The average salary for a doctor these days is in the $150,000 range. Most college professors pull in enough for room and board, and something bordering on horse shit after that. Most athletes REALLY do their job for about 6 months out of the year, and the vast majority make over $1,000,000 a year. Need I say more?
But, for a certainty, back then,
We loved so many, yet hated so much,
We hurt others and were hurt ourselves...
Yet even then, we ran like the wind,
Whilst our laughter echoed,
Under cerulean skies...
Re: NT Mistypes
I think that this fact that only Ps dislike boring shit is pretty much a stereotype. No one likes boring subjects, though the boringness of a subject is obviously relative to the given person.Originally Posted by crazymaisy
ILI's (INTp) have a wavering attention span?!!! Only if the material is not interesting, or if there's something better to ponder introspectively.this is what i meant, too. in a roundabout way. INTps are just the first specific type that came to mind.Well actually I didn't mean that such types, as types, always get higher grades. What I did mean is that NT types do not necessarily get higher grades, even in technical subjects.
i can agree with that, too.Yet, I do think - and I have experienced it IRL - that original scientific and engineering thinking, in the sense of innovations, is more likely to originate from NT types.
I had the potential to do well in school, but never lived up to it. I know about many things, but not from school.
Part of this is the good old left/right disctinction again. P's in general are open and unfocused until something catches their attention, and to have that attention held it must be material that holds their attention. (J's would be focused, closed, attention ON something in general)
I can speak for myself and say that this is why I didn't do well in school, but read anything I'm interested in, very much a munch it down fast quick process. I learned SOME things in school, but not nearly as much as I got by looking at nature with interest, reading books at home, in the library, in books stores, and follow my interests.
I have no college degree, but did go to college, and just didn't fit in, fell through the cracks. I did well in the classes I wished to, but not the classes I was forced to take that I didn't want to take.
I've flabergasted those over-seeing me in school settings, since I had high potential and just flew by without trying, and got mostly A's and B's and sometimes lower if it was a really dull class. Rich content holds minds like mine, dry textbook is unlikely to do so as a way to introduce new material. I can read dry textbooks if I WANT to, it's then that I must have a prior interest and speeding through the text would be a jump in getting to an understanding of the subject.
I didn't have parents that were involved in my education. They just threw me to the schools and it was up to the schools to teach me. I have interest in higher maths, but haven't ever gotten to them due to my hatred of lower level maths (I count on my fingers, and count things in my head, and have to take the time to make up odd ways to do basic maths. I haven't sought a system to aid me there, just cause there are more things in life to pursue than Higher Maths.) A related issue is that the people who tend to have a problem with basic maths tend to be visual-spatial learners. (I am not stating absolutes)
In regard to SF/NT, I personally think that the distinction becomes easier to tell if we keep aside for a moment things about school, and we concentrate on the way each type handles his private life i.e. how does this type approach other people? What kind of reasoning/principle does he follow in relating to others, and in making decisions about his private life?
For instance, I've recently gotten to know an ESFp girl which is a math wiz; she likes math, and reading about math, and discussing it - she's obviously highly intelligent; nevertheless, when you start speaking of something outside her NT-alike realm of interest, it's pretty clear that she is an ESFp - likes people, making jokes, dress well, interested in aesthetics etc..
Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit
It's exactly those lines that make me think that you're an ethical type, even though it might be unrelated. I think you're deadly wrong; the only way to determine wether something is needed by society is to ponder wether it's demanded by people, or it's not. If it is, it's needed, if it's not, it's not.
For instance, think about how much less well people that all the week look forward at the football match will live, if there were no athletes. Obviously this diminishment of well-being would influence their capability to work.
Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit
Lols. Of course I understand that everything is connected and sports are popular because they give people something important (which is why they are paid well). And it is possible that Italians and British could not survive without weekly soccer dose.It's exactly those lines that make me think that you're an ethical type, even though it might be unrelated. I think you're deadly wrong; the only way to determine wether something is needed by society is to ponder wether it's demanded by people, or it's not. If it is, it's needed, if it's not, it's not.
For instance, think about how much less well people that all the week look forward at the football match will live, if there were no athletes. Obviously this diminishment of well-being would influence their capability to work.
But the point was that country full of engineers, scientists and businessmen would do better (well if measured in western style at least) than a country full of soccer players. I mean it is only possible to become a professional athlete after the economy is strong and people have enough money to pay for them. 100 years ago Finland was poor and no one had time to do sports. They were working 24 hours just to survive. Since then economy has grown stronger, people have money, lots of free time and they are bored. Thus they want entertainment and are ready to pay for it. I just see sports as luxury not as necessity. It may become a "necessity" in a way drugs can become a necessity but still professional athletes don't produce food and build houses for you and your children.
