Closed Thread
Thread Tools
The art of Meta-Conversation None
Old 05-13-2009, 03:26 PM   #1
Azen
Member [04%]
 
MBTI: INTJ
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 163
 
I had to look up a term for what I do regularly,
He asks: "What has been going on between us yesterday, when you finished our phone conversation so quickly? It seemed curt to me. Or am I wrong? Had your mood something to do with me or with concerns about your sick mother?"

The definition meta-conversation describes for example the situation, that two or more persons discuss the way a certain conversation developped, especially how they treated eachother in that conversation. Meta originally comes from Greek language and means “higher” or “above”. Like an onlooker, “the situation is observed from above”. This helps to get a distance from the own person and from emotions not being aware of before and influencing the situation (mostly negatively). Or you can say that a conversation or conversational behaviour is analyzed in retrospect in order to get final results and to optimize the course of conversation in the future. Meta-conversations mainly deal with the way people communicate with eachother, so to say with their relation. Besides it is mostly about finding out if the other understood exactly what one intended to communicate to him or her by means of language and behaviour. Therefore meta-conversations reduce misunderstandings and improve “conversational culture”. They are an excellent instrument to make and maintain good relations.
Simply put, taking your own personal investment out of the 'first level' conversation in order to have a better perspective on all 'sides' of the conversation.

I have found this to be one of the (if not The) greatest methods to achieve understanding as so often we become muddled by our own closed perspective and resort to reactionary discussion.

I bring this up to ask how many others do this on a regular basis or are even aware how beneficial it is. From my experience very few people reside in this 'state' of conversation and tend to argue to all hell over shit without ever realizing they were disagreeing about different things.

Some of my greatest joys that just 'fry my mind' with ecstatic delight is when someone calls me on my close mindedness. Like I'll be thinking mostly in the realm of meta-conversation but through a subtle shift my ego will allow me to take pride in that very fact, and BAM i'm mired in the self involved world of personal defence and reactionary speak. Than someone says something like, "You do realize that everything you're saying is what you are actually doing, no?", And I'll stop for a second, get ready to retaliate, realize that very fact, and my mind will spin in delight on how 'gloriously owned' I just was.

I personally love this stuff, its terribly subtle, but extraordinarily useful.

It also tends to lead me into a lot of confrontational discussions because I allow my 'ignorant self' to give my first level comments (with the spirit and innocence of a most brutal honesty and sincerity to encompass my deeper feelings on the situation) while watching from 'above' to quickly fix misunderstandings within the structure of the conversation and get to my point/resolution quicker.
  • How many others know what I'm talking about and have looked to the heavens while smiling at the fact you were the only one in the conversation who seen what was happening?
  • How many of you actually appreciate when you get that "neuron buzz" of realizing your inner fool when you try so hard not to smile because you are so mad but know deep inside the other person is so right and have to break out laughing?
  • How many of you have no idea what I'm talking about?
  • How many of you hate meta-conversation?
  • Who here thinks that 1=1 is both simple and yet infinitely complex?(This really has little bearing on the thread directly but from personal experience encompasses the spirit of 'meta' via the strange loop ;P)
Azen is offline

Old 05-13-2009, 07:51 PM   #2
INTJRyan
Core Member [124%]
Now I am become death; the destroyer of worlds.
MBTI: INTJ
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 4,960
 

  Originally Posted by Azen
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
How many of you have no idea what I'm talking about?

*raises hand*

If I analyzed every conversation in this manner I would eat a bullet rather quickly.

INTJRyan is offline
Old 05-13-2009, 08:19 PM   #3
Azen
Member [04%]
 
MBTI: INTJ
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 163
 
Well, welcome to my world.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Azen is offline
Old 05-14-2009, 05:27 PM   #4
WaeV
Member [25%]
Firecracker
MBTI: INTJ
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 1,019
 
I think I understand, but this doesn't happen with me.
WaeV is offline
Old 05-14-2009, 07:09 PM   #5
Azen
Member [04%]
 
MBTI: INTJ
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 163
 
I think most people do it, just not to the conscious degree that I write about here perhaps. Frankly I was hoping that more people would understand this facet of conversation.

