Recent content by ElvenVeil

Whenever I have seen him talk, I would go with ESTJ

decided to leave it in for the fun of it don't know where you get these ideas from. If it was true that jobs are getting fewer and fewer, it would follow that unemployment rates would be on a constant rise too. That is not the case. (naturally there is a danger in talking about such things too...

Ofc lowered prices themselves don't smash an economy, so to me the interesting question is whether markets can be opened up too quickly for a country and whether governments do enough to redistribute the wealth generated. Why are they unlikely to generate more wealth than their parents? (maybe...

if you would claim that only the top 1% of the income benefits from trade and globalization, then you largely seem to deny or ignore that extreme poverty has been in a constant decrease. If you accept this fact, you will also have to accept that a lot more than just the top 1% has benefitted...

not sure I understand any part of the opening post. but ignoring that, and just talking about nationalism and globalization: In the west we are seeing increasing nationalism, e.g brexit and Trump. Economically globalization has been a boon for far more than it has been a bad thing. The amount...

Agreed that type is set from very early stages). before continuing, are you one that equals specific actions with functions? E.G he likes to run to he must be a sensor. That's at least the only way I can see how you can say that it is "fully supported" by the theory. Children have...

Really ? If anything I would say it would be the other way around (and also unlikely to be an intuitive/sensing thing) . But it is much more expected of boys to be running around and doing sports when very young so it would make a lot more sense if people did sports when very young, and then...

bah lost my post I was writing : ( in short: There is nothing inherent in your choices that would make you one type or the other. I am sure the person *you are* and upbringing/environment plays an important role in there as well. What is more relevant in order to discover your type, is how...

I think it is a very good question.. Also very difficult to answer. I don't think people cycle through functions as I have never seen that. I think people would often stick to the use of 1 or 2 functions depending on the setting. Most often their first two functions. After taking some more...

I do disagree, but for a different reason than with the math thingy. In a sense, if you want to include very many things in a system you often weaken it, and if you wish to include everything, you render it useless. MBTI isn't just about behavior, but it has its strength and focus in making...

yeah that was the missing part : ) . I would love to hear your thoughts as I have never thought about this. Could I convince you to tell me your thoughts in for instance a pm? (or some other mean). It would be very appreciated .

:phear: I think you misunderstand slightly. I dont write to hurt people's feelings. I never claimed that you need to build a proof base, as that would be completely against what I am saying. I am saying that if MBTI by its very nature cannot be proved, it is pointless and misleading to have...

I personally don't put too much stock into p/j as any useful assessement tool within MBTI; not as long as you use functions to navigate and understand people's behavior. I think I have seen many 'p' people who are much more close minded than 'j' people. What Polaris writes about social...

I am not very good at knowing whether people are joking or actually serious when reading very very silly things. If you would think that Si is a source of wanting to E.G eat then sigh.. to the actual thread.. (again I don't know whether it is just a joke or whether the OP is actually serious...

you wish to type a bear who runs around collecting jigsaw puzzles and if unlucky is turned into a washing machine at times : p ?