Another point to make is: I would like it if my child was great athlete. But I would rather have him/her as an average engineer than average soccer player
Lucky boy. I drift off all the time. But I seem to be able to keep part of my brain on the task at hand.ILI's (INTp) have a wavering attention span?!!! Only if the material is not interesting, or if there's something better to ponder introspectively.
As for school I guess I was pretty good. I skipped two years but people were always bitching at me to keep my mind on my work and so on.
Ah! Unrelated: I find watching soccer boring as hell
Okay, I can agree with you line of reasoning, but you'd better avoid the use of "necessity" and similar terminology, since there debates in economics have been going on for centuries over that. I know that sounds like a menace, but it's not meant to.But the point was that country full of engineers, scientists and businessmen would do better (well if measured in western style at least) than a country full of soccer players. I mean it is only possible to become a professional athlete after the economy is strong and people have enough money to pay for them. 100 years ago Finland was poor and no one had time to do sports. They were working 24 hours just to survive. Since then economy has grown stronger, people have money, lots of free time and they are bored. Thus they want entertainment and are ready to pay for it. I just see sports as luxury not as necessity. It may become a "necessity" in a way drugs can become a necessity but still professional athletes don't produce food and build houses for you and your children.
Yes, I can understand and even agree, even though of course the most important thing is that the child is happy and healthy - I'm sure you'll agreeAnother point to make is: I would like it if my child was great athlete. But I would rather have him/her as an average engineer than average soccer player
Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit
Edited for gayness.
ENTp
Re: NT Mistypes
I didn't say anything about "BORING" stuff. Just use FireFox, for instance, and ctrl+f and type "boring" and then click "highlight all", for instance. I didn't say boring. I talked about dry subjects, which are DRY, not juicy and full of life, just data that is dry in how it's written. It doesn't cause the P mind to connect necessarily easily, sometimes it might, but lack of interest is because of the inability to want to continue in the material since it lacks a "big picture" view, or is too step-by-step like to tolerate, doesn't have "living ideas" that bring depth to the subject and cause connections to be strong in the P mind.
J minds are notoriously able to read drier material and injest it alright. P minds most basically prefer not to, and if they want to they can maybe, but you are dealing with an on/off focus sort of thing which must be considered if you are such a person. If not, you get pegged as dumb or goofing off, or something, since you and they have no idea about how "living books" work for P minds and "dry textbooks" don't as a rule, but that everyone, EVERYONE loves "living books".
There are plenty of subjects that might bore anyone, and I don't mean bore and didn't say bore. Ok?
Edited for gayness.
ENTp
6w5 sx
model Φ: -+0
sloan - rcuei
Ah!
It's like F types are always promoted as being good at knowing other's emotions and understanding relationships and T types aren't, and no one complains (or so they think no one complains...) Why do F types get to have high IQs and high EQs? Heck, even the definitions of the feeling functions describe a skill for emotional analysis. So if the thinking functions do not necessarily imply high intelligence but the feeling functions certainly imply high emotional intelligence (by definition), can someone say "biased"? This is one reason people in the past have argued against the correlation between feeling and emotion.
There is a specific NT kind of way to think about things. Reality and thoughts are kind of separated. Anything and everything can be discussed generally and objectively (according to the facts they have and are willing to use), and when we discuss things, we really don't think about the individuals. We can, for example, discuss how poor people (in economically rich countries) have only themselves to blame. They should just stop complaining, learn a skill and get a job. There have always been lots and lots of unemployed people, even when there is a huge need for employees through-out the country.
Second thing is that the world is full of feelers. By the word feeler I mean that they have either Fe or Fi in their ego block. I can back that up. Half of men are strongly feeling ("This is the RIGHT thing to do" :wink: ) and a vast majority of women are feelers. (this is from the 100-page personality test free example chapter). If an NT says that poor people are to blame if they haven't done anything to get out of their misery, there will always be someone who doesn't understand it. "But you have to consider why he is poor... maybe the parents were poor." No, this isn't really about an individual who is poor. We (at least I) don't really care about that. We want to analyze it and all logic says that there could be many things they could do to improve their lives (complaining is not one of them). How many NT-s can say that when they do their NT-kind of general analysis, people around them generally understand and agree?
