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.

holdyourhead

Moderators
  • Content count

    4,899
  • Joined

  • Last visited

3 Followers

About holdyourhead

  • Rank
    Core Member

Personality

  • MBTI
    INTJ

Converted

  • Location
    Waltham Abbey, Essex, UK
  • Gender
    Male
  • Personal Text
    Do not speak to fools. They scorn the wisdom of your words.

Recent Profile Visitors

23,767 profile views
  1. What brand?
  2. I correct my partner's mistakes the most. Pisses her right off.
  3. You should be like a normal person, spontaneous, dropping everything at a whim, and fucking up your life, because fun. Just kidding. I don't really have a time scheduled life, so I don't do the same as the OP. Besides general work, I do have a constantly updating to-do list roughly ordered by priority, but very few items of the list need to be done at specific times. Even when I'm swamped, I can still move things around as and when I please. My free time may be very limited at those times, but it is still flexible. That's one perk of the way that I usually work I suppose. (This flexibility may soon decrease with the work I'm considering at the moment.) My short-term memory is fucked so I'd be lost without my to-do lists.
  4. If the difference is solely or mostly related to supression, then those who change the most are supressing more, and those who change the least are supressing least. Basically, what grayscaled said. We can also notice a change in how alcohol affects people over time, which could also be evidence of this. Alcohol may affect someone badly who does have some supressed issues, though if they manage to tackle these issues over time (and become "strong and confident in themselves") rather than merely supressing them as a coping mechanism to survive in this unforgiving world then the severe effect alcohol once had may all but disappear. I may be a prime example of that. I stopped drinking over 10 years ago because it would make me depressed, and reckless. Sometimes it would also make me incoherent, and sometimes more withdrawn. Sometimes a mixture of both. Since then I would have a drink maybe once or twice a year, and almost never enough to have any effect. There had been one or two occasions where I had not controlled the volume of alcohol properly, and those same negative effects occured. At that time, I was probably still supressing a lot. Now... It may not be the same. Perhaps alcohol would not have those negative effects. I could experiment to see, but I don't want to do that and then regret it... It might be worth considering that if I'm drinking in a social situation I'm not really enjoying, then it could potentially make me appear more miserable since I would be uninhibited and less likely to try and fake an interest, or hide any displeasure. This makes me think about the whole "social lubricant" aspect. I haven't experienced that since I was a kid, and I don't really know what that indicates. Am I such an extreme introvert that even when completely uninhibited, I still do not socialise well? Or am I just too messed up or neuroatypical...
  5. I don't think about the person's gender. If my response is tailored at all it will depend on the circumstances, the other person's personality, and my relationship with them. I see no reason to think about gender when interacting at all unless the anatomical differences have some relevance to the interaction. General trends in psychological gender differences are not so rigid so it makes more sense to just think about the individual instead. There may actually be some trends in how I respond to people, but I don't really pay attention. It's not useful for me to mentally put people together in groups as arbitrary as gender when interacting. It would be more useful to consider someone's MBTI when interacting, and even that is far from perfect.
  6. This. It can cover all possibilities. It's a mere matter of weighing up benefit vs cost in terms of short and long term impacts on finance, time, and well-being for all those affected, while also taking into account your personal values. Sometimes we might have to do something that has little or no personal benefit, and a high personal cost on all accounts, but it will benefit others who we may feel a responsibility or duty towards, and we value that more than avoiding the personal losses that will be incurred.
  7. Very nice, but not very helpful.
  8. It's snowing, and settling. As a Brit, it's my duty to talk about it!

     

    Prepare for the grinding halt.