A simple example would be more easily seen in forums.
Two people are arguing back and forth and you read on through the posts.
Finally you see that one person is talking apples, and the other oranges.
You decide to post on that very observation instead of posting on the topic itself.
Azen is offline
Old 05-15-2009, 11:55 AM   #6
medd0
Banned
 
MBTI: INTJ
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 34
 
I do that a lot, but I use that kind of insight only when dealing with people that I like or people that are close to me.
If I'm discussing something with someone I don't care about and there's an apple/orange kind of thing going on, I'll just make a comment like "But your oranges aren't all that like my apples." and wait for a reaction. Either we wrap up the whole thing or s/he gets to enjoy the feeling of being ignored (to a degree that is almost rude.. I can't help myself).
Like any decent INTJ, I can't be bothered to explain stuff to dimwits.
medd0 is offline
Old 05-15-2009, 12:22 PM   #7
Trenchant1
Member [31%]
MBTI: INTJ
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 1,266
 
I thought this was normal.
Trenchant1 is offline
Old 05-15-2009, 12:52 PM   #8
Azen
Member [04%]
 
MBTI: INTJ
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 163
 

  Originally Posted by medd0
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
I do that a lot, but I use that kind of insight only when dealing with people that I like or people that are close to me.
If I'm discussing something with someone I don't care about and there's an apple/orange kind of thing going on, I'll just make a comment like "But your oranges aren't all that like my apples." and wait for a reaction. Either we wrap up the whole thing or s/he gets to enjoy the feeling of being ignored (to a degree that is almost rude.. I can't help myself).
Like any decent INTJ, I can't be bothered to explain stuff to dimwits.

Yah same here, I don't bother trying to explain things to people I have no vested interest in and also don't care much about being rude for the sake of getting to the point about differences.

  Originally Posted by Trenchant1
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
I thought this was normal.

Yah so did I. Realizing a miscommunication is happening is fairly common with everyone I think(depending on how subtle the difference), but apparently the tendency to actively monitor your own failings in order to help the conversation and/or understanding between two people is not.

Azen is offline
Old 05-15-2009, 12:56 PM   #9
Prunesquallor
Veteran Member [66%]
MBTI: INTJ
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 2,647
 
It can be useful, but only goes so far, especially if the other parties in the conversation refuse to acknowledge any meta points.

But yeah, I do this all the time. I think sometimes it confuses people - they don't always know what my point actually is.
Prunesquallor is offline
Old 05-15-2009, 12:58 PM   #10
rewhu
Veteran Member [55%]
Nutters.
MBTI: INTJ
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 2,220
 
I do this quite a bit, but usually just in my head. I've got to be really motivated to actually try and engage another person in that type of conversation.
rewhu is offline
Old 05-15-2009, 01:02 PM   #11
Azen
Member [04%]
 
MBTI: INTJ
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 163
 
Yah it REALLY does confuse the conversation for a lot (most) people I agree. To me though there are so many subtle things, the smirks, the hand movements, the short 'sniffs' after saying an 'ego affirming' statement. It's like some terribly beautiful choreography of communication it overwhelms me to the point that I need to speak on this level, realizing that the verbal "word" level has SO much less to offer.
Azen is offline
Old 05-15-2009, 03:50 PM   #12
Prunesquallor
Veteran Member [66%]
MBTI: INTJ
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 2,647
 

  Originally Posted by Azen
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Yah it REALLY does confuse the conversation for a lot (most) people I agree. To me though there are so many subtle things, the smirks, the hand movements, the short 'sniffs' after saying an 'ego affirming' statement. It's like some terribly beautiful choreography of communication it overwhelms me to the point that I need to speak on this level, realizing that the verbal "word" level has SO much less to offer.

Oh, the verbal level has all kinds of complexities too; it is in no way inferior. There are people who are really good at that. Many, of course, are not.

Prunesquallor is offline
Old 05-15-2009, 03:59 PM   #13
paleoeco
Core Member [106%]
I really dislike people who use sesquipedalian words.
MBTI: INTJ
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 4,261
 
Oh, this is something I do way too much, and like you Azen, I do it in the middle of conversations, or rather I just engage a conversation from the meta-level.

I do it as a defense mechanism, I think. If I can always detach myself emotionally from a conversation, I feel as if I can function in that conversation much more effectively. If only the other party of the conversation felt that way!

I also have a tendency to do this in relationships, usually to the detriment of them. I want to engage my partner on this meta-level vis-a-vis how the dynamics of the relationship are working, or not working, and my partner usually ends up taking this as either a) I'm needy and have to talk about "how things are going" all the time, or b) as an attack on him since he usually doesn't analyze things at the meta-level.