So does it mean that NTs are cruel and evil people who just don't care? No. We are rather more likely to treat people objectively. I might be wrong, but I have never heard an NT say that gay people are evil (hated by god, unnaturally wrong and that they should just date the opposite sex), or that abortion is always evil and wrong (don't get me started, don't make me elaborate). For example, if I wanted to get lunch with someone and they told me that they are really poor, I would offer to treat and try to be as casual about it as possible (use all the Fe I have), so they won't feel like a beggar. I want to help any way I can. For a while I regularly gave money to the homeless.
So, if no one really understands us, why would anyone try to act like an NT and then come here to say that only NTs are intelligent? Because of stereotypes. There are the geeks and there are the popular kids. If you are a geek and have lousy communication skills, then you are very smart. This is just your thing. You are not supposed to be good at communication. It's not written in your cards (in this case, not written in your A model). There is not much you can do about it, except find consolation in being smart. And then there are the popular kids who have great communication skills. It's logical to assume that the world is at least somewhat fair and that they are at least stupid. It's a nice illusion, although it's not true. sorry NTs.
But that doesn't mean that feelers can just tell us in our face that we are unintelligent. Please you yourmore! For a introverted NT, this means that they are neither good at communication not intelligent. That they are pointless people with no talents. And then you dare to cheer about how you shattered another NT. I consider that rather evil.
PS! I went to have a cigarette and I talked to my ENFj sister about what I am writing and a little about the poor people topic and she started pointing out how most people can't do anything about it and they have their own reasons... I totally agree, but that's not the issue. Of well... First fight in quite a while, bad vibe, slammed door.
I feel like feelers don't really understand us at all. We really do have the real life and the inner logic-based world that doesn't have to be obviously related to the reality. We don't care. If we would care about to individuals (strangers!), we could never discuss about the general world.
It is ok for feelers to call us heartless and tell us how we don't care about anything, but it's not ok for us to say that many feelers have /anything bad/ trait.
Sorry for the long post.
EIE, ENFj, intuitive subtype.
E3 (probably 3w4)
Cool ILI hubbys are better than LSIs any time!
Old blog: http://firsttimeinusa.blogspot.com/
New blog: http://having-a-kid.blogspot.com/
I just wanted to bring up some points which may or may not contribute to the discussion:
1. Our current means of determining "intelligence" - by virtue of having been put into written form, by such and such organization, in such and such a social/political/academic milieu - is automatically predisposed to measure a very small spectrum of abilities. If we were to break a traditional I.Q. test down to its most bare proportions, we'd find that it essentially tests comprehension (long-term and short-term), the ability to imitate, the ability to take direction, and the ability to recognize patterns.
2. Our colloquial understanding of "intelligence" differs from that which is tested for on an I.Q. test. When evaluating our own intelligence, and that of others, we look for things such as verbal efficiency (how fast can you create a cogent response to a particular statement/event/stimulus), ability to recall accumulated factual knowledge, knowledge of the social etiquette/taboos/trends of the time and place (included in this is "Emotional intelligence"), and even sense of humor. None of this necessarily correlates with I.Q.
3. The colloquial understanding of "intelligence" differs from that which is scouted for in most school systems. It is a sort of combination of the "objective" I.Q. criteria and "subjective" colloqiual criteria (I put them in quotes because neither is fully objective or subjective). Teachers and counselors look generally for the ability to parrot a teacher, sit still in class, know the social etiquette of a classroom, regurgitate information at the right time, in the right way (on a test/quiz/report/essay), and to recognize patterns/follow a train of thought.
4. Looking at the professional world, the colloquial definition of "intelligence" seems to be a more weighty indicator of how successful a person will be.
5. There is an innate bias towards a certain functional preference in the above definitions of "intelligence." For the "objective" I.Q., the intuitive functions (the verbal bias) and the logical functions (the patterned information bias), and to a lesser extent Sensory functions (orientation). For the "subjective" colloquial definition, we focus again on the intuitive function (verbal communication being our main factor in our evaluation of a person's "intelligence") and the thinking functions (patterned-information bias/train of thought, etc.), but also the ethical (spontaneous interaction/knowledge of what to do when, in the social/emotional context of a situation) and to a lesser extent the sensing functions (motor skills, orientation, but also the ability to get off your ass and do something).