  9. Might be as good place as any to ask for advice. I'm sure there are members here with some relevant experience. So, I'm out of work for a while, and need to find another source of income. I'm considering if I can find freelance computer-related work online, and looking for any advice. Skills and work I would consider in particular: - Basic or complex procedural coding. - Basic or intermediate web design. - Basic or intermediate graphic design. - Pretty much anything basic or complex related to Excel, Access and Visual Basic. Potential issues: - I have a broad skillset but I'm not exactly a specialist. - Everything is self-taught, I have no certification. - I don't exactly have a portfolio, most of what I've created in my life was 10+ years ago and much of it was when I was a teenager, and not as polished as it could be now. I know the best way to get work would be to create a portfolio but I'm not sure if it would be the best investment of my time when I'd only really be looking to do this for a year at the most. If needs must then I can probably knock something up. - I'm not looking to earn a fortune, and I'd even work for free to build some reputation and decent portfolio, but I've read that most people would be suspicious of anyone offering to work for free or very little. While it would be beneficial to bring in some decent money, I also really just want some things to work on and some stimulation again. - Work involving complex problem-solving is probably not ideal. Finding solutions and being inventive with ideas is not what I'm best at, but if there is a clear idea of what is needed then I can pretty much design or create anything within the realms of my aforementioned skillset. From what I've read and checked out there are a few websites that I could use to find plenty of suitable work. What are my chances though? Should I try? What would be the best approach?
  10. Only one more day until finally having an internet connection at home again, four weeks after moving.

     

    Sorting out everything with only phone calls and mobile internet is tedious and frustrating.

    1. Show previous comments  1 more
    2. holdyourhead

      holdyourhead

      Gotta find a way back to the 21st century. Good luck.

    3. Sarea

      Sarea

      Had a mild case of food poisoning today but now gradually recovering. They said it's the water.

      I am (still) too strong for all these. So bring more first world calamities on :laugh:

    4. holdyourhead

      holdyourhead

      I hope that's cleared up. I had food poisoning once or twice and it was up there amongst my most horrible physical experiences.

       

      Turns out I was given the wrong date for the internet and phone switch on here. It wasn't Friday, it's going to be on Monday. Grrr.

