would you deliberately make it more difficult.

Also, in the event that you are actually covering for a fuck up, just explain that your brain farted, correct the error, and proceed. The only thing worse than making a mistake is not acknowledging it.
I will hereby explain truth and nothing but the truth. (I might start rather abstract, perhaps one should read it twice. Oh. And try to visualize it.)
J= Deductive Reasoning
P= Inductive Reasoning

So why is this? Well..

See it as simple as this analogy:
(J =) Deduction = Top-down logic.
(P =) Induction = Bottom-up logic
You should start with the basic and lead to the abstract. Assume some level of naiveté on the part of your audience, though you should also presume a reasonable level of intelligence. What Chad did with the copy-paste definition was a very good idea because it placed everyone on the same page. So far you’ve made some nice simple claims, but…
J = PiJe > PeJi, which concludes that logic gos through that hierarchy. Any PiJe (J) thought stream is by definition that of specifying. PeJi (P) is by definition that of generalizing.
What the actual fuck? I have zero clue what that means, particularly since the PiJe/PeJi stuff isn’t part of any model I have spent any time looking at. I don’t even know whether the “>” is greater-than or directional. How the fuck does logic conclude through this hierarchy?

If you can’t be bothered catching people up on things that you consider basic, perhaps you should link some explanations? Everything you wrote past this point is completely lost because you failed to start all participants on the same page.

Despite Chad’s atrocious writing, he is a lot easier to understand than you.
 

own8ge

Existential Nihilist
Joined
May 31, 2012
Messages
1,040
#31
@Chad

Just think about it. EVERYTHING that you say is the clarification of your perspective in regards to 'that what you are describing'. THIS IS PI DOMINANCE.

I'm out of here as I'm not taken serious enough.
 

Jennywocky

guud languager
Joined
Sep 25, 2008
Messages
10,610
Location
Charn
#32
It's not that you aren't taken seriously.

he just disagrees and there is no common basis that acts as an authority by which one or the other of us is compelled to accept the other's opinion as more accurate. (That's a big issue in these sloppy "let's type someone, anyone!" threads, btw. It's all just opinion pieces of varying degrees of insight, with no accepted foundation of rules.)

OTOH, maybe you're right and people don't take you seriously.
 

Chad

Prolific Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2013
Messages
1,080
Location
Westbrook, Maine
#33
@Chad

Just think about it. EVERYTHING that you say is the clarification of your perspective in regards to 'that what you are describing'. THIS IS PI DOMINANCE.

I'm out of here as I'm not taken serious enough.

It's not that I am not taking you serious. You constant insistence forced me to take you seriously. You have an opinion and I am sure you have a reason to believe what your believe. I tried to have you explain your logic so that I would understand however I don't get your logical leaps and I not sure how much you do either.

Therefore I suggested an alternative which you rejected. You rejected my alternative because you believe me unable to be self-aware or Autistic.

Therefore we are at an impasse because you refuse to take me serious or capable to speak on the subject at your level and I find it unbearable to read your arguments because they make logical leaps that I find it hard to accept. Mostly because your arguments don't fallow any of my research or even the research I have read that others have shared on here.

I wish you would site your sources or do more research and publish yourself for peer editing. As it is right now your are not a credible source sorry.
 
Joined
Mar 17, 2013
Messages
3,899
Location
stockholm
#34
If I haven't already said it then yeah you are an INFJ, there's really no friggin way your T is higher than your F, plus you are a textbook example of fuzzy logic user. When I debated you I could totally see you panoraming over that Ni landscape looking for the answer you needed. It's that Ni way of just having it all within you, but then needing to extract it.

Ti dominant... no friggin way. ENTP is a little closer but still no good, ISFJ would be more probable.
 

Chad

Prolific Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2013
Messages
1,080
Location
Westbrook, Maine
#35
If I haven't already said it then yeah you are an INFJ, there's really no friggin way your T is higher than your F, plus you are a textbook example of fuzzy logic user. When I debated you I could totally see you panoraming over that Ni landscape looking for the answer you needed. It's that Ni way of just having it all within you, but then needing to extract it.

Ti dominant... no friggin way. ENTP is a little closer but still no good, ISFJ would be more probable.
Thanks for you input. I serenely disagree with you. But to each there own.
 

Ink

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 26, 2012
Messages
926
Location
svealand
#36
I see nothing pointing to you not being INTP, so that's where my vote goes! You seem to have a very strong identity as is indicative of IPs, imo...
 
Joined
Mar 17, 2013
Messages
3,899
Location
stockholm
#37
@Chad

Just think about it. EVERYTHING that you say is the clarification of your perspective in regards to 'that what you are describing'. THIS IS PI DOMINANCE.

I'm out of here as I'm not taken serious enough.
This is what I was gettin at with "panoraming over that Ni landscape"

and it's one of the main reasons you gotta be an INFJ
 

Chad

Prolific Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2013
Messages
1,080
Location
Westbrook, Maine
#39
My wife says There is no way in Hell that I am a J (she is a J and she says that is one reason we clash). She also says she would love it if I was an F however sadly I am not.

This are the words of the woman who lives and deals with me every day.

She is either an ISTJ or ISFJ. She has has tested as both and she has quirks that would lead you to think she is both.

Maybe she just has multiple personalities. LOL.
 
Top Bottom