Let's put it into perspective:
Functional breakdown of I.Q. tests, in order of importance:
Functional breakdown of Colloquial intelligence, in order of importance:
6. I'm sure we all of us can name two people in our lives - at opposite ends of the Socionic spectrum (an INTj and an ESFj, perhaps) - who both occupy the same category. We know some who occupy both categories. This is not at odds with the above breakdowns. Those who view themselves as intelligent (and are viewed as intelligent by others) will place more emphasis on the development of functions at a more advantageous position in the hierarchy. Because our main means of typing is via testing (i.e., self reporting), these functions, being more conscious than unconscious, will probably take a more prominent role in a person's self-reported tendencies.
And thus, I come back, in my roundabout way, to Transigent original conclusion.
The implications are that all types can be functionally "intelligent" (by either definition). Any type, theoretically can be intelligent. But those with a functional distribution that more easily accomodates the functional intelligence heirarchies above will probably have an easier time. I don't think we would find an equal type distribution at a school like Caltech (schools, again, are biased toward a certain functional heirarchy), but we would find that type and intelligence don't go hand in hand.
Edited for gayness.
ENTp
I Miss Smilingeys
I think Smilingeyes provided the shortest and most consistent theoretical explanation of the difference between feeling and thinking types:
@Cone: Intelligence on the issue of Feeling vs. Thinking.
I've been a bit unclear on this issue, yes. I've said: "Feeling type has less probability of achieving expected objective." and "Feeling equates to 'not knowing quality of object'".
BUT
Both Feeling and Thinking are just paradigmas. Thinking means that you operate with belief that you know something. Feeling means that you operate with belief that you don't know something.
This does not mean that the Thinker actually has any more information or that he is any more capable to create a _good_result than the Feeler. Note _good_ is not same as _expected_.
http://the16types.info/forums/viewtopic.php?p=9292#9292
And for the sake of example:
So... To achieve wanted result, ENFp has to make many many more attempts than ISTj. He also has to try harder, use more energy and so on. Now ENFp is an "ethical" and ISTj is a "not-ethical" what does this mean?
Imagine you are an ISTj. You know what you need to do to succeed. Why should you do wasteful, unneeded things? You don't. Should you care about people who are not related to you in any way? Who have no worth to how you act in life, and you know this for a fact? *shrug*
Now imagine you are an ENFp. You don't know who is powerful, who is not. You don't know why people act the way they do. Your goals and your interests constantly change. Is there anyone who you can hurt and be certain that you are not shooting yourself in the foot? Is there anything of which you know that you will never need it?
For these reasons people who perceive an F-type, perceive him as ethical. He is more likely to be social because he is more likely to perceive a complete stranger as a possibly important person. Extrapolate to E,N,P and voila... that is why power corrupts.
http://the16types.info/forums/viewtopic.php?p=8713#8713
I find this a highly accurate explanation on how it works in practise - (and why it is generally better to be a thinking type.) In terms of achieving things in the long run the illusion of actually knowing something is a highly useful one.
Stop thinking of feeling types as somehow inherently nicer people. Well, I know I sound like a smug know-it-all :wink: , but more generally this is how many people still seem to view the T/F dichotomy.
"Arnie is strong, rightfully angry and wants to kill somebody."
martin_g_karlsson
I actually wasn't correlating them to "talents" so much as in the sense of "information metabolism." By linking functions with "social interaction" you are also linking it with all sorts of other information ("stimuli" if you will).Correction:Let's put it into perspective:
Functional breakdown of I.Q. tests, in order of importance:
Functional breakdown of Colloquial intelligence, in order of importance:
Functional breakdown of I.Q. tests, in order of importance:
Functions don't mean shit.
Functional breakdown of Colloquial intelligence, in order of importance:
Functions don't mean shit.
Stop this "correlating functions to talents" bullshit. If it isn't connected somehow to the information you focus on in social interaction, it isn't a god damn function.
Edited for gayness.
ENTp
Transigent, I've read Rick's explanations. I'm not "Reinventing" Socionics at all. I actually agree with it, as it is, lol. These evaluations of "intelligence" we have are biased towards a facility with certain types of information. What I meant in that heirarchy was: what is an I.Q. test, subjective intelligence evaluator looking for? The subject has to display a facility with dealing with (and dealing with in the right way) this sort of information.
Black (extraverted) intuition
Perceives information about objects' potential energy — for example, information about the physical and mental abilities and potential of a person. This perception implies the ability to understand the structure of objects and phenomena and grasp their inner substance. This element determines a person's ability or inability to see the real potential energy of one's surroundings.