  11. Colourwise, I like high contrast or uniformity, and seem to prefer the primary colours (red, yellow or blue) or greyscale colours (white, grey or black). I'm not keen on the secondary colours. So, for uniformity I could wear almost every clothing item in any of those colours listed. For contrast, it would usually be just two or three colours that seem to contrast well. Those that don't seem to contrast well are avoided, for example, dark blue and black.
  12. I'm going to approach some of this from a selfish and indulgent position. As a heterosexual male who does not share this (supposed) preference for female thinness, this topic always intrigues me. Hence, this essay. Firstly, I think there are different factors to consider here, though I'm not entirely sure of the best names to use. I will go with scientific beauty, artistic beauty, general attractiveness, and sexual attractiveness. Scientific beauty is everywhere. I personally think that everything in existence is a thing of beauty, in one way or another. Anything can be beautiful when looked at scientifically or objectively. If you look without subjective bias, everything is full of wonder and amazement that runs deeper than the deepest ocean. Whereas artistic beauty and all forms of attractiveness are subjective. Even if there are near-universal trends and some cultural variations, these are still subjective preferences that can never be completely unanimous universally or even within smaller groups. Furthermore, these can all still be independent of each other even when looking at just one person's subjective preferences. Artistic beauty can occur naturally, or be man-made. Like scientific beauty, humans appear to be alone in our awareness or appreciation of it. As a couple of random natural examples, take an aurora (northern lights) or the acrobatics of the swarming starlings over Rome in winter. A majority of people may see the visual and artistic beauty in both of these displays. At the same time, there will be some who do not see the beauty, and do not care or have any interest. A man-made example could be buildings and architecture (which is something of interest to me). There may be an obvious kind of beauty in orante architecture and the fine details that were popular in certain periods of time. At the same time, there can be a different kind of artistic beauty found elsewhere. Brutalist architecture may not be as popular, yet there can still be artistic beauty found in it, especially in photos from certain angles creating a domineering or bleak vision, with certain filters applied, and also considering the building's condition and surrounding environment and backdrop. Another perhaps less popular exmaple would be the inside and outside of abandoned and derelict buildings. For me, there is a very bleak and sad kind of artistic beauty here, while others may see nothing more than an eyesore. If we relate this artistic beauty to the female human form, then there will similarly be subjective preferences abound. I have not done the research to make any definitive statement here, but there may be a generalised preference for female thinness. If we look at art depicting the naked female body and look at life models, while there could be a preference for thinness, there are also countless examples where there is not. It has been mentioned by lor6 that fat disguises the bone structure. From a purely artistic position, I can understand why some may see this as a thing of lesser beauty, even if I do not personally share the subjective preference. The fine details of the bone structure and in particular the facial contours could be compared to the more obvious beauty of ornate architecture. Still, there is no objective reason why this should be considered of a greater beauty, and disguising some of this with meat/fat should be lesser. There can also be a cute or adorable kind of beauty. Some would say that a chubby baby is more cute, for instance. For a personal example, two of our cats are brothers. One used to be quite underweight, possibly due to worms. This made his face appear very refined. His jaw is very narrow, and the lack of fat on his face made this even more noticeable, and also made his cheekbones very prominent. Perhaps the definition in his face could be considered beautiful for some. He certainly was not unattractive, they are both handsome cats in my opinion. What I think is that he lacked the cuteness factor of his brother who was not overweight, but generally built bigger, fuller, and rounder. Now that he has gained weight, he still has strong definition in his face, but it has filled out and has come closer to the cuteness of his brother. So, while there can be beauty in structural features, there can also be beauty in that which surrounds it, even if almost completely disguising the underlying structure. Similarly, there can also be beauty where there is a balance between the two. Regardless of general preferences, whether they are towards thinness and less fat or not, there is no objective reason why any preference, however popular, can be definitively considered objectively beautiful over other preferences. General and sexual attractiveness are entirely different beasts when compared to both the scientific and artistic beauty. We can find beauty in both likely and unlikely places, whereas attractiveness (and in particular sexual attractiveness) can be more restrictive. Most people are understandably not sexually attracted to 99.9% of that which they deem beautiful, otherwise there would be an abundance of unusual and disturbing sexual preferences and orientations. That said, it is true that observing all forms of beauty and attractiveness seems to be innate and unique to each individual. This is where my own unique and innate preferences lead to inevitable selfish indulgence, but I will try to remain as objective in my analysis of it. I cannot "understand" the male sexual preference for thin females if such a preference does generally exist, because I do not share it, and because of the innate and highly subjective nature of sexual attraction. We are no longer talking