This is a community where INTJs can meet others with similar personalities and discuss a wide variety of both serious and casual topics. If you aren't an INTJ, you're welcome to join anyway if you would like to learn more about this personality type or participate in our discussions. Registration is free and will allow you to post messages, customize your account and use other features only available to our members.
Pretty much the same thing as last time you asked. I assume your response will be the same?
The majority of first-worlders are spoiled children who never grew up. Sure, they can acquire a trade and pay their bills, but becoming decent people is rarely on the agenda. More often, they have just enough self-control to keep their mouths shuts while do their jobs.
Put them in a situation where they have to genuinely interact with others, however, and they tend to act like little cunts to hide their deficit of integrity. More so in the presence of those who possess it.
Well my beautiful lady, I suppose there are too many beautiful nations to delineate in one sentence. However, I think the countries where one is attracted to most is representative of their own personalities.
Psychology academist, dear. Hmm, its actually a compile of many projectile tests books (i dont know the authors), privately made by my professor. There are other books, I forgot the title, which I read in the library. The publisher is probably one of the multinational ones (mcGraw-Hill, Pearson, etc), I'm not sure they sell it without prior order, as I said, the books are not sold for something else aside for professional use.
Maybe I'll contact you if there is a widely published titles, here we use many international labels.
Ya. Also, when I'm referring to a person in general, I use "it." Happens a lot in my psychology and philosophy papers for school. Or, say I'm referring to a particular person in a particular position, I use it. "When it instructs the students..." It, being the professor.
I think that using, "it" puts the reader in a more observational/scientific mindset. It allows the reader to think of the object as, well just that, an object/entity, as opposed to giving a more emotional and personal feel to it.
I don't think it's as bad as astrology, assuming there is some logic behind it. Astrology has little to no connections. I'm actually highly interested in deducing aspects of a person's personality from distantly related topics. It seems more like graphology to me. Which, although isn't the most accurate thing (lots of room for error), has some logic behind it.
I just read your comments. Sorry the interpretation wasn't very satisfying, but I still believe most parts of it . The book is limited for academists' use, and its a copy of my professor's. I'm not sure they sell that kind of book freely. Then again, I interpret many in trees in that thread, maybe if you read very closely, you could get the cues I used to interpret.