When this element is in the leading position, the individual has pronounced cognitive interests. He is constantly studying underlying phenomena, which he is able to communicate to others quite successfully by making complicated things simple [!! not all are able to explain things well]. Likes to explain to others his understanding of things. In favorable conditions becomes a scientist or writer [!! not necessarily true]. Is able to find optimal ways of increasing objects' potential energy. "Energizes" others with his understanding of the potential energy of surrounding objects.
Lets compare this with this:
"You have a need for other people to like and admire you, and yet you tend to be critical of yourself. While you have some personality weaknesses you are generally able to compensate for them. You have considerable unused capacity that you have not turned to your advantage. Disciplined and self-controlled on the outside, you tend to be worrisome and insecure on the inside. At times you have serious doubts as to whether you have made the right decision or done the right thing. You prefer a certain amount of change and variety and become dissatisfied when hemmed in by restrictions and limitations. You also pride yourself as an independent thinker; and do not accept others' statements without satisfactory proof. But you have found it unwise to be too frank in revealing yourself to others. At times you are extroverted, affable, and sociable, while at other times you are introverted, wary, and reserved. Some of your aspirations tend to be rather unrealistic."
compare the first to the second.
http://atheism.about.com/library/glo...orereffect.htm
LII
that is what i was getting at. if there is an inescapable appropriation that is required in the act of understanding, this brings into question the validity of socionics in describing what is real, and hence stubborn contradictions that continue to plague me.
Newbies, we are on a forum dominated by smart people. WE FUCKING KNOW ABOUT LOGICAL FALLACIES DO NOT COME TALK ABOUT THE FORER EFFECT AND SHIT LIKE IT'S SOMETHING NEW THAT NO ONE HAS EVER HEARD ABOUT!!! WE FUCKING KNOW IT, AND ALL ITS EFFECTS, AND NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO ASTROLOGICAL PROFILE ARE IN NO FUCKING WAY CORRELATED TO DEFINITIONS OF THE FUNCTIONS, OKAY?
I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY A NEWBIE MORON THAT DOESN'T KNOW SHIT ABOUT SOMETHING THINKS THAT HE CAN SCREW UP EVERYTHIGN JUST NAMING A LOGICAL FALLACY EVERYONE KNOWS ABOUT. GODDAMN.
Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit
if something claims to be science, submit it to the method!!!!!
just because you brow beat anyone who disagrees with you, and dont look from outside what you think you know, doesnt make you right.
LII
that is what i was getting at. if there is an inescapable appropriation that is required in the act of understanding, this brings into question the validity of socionics in describing what is real, and hence stubborn contradictions that continue to plague me.
YEAH OF COURSE YOU HAVE FIGURED ME OUT FROM 2 POST, RIGHT? GOD FUCKING DAMMIT!
AND WHERE THE FUCK ANYONE CLAIMED SOCIONICS TO BE SCIENCE? UH???
PEOPLE SHOULD PUT IN THEIR BLEW UP MINDS THAT SOCIONICS STARTED FROM OBSERVATIONS OF BEHAVIOUR, AND THEN MADE THE PROFILES, NOT THE OPPOSITE. THEREFORE, THE FORER EFFECT SHOULD NOT BE MENTIONED, ASSHOLE.
Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit
socionics absolutely claims to be science.
http://www.socionics.com/main/intro.htm
here it is psychology, which is a science
are you prepared to accept socionics as a faith?
LII
that is what i was getting at. if there is an inescapable appropriation that is required in the act of understanding, this brings into question the validity of socionics in describing what is real, and hence stubborn contradictions that continue to plague me.
Socionics claims to be science because it is 'objective observation,' that does not make it doctrine.
I won't speak with such a dumbass ANYMORE. WHERE THE FUCK DID I MENTION SOCIONICS AS A FAITH? DO NOT PUT IN MY MOUTH WORDS I DID NOT SAY, FUCKING MORON!!
Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit
you said previously: AND WHERE THE FUCK ANYONE CLAIMED SOCIONICS TO BE SCIENCE? UH???I won't speak with such a dumbass ANYMORE. WHERE THE FUCK DID I MENTION SOCIONICS AS A FAITH? DO NOT PUT IN MY MOUTH WORDS I DID NOT SAY, FUCKING MORON!!
as if to imply that no one claimed it was a science. if that is the case, then it begged the antithesis.
LII
that is what i was getting at. if there is an inescapable appropriation that is required in the act of understanding, this brings into question the validity of socionics in describing what is real, and hence stubborn contradictions that continue to plague me.