about finding an obvious or more nuanced beauty in something, but an uncontrollable sexual attraction, arousal, or urge. It is not so easy for us to explain or understand that, though many do try. We can give our own personal reasons, but these are usually subjective, with a few exceptions (such as those Junk has given where sex is found more enjoyable with a thinner woman for objective reasons). Though my own preferences aren't completely rigid, there is a clear innate preference towards the "thick" as opposed to "thin" bodied female form. There is some deviation in both directions in terms of size, but it is a particular median or sweet spot where I seem to find the highest concentration of females to be extremely physically/sexually attractive. So, as per the OP, you could change the question to "why the preference for thickness" for me. Answers would still generally be subjective. I could rationalise my preference all I want. It would not explain why that preference exists from a biological or evolutionary point of view. I have enough self-awareness to pinpoint to a reasonable degree the clear preferences I seem to have. I would say there are five measures of the female form that could be used in particular when defining such preferences: body shape, thickness or thinness, fat, muscle, and breasts. Of course there are other characteristics, and facial features, but these five probably best determine the overall size and shape of the anatomy. The best way I could describe my ideal using these measures is: curvacious body shapes, thicker/fuller, low to medium fat, low to medium muscle, and small to medium breasts. There will be deviation and exceptions to those measures. Some smaller or bigger bodies that are somewhat toned (i.e. even where there is fat, it is mostly well-formed, little or no sagging or rolls) still have sufficient curves, with cute or soft facial and bodily features. It is just that there is clearly a higher concentration of what I find attractive within a particular size range. My preference seems to be derived mostly from a combination of attraction to curves and cuteness. Having a thicker body and/or some body fat can appear both curvy and cute. Rounder faces with softer features are cuter to me, and having some fat can help with that. In contrast to convention, I prefer some sharp features to be de-emphasised. Emphasising cheekbones on a slim face makes the cheeks appear more withdrawn, emphasising the shape of the human skull and jaw. Artistic beauty or not, I do not find the shape of the skeleton itself to be sexy or arousing. For that reason, I am also not a fan of makeup being used to emphasise cheekbones. My preference is for soft curves, so having toned but substantial meat/fat is a nice cushion de-emphasising otherwise sharp contours formed by the skeleton shape, such as with cheekbones, shoulder blades, ankles, and ribs, to name a few. Having a large ass is another feature that is very curvy and sexy to me. Yet, I prefer medium or smaller breasts. When those are too large, they seem to be disproportionate somehow, and like they are not part of the anatomy but too "out there" and in the way. I also find nipples generally seem to appear nicer shapes to me on smaller breasts. Perhaps with breasts, it is more of a cuteness factor that appeals to me. Another feature of having a certain level of body fat, a large ass, and thicker limbs is the jiggle/wobble which can be sexually appealing. Whether we are talking about attraction or beauty, these are only ever subjective preferences no matter what they are, and a negative or positive spin can be put on anything. For example, with thickness versus thinness, it could be said that slender limbs on a thin person with very little muscle (common for females in the media) are dainty and delicate, or it could be said that they look feeble, flimsy, and as if could be snapped like a twig. Where I come from is very ethnically diverse, which may partly account for why I see more women in real life who fit my ideal than I see in forms of media. Some body shapes, sizes, and other characteristics are more common than others with different races and ethnic groups. There are also certain areas I pass through in my life that seem to have a higher proportion of women that are not obsessed with the idea of being skinny. Many of those women I see that fit my ideal do appear to be comfortable or happy with their curvy or fuller figures, and aware there are many men who are more attracted to those figures. Still, there are some who I get the impression may not be so comfortable with their figure and may consider themselves to be fat or just not particularly attractive. Maybe thinness is a preference shared by many men, though at the same time, it is worth noting that BBW is one of the most popular google searches. What I notice, however, is that those is the mainstream and high-end of various industries seem to cater to the extremes (and each have a very rigid set of requirements): fashion models are mostly size zero (as are models used to promote other designer products, such as fragrances and jewellery), entertainment industries are mostly skinny (and in recent times, a number of size zero too, as many actresses and singers have become another avenue for designers to market their products and brands, so perhaps they need to fit in with their ideal), professional and high-end porn is mostly low-fat thin or mildly thick hourglass figures with large fake breasts (which is also the same with some models outside the mainstream), and it's worth mentioning that google searching terms like "curvy", "thick bodied", "chubby", "bbw" and such, tend to still provide most results covering two extremes: slim but curvy, or obese. There is little representation of the middle ground, where many everyday women would fit. (Perhaps it is difficult to search on the internet in particular because of a lack of universally accepted terminology describing those in this middle ground. As Distance pointed out, the medical definitions have also changed. It is very murky water. I'm fairly certain I had seen a member refer