And it's very frustrating to always analyze interactions through this prism. Sometimes I'm still trying to analyze the last interaction when another one is upon me, and I don't know if I handled the last one properly, so then I get doubly nervous in the new one, which I immediately start analyzing and trying to mesh the two analyses together all while trying to engage in the actual conversation and then I'm trying to explain my distraction to the conversation by explaining the ongoing analyses that I'm doing in my head, at which point the conversation gets sidetracked, utimately getting ruined, and then I'm left trying to analyze how it all went bad. (see, this is how I think sometimes).
paleoeco is offline
Old 05-15-2009, 04:11 PM   #14
Autoptic
Core Member [105%]
"Invader's blood marches through my veins, like giant radioactive rubber pants! The pants command me. Do not ignore my veins!" Frycook Zim
MBTI: INTJ
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 4,230
 
'Sometimes. It doesn't help though it can be amusing watching supposedly socially and empathically skilled people talk past each other. Arguing against cultural claims involves this when they're superficially similar but differing issues from at least two subcultures being taken as just "the culture". People seem to prefer that I don't know what I'm talking about, even if I try. Apparently, it's rude, non empathic, faux pas, invalid argument, etc. In most conversation, the noise to signal ratio is ridiculously high, and people seem to love making it worse with political games. Not playing such games apparently is considered rude, non empathic, faux pas, invalid because it's not actually an argument, etc.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Autoptic is offline
Old 05-15-2009, 07:43 PM   #15
Azen
Member [04%]
 
MBTI: INTJ
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 163
 

  Originally Posted by Prunesquallor
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Oh, the verbal level has all kinds of complexities too; it is in no way inferior. There are people who are really good at that. Many, of course, are not.

oh god I feel like an idiot for insinuating one was greater. You're right completely.

  Originally Posted by paleoeco
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Oh, this is something I do way too much, and like you Azen, I do it in the middle of conversations, or rather I just engage a conversation from the meta-level.

I do it as a defense mechanism, I think. If I can always detach myself emotionally from a conversation, I feel as if I can function in that conversation much more effectively. If only the other party of the conversation felt that way!

I also have a tendency to do this in relationships, usually to the detriment of them. I want to engage my partner on this meta-level vis-a-vis how the dynamics of the relationship are working, or not working, and my partner usually ends up taking this as either a) I'm needy and have to talk about "how things are going" all the time, or b) as an attack on him since he usually doesn't analyze things at the meta-level.

And it's very frustrating to always analyze interactions through this prism. Sometimes I'm still trying to analyze the last interaction when another one is upon me, and I don't know if I handled the last one properly, so then I get doubly nervous in the new one, which I immediately start analyzing and trying to mesh the two analyses together all while trying to engage in the actual conversation and then I'm trying to explain my distraction to the conversation by explaining the ongoing analyses that I'm doing in my head, at which point the conversation gets sidetracked, utimately getting ruined, and then I'm left trying to analyze how it all went bad. (see, this is how I think sometimes).

This is quite amazingly the exact thing I am talking about. I also do it in relationships, and what you said rung so true with me I was laughing(?mentally tickled?
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
) at the understanding of it.

  Originally Posted by Autoptic
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
'Sometimes. It doesn't help though it can be amusing watching supposedly socially and empathically skilled people talk past each other. Arguing against cultural claims involves this when they're superficially similar but differing issues from at least two subcultures being taken as just "the culture". People seem to prefer that I don't know what I'm talking about, even if I try. Apparently, it's rude, non empathic, faux pas, invalid argument, etc. In most conversation, the noise to signal ratio is ridiculously high, and people seem to love making it worse with political games. Not playing such games apparently is considered rude, non empathic, faux pas, invalid because it's not actually an argument, etc.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Ug...this is why I would be a revolutionist as opposed to a reformist...sometimes people just need to be slapped awake.

Azen is offline
Old 05-15-2009, 07:56 PM   #16
Imposcillator
Member [16%]
Impossible oscillation. The trembling volts in the night.
MBTI: INTJ
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 659
 
Oh, definitely. My INTJ and I do it all the time.
It's particularly useful for arguments but it can be fun for other discussions too.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


I enjoy anything meta, really. Meta-humor is my favorite though.
Unsurprisingly, the only people that got my meta-humor in college were an INTJ and two ENTJs.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Imposcillator is offline
Old 05-15-2009, 08:09 PM   #17
reb
Core Member [257%]
MBTI: XNTJ
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 10,293
 
i did not know there was a name for the practice. thanks, Azen, for turning me onto this 'definition'. the process is like 'meta-thinking'....seeing the path a thought process turns into an idea, then a product, then a social construct or common term....like 'coca-cola'. lovely.
reb is offline
Old 05-15-2009, 08:15 PM   #18
Azen
Member [04%]
 
MBTI: INTJ
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 163
 

 
...See, that's why "meta" is so fun; just slam it in front of anything to make it obscure and elitist, which is always a laugh.

"Three blind mice walk into a bar. They are unaware of their surroundings, so to derive humour from their predicament would be exploitative." - Bill Bailey

What did the little boy with no arms or legs get for Christmas? Cancer.