Give this guy a break, he's only been here for four days. He still needs to learn the differences between MBTI and socionics.
“We cannot change the cards we are dealt, just how we play the hand.” Randy Pausch
Ne-IEE
6w7 sp/sx
6w7-9w1-4w5
i am quite familiar with both actually. can you illustrate the relationship between behavior and psychological function?
LII
that is what i was getting at. if there is an inescapable appropriation that is required in the act of understanding, this brings into question the validity of socionics in describing what is real, and hence stubborn contradictions that continue to plague me.
Are you saying how havingi am quite familiar with both actually. can you illustrate the relationship between behavior and psychological function?
http://socion.info
if you want to know how different types get along as a result of functions then go to this link:
http://socionics.com/rel/rel.htm
“We cannot change the cards we are dealt, just how we play the hand.” Randy Pausch
Ne-IEE
6w7 sp/sx
6w7-9w1-4w5
no, i simply want to the relationship between any "psychological function" and behaviorAre you saying how havingi am quite familiar with both actually. can you illustrate the relationship between behavior and psychological function?
http://socion.info
if you want to know how different types get along as a result of functions then go to this link:
http://socionics.com/rel/rel.htm
LII
that is what i was getting at. if there is an inescapable appropriation that is required in the act of understanding, this brings into question the validity of socionics in describing what is real, and hence stubborn contradictions that continue to plague me.
No break if he learns with arrogance. No pity.
Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit
Edited for gayness.
ENTp
You're not going to understand until we say that your fucked up version is right, right?no, i simply want to the relationship between any "psychological function" and behaviorAre you saying how havingi am quite familiar with both actually. can you illustrate the relationship between behavior and psychological function?
http://socion.info
if you want to know how different types get along as a result of functions then go to this link:
http://socionics.com/rel/rel.htm
Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit
i wish to know the relationship between "psychological type" and behavior. illustrate if you can. this discussion would end now if someone would do so. why will you not answer?No break if he learns with arrogance. No pity.
LII
that is what i was getting at. if there is an inescapable appropriation that is required in the act of understanding, this brings into question the validity of socionics in describing what is real, and hence stubborn contradictions that continue to plague me.
I have already told you. You have not recognized my explanation, totally ignored it.i wish to know the relationship between "psychological type" and behavior. illustrate if you can. this discussion would end now if someone would do so. why will you not answer?No break if he learns with arrogance. No pity.
Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit
that x--->infinity thing?
LII
that is what i was getting at. if there is an inescapable appropriation that is required in the act of understanding, this brings into question the validity of socionics in describing what is real, and hence stubborn contradictions that continue to plague me.
Replay: How does function correlate with behaviour?
Look at the definition of a function. Look at the behaviour of a people along a period of time that tends towards infinite. Now match them. See what happens.
Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit
if socionics actually used this method, it would be quite different. but from what we do know, this is not how socionics was developed.
LII
that is what i was getting at. if there is an inescapable appropriation that is required in the act of understanding, this brings into question the validity of socionics in describing what is real, and hence stubborn contradictions that continue to plague me.
TrueAh! Unrelated: I find watching soccer boring as hell
Haha yes. This is what I hated in college and which makes me think I would hate post MSc studies even more. There is a damn ready made concept for everything (usually invented before my parents were born) which you have to know and use it right or no one will even try to understand youyou'd better avoid the use of "necessity" and similar terminology, since there debates in economics have been going on for centuries over that. I know that sounds like a menace, but it's not meant to.I so hate ready made concepts
Of course! As long as he/she brings alive all the dreams I had but never managed to fulfill myself! He/she can be very healthy and happy while doing that stuffthe most important thing is that the child is happy and healthy - I'm sure you'll agree
P.S. You are really pulling the Italian temperament out in this thread
Oh... right. lol, sorry. Carry on.I started my post before yours, and was refering to the Simlingeyes reference by Curiousoul.
Are you a Gamma Baby?
PAY ATTENTION PEOPLE THESE THREADS WITH MULTIPLE POSTS GET CONFUSING YOU HAVE TO PAY ATTENTION
PAY ATTENTION
PAY ATTENTION
PAY ATTENTION
PAY ATTENTION
intelligence is a tough subject, but an extremely 'consider-to-reality' sort of way to judge intelligence would be to take a person already set in their career and see how much money they make. Money is everything in our society; it's opportunities, self-confidence, material possessions, a better future for your children, etc. Some would say that a drive and ability to make money is intelligence because it provides much more than being able to think about, say, systems and patterns.
asd
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote