I can't believe throughout all this mumble jumble no one wondered if there are children in the matter.
You guys are all selfish, delusional wankers.
I can't believe throughout all this mumble jumble no one wondered if there are children in the matter.
You guys are all selfish, delusional wankers.
In no way should one act contrary to the great future you have before you.
„Man can do what he wants but he cannot want what he wants.“
– Arthur Schopenhauer
-
Dual type (as per tcaudilllg)
Enneagram 5 (wings either 4 or 6)?
I'm constantly looking to align the real with the ideal.I've been more oriented toward being overly idealistic by expecting the real to match the ideal. My thinking side is dominent. The result is that sometimes I can be overly impersonal or self-centered in my approach, not being understanding of others in the process and simply thinking "you should do this" or "everyone should follor this rule"..."regardless of how they feel or where they're coming from"which just isn't a good attitude to have. It is a way, though, to give oneself an artificial sense of self-justification. LSE
Best description of functions:
http://socionicsstudy.blogspot.com/2...functions.html
Alright, the TRUTH is:
My ESE friend is asking about what she can tell her friend who is cheating on her husband. So, what should she say?
Honestly, your friend probably already has the best answer, she just doesn't realize it. I would simply ask her what she thinks that she should say and then encourage her to say it. Usually, that's what an ESE is looking for. Reassurance. And we're usually right. . . so yeah.
That's what I would do anyway.
lol classic maritsa thread.
Moonlight will fall
Winter will end
Harvest will come
Your heart will mend
-
Dual type (as per tcaudilllg)
Enneagram 5 (wings either 4 or 6)?
I'm constantly looking to align the real with the ideal.I've been more oriented toward being overly idealistic by expecting the real to match the ideal. My thinking side is dominent. The result is that sometimes I can be overly impersonal or self-centered in my approach, not being understanding of others in the process and simply thinking "you should do this" or "everyone should follor this rule"..."regardless of how they feel or where they're coming from"which just isn't a good attitude to have. It is a way, though, to give oneself an artificial sense of self-justification. LSE
Best description of functions:
http://socionicsstudy.blogspot.com/2...functions.html
Robert Fripp - Ne-LII
Bill Bruford - Ne-LII
Adrian Belew - Ne-ILE
Tony Levin - Ti-LSI
p . . . a . . . n . . . d . . . o . . . r . . . a
trad metalz | (more coming)
I promised myself I wouldn't post here again, but I will. OK, I have 2 ESE friends - one from way back in school, the other a colleague. Actually they do like to ask me, an LII, this type of question. But because they know me well by now, they also know I will not give a straight answer precisely because of my Ne, which for some bizarre reason is precisely why they plague me with such things. If I didn't like them so much, it would be annoying. People treat INTjs like oracles. They expect the answer to solve their problems but are spectacularly poor at asking the right question correctly.
I agree this question is too open-ended, there are simply too many possible variants that could change the advice, generating very many possible answers and it is extremely difficult to rank them without more information. Yes, the Ne helps analysis considerably, but with variables opened up so broadly - clearly the questioner doesn't understand what it is like to be swamped by way, way, too many possible scenarios for a conscious mind to process. Aside from circumstances, it isn't even clear what is wanted - support, or a solution? Is there a subtext that emotional people often have in their questions but always forget to explicitly mention? and so on. The question as posed does not have nearly enough information, and the possible answer suggested assumes either the LII already knows some facts or social rules of thumb applicable for this case, or is giving a canned answer because she isn't really interested in giving serious assistance. Even so, if I were really not interested, it's quite hard to imagine myself even bothering to give a canned answer rather than no answer or a deflective reply. And, the canned answer varies by INTj. If I were forced to pick a set of assumptions to define the limits of the case and thus pick the likeliest best answer, I might not have chosen that line of reasoning. "First off, probably best for her to stop the cheating" might be my opener, before explaining how that is beneficial across many likely scenarios that might unfold.
If it was one of my 2 friends, I would invariably (because they're friends and so I consider it worthwhile to even entertain these quite pointless questions) help them feel out the question more by asking for more information. Either this helps them think through the problem and discover what they want to do all along, or discover what the situation needs (which is what an INTj is good at and what few other people would focus on even though obviously it is the most important part) as opposed to what the people want to hear, or at least I would get more information to narrow down the possible range of situations and therefore the possible range of helpful answers.