E.B. White has joked about humor, saying that "Humor can be dissected, as a frog can, but the thing dies in the process and the innards are discouraging to any but the pure scientific mind."

Had to look up meta-humour because I had no clue what is was and found some stuff as a side note. Some like the cancer one I find terribly funny, some of the others are more like what EB White says happens...which I also don't get. (But that fact? I DO find funny :P)

Azen is offline
Old 05-15-2009, 08:37 PM   #19
DanteFalling
Member [28%]
MBTI: INTJ
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 1,132
 
"* How many others know what I'm talking about and have looked to the heavens while smiling at the fact you were the only one in the conversation who seen what was happening?
* How many of you actually appreciate when you get that "neuron buzz" of realizing your inner fool when you try so hard not to smile because you are so mad but know deep inside the other person is so right and have to break out laughing?
* How many of you have no idea what I'm talking about?
* How many of you hate meta-conversation?
* Who here thinks that 1=1 is both simple and yet infinitely complex?(This really has little bearing on the thread directly but from personal experience encompasses the spirit of 'meta' via the strange loop ;P)"

I'm glad you mention this. I always wondered if this was a non-INTJ trait.
Almost all of my deepest personal relationships have developed this way (through meta-convo).

I actually feel meta-conversation is the only way I communicate other than the world's most simple of grunts and a hand gesture. Sad, but true.
DanteFalling is offline
Old 05-15-2009, 10:21 PM   #20
BlackMita
Member [24%]
MBTI: xxxx
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 999
 
I'd never give it a name, mostly because it won't change anything - I'd keep making 'reactionary' comments despite the fact. Meta-conversation sounds like a strain to be on good terms at all times, whereas 99% of people you'll ever converse/argue with aren't worth the trouble.
BlackMita is offline
Old 05-15-2009, 10:39 PM   #21
Azen
Member [04%]
 
MBTI: INTJ
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 163
 

  Originally Posted by reb
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
i did not know there was a name for the practice. thanks, Azen, for turning me onto this 'definition'. the process is like 'meta-thinking'....seeing the path a thought process turns into an idea, then a product, then a social construct or common term....like 'coca-cola'. lovely.

Yah i think the 'metas' are basically the 'next' progression of perception on things after you see through the patterns of the first. To me they also bring great joy, and allow me to feel challenged while playing the same game...its like hard difficulty...and I'm tempted to try insane mode but...well I've tried it and its fucking insane.(pardon my french)

  Originally Posted by DanteFalling
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
"* How many others know what I'm talking about and have looked to the heavens while smiling at the fact you were the only one in the conversation who seen what was happening?
* How many of you actually appreciate when you get that "neuron buzz" of realizing your inner fool when you try so hard not to smile because you are so mad but know deep inside the other person is so right and have to break out laughing?
* How many of you have no idea what I'm talking about?
* How many of you hate meta-conversation?
* Who here thinks that 1=1 is both simple and yet infinitely complex?(This really has little bearing on the thread directly but from personal experience encompasses the spirit of 'meta' via the strange loop ;P)"

I'm glad you mention this. I always wondered if this was a non-INTJ trait.
Almost all of my deepest personal relationships have developed this way (through meta-convo).

I actually feel meta-conversation is the only way I communicate other than the world's most simple of grunts and a hand gesture. Sad, but true.

Does it all ring true? even 1=1?
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


  Originally Posted by BlackMita
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
I'd never give it a name, mostly because it won't change anything - I'd keep making 'reactionary' comments despite the fact. Meta-conversation sounds like a strain to be on good terms at all times, whereas 99% of people you'll ever converse/argue with aren't worth the trouble.

Yah I never gave it a name until I wanted to ask others about something 'specific'. And although it allows you to be on good terms if you wish, it also allows you the great power to warp people's minds based on your knowledge of them through observation. I have scared the shit out of so many people in bar confrontations based on my ability to call them on their inner thoughts and intentions at the drop of the hat. Though I don't fight just to fight and prefer to avoid it, the ability to "defend" through precise and devastating intimidation while you attack every insecurity they didn't know they were showing...priceless.

Azen is offline
Old 05-16-2009, 12:16 AM   #22
2obvious
Member [10%]
MBTI: INTJ
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 419
 

  Originally Posted by reb
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
i did not know there was a name for the practice. thanks, Azen, for turning me onto this 'definition'.

Ditto. More verbiage for the Rolodex.

  Originally Posted by Azen
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
A simple example would be more easily seen in forums.
Two people are arguing back and forth and you read on through the posts.
Finally you see that one person is talking apples, and the other oranges.
You decide to post on that very observation instead of posting on the topic itself.

