Welcome to INTJ Forum

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, see hidden subforums, customize your account and use other features only available to our members.


Core Member
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About yoginimama

  • Rank
    Core Member


  • MBTI
  • Enneagram
  • Global 5/SLOAN
  • Astrology Sign


  • Gender
  • Personal Text
    "Man, am I ever happy the overt oppression has morphed into subtle, insidious little performative, linguistic modes of oppression." -- zibber
  1. Ah, ok. Thanks. In that case I guess Foyle's driver could be showing chivalry. My bad.
  2. Well, chivalry is defined by one who has power showing service. It's somewhat a reversal of the "natural order," and thus depends for its salience on a social world where men/knights are empowered (in practice if not in rank) over women/nonfighting lords. Since women are pretty generally always subordinate in these systems, you could argue that by definition they can't display chivalry. Service is just service when rendered by someone in a subordinate social position. Even assuming equality between the sexes, there would have to be different spheres of activity in order for the idea of female chivalry to make sense--there would have to be something that she generally does better than a given man, which she chooses to do for him as an act of service. So in the OP's example, technically what the female military driver is doing can't be chivalrous because she's coming from a one-down position (as was mentioned). It's simply expected of women to be loyal and helpful and hide their intelligence.
  3. Whoops! Sorry. Well, work does suck pretty hard. My mom, in one of the great ironies, wanted nothing more than to be a homemaker and stay home with me, but my dad proved unable to provide for the family, so she went out and got herself a career. But it was never what she wanted. As for me, I got to stay home with my daughter and it was great.
  4. I think what he's trying to say is that yes, there is a gap in pay between men and women, but since in his analysis the gap has nothing to do with sexist attitudes towards women, it is therefore inaccurate to call it a GENDER pay gap. That's why he appears to be trying to claim two contradictory things at once. He admits the pay gap but denies the terminology (gender pay gap) used to refer to it.
  5. Another non-smoker here, and glad of it.
  6. Challenge accepted! Problem 1: Well, if it bounces long enough, of course it'll hit (1,1). It's inevitable. Problem 2: I'm going with "eight." Problem 3: Um, 12 feet. Problem 4: Introversion + OCD. You're right, that was really easy! EDITED TO ADD: Assuming, of course, that the method you were referring to was "total guessing."
  7. Yeah, same here. I make the sauce on Wednesday and enjoy it most on Saturday :)
  8. Tonight is going to be spaghetti with my leftover sauce.
  9. I believe personality type is neutral, like the color of one's eyes or hair, and has about as much relevance to one's eternal destination.
  10. Sure. Your basic type (the first number in your example) is the one in which you scored highest. In your case, right now that's both 1 and 3, so I would suggest either taking the test again or trying a different Enneagram test--there are a ton of them in the "Online Tests" subforum. The second number is your "wing." (Hence the w.) So let's say you had scored highest in 3. Your wing would either be 2 or 4, whichever one you got the higher score in. In your case, that would be 4, so you would be a 3w4, a three-wing-four. That means you're a three with a little "four flavor" mixed in. It creates a distinct subtype. If you want to go deeper, I suggest reading Riso and Hudson's "Discovering Your Personality Type."
  11. Spaghetti with my semi-homemade meat sauce tonight.
  12. Good point. I will remember that.
  13. I think intellectual curiosity is in short supply at workplaces because the pressure is always on for results. Are there other ways you can satisfy that need, such as book groups, online discussion like this forum, or a church? In the US, at least, Presbyterians, Episcopalians and Unitarian Universalists are known to skew intellectual.
  14. Somehow I overlooked this and only saw it when scroses quoted it. Sorry about that. If I went looking for supporting evidence, I could never read Keirsey (for example, his assertion that Artisans tend to marry Guardians in high numbers) or Myers-Briggs. None of them give what I think of as evidence. They make assertions that either make sense or don't. Having said that, you're still right--had I looked further I would have seen that the author was basing her "love types" on functions, which I don't believe in, and wouldn't have started the thread.
  15. I second listening to music. It's surprisingly absorbing, while not being taxing.