to singer Adele as being obese once on this forum. I do not know if she fits the current medical classification of obese, but IMO I would say that obese is a very far stretch. Overweight? Possibly. Fuller figure? Yes. Obese? Really???) As a side note: another thing I notice is that the professional, mainstream, and high-end have a common theme of using a lot of makeup, emphasising facial structure, and using expressions that seem to appear unnatural, lending to a surreal and often fake/plastic kind of appearance that is less attractive to me. Are these industries catering to what is perceived as most popular? Or is their infuence over people effectively defining what becomes most popular? Are my preferences not catered for because they are too niche? Or is it simply more profitable to cater for the most popular preferences? Someone in this thread mentioned that most people would be able to list 10 people they find the most attractive - presumably all celebrities. I'm one of the exceptions to this. I cannot provide a list of names, because those women I find to be most attractive are not particularly represented in mainstream media, despite there being many of them out in the real world. The best place to find those who fit my ideal, besides the real world, is in amatuer photos, videos, and other forms of media. Even so, it is hard to find anything having this ideal in the same abundance as those other ideals in each specific mainstream industry. It is only recently that I found a website that I suppose could be the equivalent of what the celebrity world is for the average person, but catered for people with preferences like mine. Where the celebrity world may have the highest number of attractive women in the eyes of some, the website has the highest number of attractive females in my eyes. I'm sure it has been mentioned in this thread that mating choices are not only determined by appearances. Despite my awareness of all of my innate physical preferences and the sexual attraction I feel in response, I don't actually value those appearances in a partner at all. To me, this kind of sexual attraction is about sex and nothing else. While my ideal relationship is much deeper than that, where sex would only be one small part of it. For this reason, I'd rather develop a physically intimate connection with a woman where we already share a mental and emotional (psychological) connection and my mating preferences would be pretty much determined by that alone. It is a woman's personality that will make me seriously interested, regardless of appearance. I'm aware that many people do value appearances more than me, though we should consider that they may also value things like health or fitness. For that reason, it is worth considering that some men may actually find a fuller figure to be more attractive, but choose thinner figures believing that these women are healthier or fitter. Whether a preference for thinness exists in terms of beauty, attraction, and mating choices, are all separate questions. It may be possible with enough research to determine what preferences do exist for each. It does not answer the question: why? We can explain our preferences as individuals as I have, but we cannot truly explain why we actually have preferences when it comes to observing beauty, or feeling sexual attraction/arousal in response to something visual. It can only be truly explained how our individual preferences came to be in the first place (as opposed to the infinite number of alternatives) from a scientific point of view. And I'm not sure our understanding of human development and neuroscience is advanced enough to prove any particular theory yet. Not sure if anyone will have taken the time to read through this post, or how much of it can be helpful with the discussion. As said, it does intrigue me due to not having this apparently majority-held preference myself, and having no control over what visuals can sexually excite me. It makes it all the more curious.
  13. INTJ. An unconventional one. Although the reasons given for ENTJ may be somewhat common traits for that type, many of them are not strictly indicative of extroversion.
  14. Accepting that corellation does not equal causation... Despite this, can any changes be chronologically linked with the dawn of modern day capitalism, and more specifically the emergence of commercialisation, mass marketing, television, magazines, etc. There was a clear point in time where most people spent most of their time looking at other "real" people in their real lives, and looking at drawings, photos, models, or videos of people was extremely rare for the average person. Constrast this to today, where from a very young age and for our entire lives we may very well see just as many people in image or video form as we do in real life, whether on television, films, videos, internet, magazines, billboards, or any other medium. If nurture does have a significant role in how we develop, then there is a lot of conditioning occuring today that once upon a time never existed. The range of people we see everyday has changed, and has been skewed in a particular direction. Those who are not "real" people seen in our real lives are often quite a different selection of people to those we do see in our real lives. Also, those who we see in the media often share a narrower selection of physical characteristics in comparison to those in our real lives where there would be much more variety. In the past, we saw much variety and little else. Today, we still see the same variety for some of the time, but it is coupled with a massive selection of similar looking people that we see the rest of the time... Whether this change in what we see everyday is the cause of preferences changing, or if what we see everyday is catered to people's preferences that already existed, I do not know. Chicken and egg.
  15. Ditto. I think that it could happen where one or both sides are less mature, or have unrealistic expectations, or there is just a lack of communication about all of this. Or maybe just a strong F and a strong T causing a compatibility issue.