A great big chunk of my posts deal with either defining words or, when syntax fails me, trying to negotiate a suitable proxy, for the audience. It's my "thing."

  Originally Posted by DanteFalling
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
I actually feel meta-conversation is the only way I communicate other than the world's most simple of grunts and a hand gesture. Sad, but true.

Depressingly, reciprocally accurate.

2obvious is offline
Old 05-18-2009, 08:48 AM   #23
zibber
Core Member [504%]
reventive avatar remo
MBTI: INTJ
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 20,175
 
(Warning: possibly incoherent jumble.)

First bit of meta: I told Azen I'd contribute and got a message back where he told me he'd be waiting. Now, I feel the pressure to deliver
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


Metameta: You the reader might now be thinking "hm, hope he's not forcing himself to write something out of a sense of duty"!

No. Meta-thought (which seems like a horribly wrong term, but I think everyone is in the meta-spirit and gets the gist) is one of the cornerstones of my "zen practice", or whatever you want to call that. There is just a constant call to attention*; staying on top of things. "Things" here being thoughts and pathological patterns (in other words, thoughts
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
) but also conversations (which are basically two or more streams of thoughts interacting). In terms of mind, it is always a very good idea to stay alert and be wary of things like Ego mechanisms, which are basically the root of all problems people have with self-confidence. (Actually, "self confidence" in its regular interpretation is an entirely fictive construction that should be abandoned.) Meta-thinking (or maybe "sub-thinking", as it is the prime watcher that observes thoughts disinterestedly and exposes them for what they are) is another way to describe self-criticism**.

A crude yet important example of "catching yourself in the act": you walk past a mirror or other reflective surface, stop and glance at your hair. STOP. Why do you do that? If you don't like what you see, what does that mean? What is this disapproval exactly, and how is it justified? Examining such a seemingly simple act already opens up floodgates. You go from analysis of your own superego-ish tendencies to censor your appearance to a broader analysis of culture, superficiality, peer pressure, etc.

Tiring, yes. Essential, too, in my opinion. Not only is it a huge time saver (and this WHOLLY applies to conversations as well, to try and stay somewhat topical), it gradually cleanses your thinking of unnecessary conditioning. In conversations, especially in relationships, it is simply vital. There's a lot of nasty little (ego) stuff that can occur, and it's sensible to monitor that. Example: when I'm tired and/or my relationship is in a bit of a lull, I tend to get extra sensitive to little logical mistakes my (NF) girlfriend makes and pick them out, if I don't watch myself. Before having examined this tendency, it just happened. I would basically mistake it for a regular part of conversations. Observing the pattern, I became aware of it, which now allows me to cut it off whenever it happens.

Really, the only time attention weakens is when I'm tired. It can be physical exhaustion, but I'm mostly referring to the kind of social exhaustion we ALL know about, here. (That's why I love this place so very much.) Still, I'm convinced that to some degree, battling this is a matter of getting used to being alert (of your thoughts).

Abrupt ending.

*I googled "huxley mynah bird attention", one of my first associations with the term, and got
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
. Just go there
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Obviously, "The Alexander Technique" is a completely ridiculous and laughable name for something so authentic and primitive and more a marketing strategy than anything else (unless this Alexander honestly thought he'd invented presentmindedness), so ignore that aspect.

**When I say "criticism" I don't mean to imply disapproval/negativity, as the word has lamentably come to imply (colloquially?), just relentless examination. (I really hate that I can't use the word "criticism" without 75% of people thinking I mean disapproval. (Imagine how sick that would have made Kant?
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
))
zibber is offline
Old 05-18-2009, 09:29 AM   #24
Amphorian
Core Member [315%]
MBTI: ISTP
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 12,608
 
I meta-think and converse those thoughts all the time; however, the problem is when others don't realize their own flaws towards the conversation. Instead they just continue along, doing the same thing with every disagreement. I try to explain my thoughts to my mother on how we engage each other in conversations for years. She simply doesn't comprehend what I'm talking about. Until... one day I finally dragged it out of her to see what she was doing. She realized, admitted then went back to her usual ways and kept on attacking me and not the points of the argument. x.x
Amphorian is offline
Old 05-18-2009, 10:55 AM   #25
pocohauntus
Member [29%]
 
MBTI: INTJ
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 1,192
 
Yeah, I think I saw that book on craigslist some time ago. interesting technique.
pocohauntus is offline
Closed Thread

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:38 PM.


Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Myers-Briggs Type Indicator, Myers-Briggs, and MBTI are trademarks or registered trademarks of the
Myers-Briggs Type Indicator Trust in the United States and other countries.