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.

Paloma

Members
  • Content count

    1,799
  • Joined

  • Last visited

7 Followers

About Paloma

  • Rank
    Member

Personality

  • MBTI
    eNtP
  • Enneagram
    7w8
  • Global 5/SLOAN
    SCUEI- Calm

Converted

  • Biography
    Where is the thrill of joy without the memory of sadness?
  • Location
    USA
  • Occupation
    Higher Education
  • Interests
    Music, martial arts, brewing, wasting time.
  • Gender
    Female

Recent Profile Visitors

3,815 profile views
  1. I think it has more to do with their qualities than yours. If you're not a complete shitbag, they will give it their all. Once you cross into shitbag territory, however, you might as well be dead. At least, that's been my experience dating an INFJ. Their ability to read and care about others is honestly kind of unsettling, so I understand your confusion a bit. I just regularly check to make sure I'm not slipping into the shitbag zone and everything else seems to flow perfectly.
  2. I have so many people who have brought so much good into my life. My mother didn't necessarily change my life for the better, but rather shaped me through her genuine, open, and unconditional love. I've never known a time in which I didn't feel deeply loved, supported and appreciated by her. She is unwavering in her ability to love others. She has her faults, but even those considered, I continually look to her as an example of what a good person looks like. An assorted group of sensei and fellow martial arts students from when I was very young. Martial arts taught me great work ethic and how to push myself beyond my limits. I would have given up on a myriad of different things years ago if the simple refusal to give up wasn't instilled in me by these people. Two best friends. They've shared in the joys of my highest peaks and carried me through my deepest valleys. They've taught me what it means to be a good friend. My ex-fiancé made me believe in love and gave me a taste of its power. When things didn't work out, he also managed to teach me that you cannot put all your happiness into one person and that heartbreak is not only survivable, but you can somehow manage to thrive within it. My current SO. Too much to put here, but he's an ongoing source of joy and a catalyst that drives me to always be improving as a person.
  3. I'm going to echo this. There is nothing wrong with valuing a sense of style in a partner. I don't think it is any different from preferring blue eyes or that they have musical ability. If she doesn't check all your boxes, why bother in the first place?
  4. It has sustained relationships ranging from 6 months to 3 years. What are your qualifications for "deep and serious enough"? Should my relationships be required to conform to your needs and qualifications rather than my own and my partner? What experience do you have with deep and serious relationships?
  5. SO is buying steak. So I'm making that with garlic roasted cherry tomatoes, a spinach salad, and mac and cheese at his request. Gonna finish off that Malbec as well.
  6. I'll take your lack of an answer to indicate you didn't spend much time thinking about what leadership means before presenting your question. For me, leadership tends to take two forms which are not mutually exclusive. One is the "lead by example" leadership, in which an individual goes ahead of others either in thought or deed with the assumption that they will follow or copy the thoughts/actions of this individual. The other element is leadership with regard to decision making. The leader has final say regardless of the thoughts or feelings of those being led (although a good leader considers the opinions of those being led). Subordination is inherent in this sort of leadership. In my experience, relationships do not require either sort of leadership to be successful, but there are also many successful relationships that have one or both of these set ups. As many others have stated, it depends entirely on the couple in question. My personal preference is a relationship where leadership is absent. My two most successful relationships, including my current one, have had this hands-off nature to them. Neither I nor my SO need to "show each other the way". Neither one of us has a say over the other person's life or choices. We're autonomous individuals who enjoy each others company and will continue to do so until one of us decides that it is no longer what we want. That being said, in many of my past relationships, the default was often my leadership. Many of the guys I dated turned to me or my advice in choices they made. This was only bothersome when it got to the point where I felt like I was mothering them, but that was generally rare. It is much preferred over a man deciding that he gets to make calls for me, however. This preference doesn't seem to have any real impact on my relationship success. I consider myself rather successful in the area of dating. I'm single when I want to be and, generally, in a relationship with the person I'd like to be a relationship with when that suited me. I've ended all but one of my relationships. I've got zero complaints.
  7. It could be defined a myriad of different ways with various nuances. I want to know what definition you are using so I can answer your question from the same premise. You could be discussing leadership and relationship dynamics from the perspective of reformed Christians who believe in "biblical" manhood and womanhood. This sort of leadership emphasizes leadership in the form of spiritual direction and discipline for the wife and children, but less so about breadwinning. Alternatively, you could be discussing the sort of leadership found in stereotypical 1950's America, where the husband is in command of the public sphere and the wife commands the private. Or perhaps you're thinking of leadership similar to that found in fundamentalist Islam, where the husband has almost total control over his wife's behavior in all spheres. So, I'll ask again. What definition of leadership are YOU using to ask this question?
  8. Tonight I'm making pasta from scratch. I tried it for the first time last week and didn't get the thickness quite right, so I'm going to attempt it again. I'll be combining it with large beef and pork meatballs and a spicy-sweet marinara. Paring it all with an Argentine Malbec.
  9. The one and only Barbie doll (probably an off brand) I was ever given had "her head cut off by the British when they came to take over the Indian tribes" (my mother quoting 6 year-old me). Apparently, I was interested in issues of colonial violence long before I started my academic career...or had just watched Pocahontas one too many times.
  10. I think it is mostly women buying into the cultural narrative that men are turned off by women who pursue them. There are definitely men out there with particular cultural beliefs about gender roles that might find a woman pursuing them to indicate that she doesn't share their values, but unless you're dating in particularly devoted reformed Christian or Islamic circles, I doubt you'll run into a lot of these guys. In my personal experience, I've had great luck pursuing guys. It seems to work out better because I spend more time vetting them under low pressure before deciding to pursue.
  11. Source: http://s3.amazonaws.com/academia.edu.documents/30420106/suler.pdf?AWSAccessKeyId=AKIAIWOWYYGZ2Y53UL3A&Expires=1490122913&Signature=UYKfmf521meIdHhcRCFd%2F1iNqVY%3D&response-content-disposition=inline%3B filename%3DThe_online_disinhibition_effect.pdf There is a ton of research on this out there, but this one sums up a lot of what you'll find. Combine the impacts of online communication outlined above with our increasingly polarized political sphere in the U.S. and you're going to get some nasty conflicts. I'm sure there are other contributing factors, but these two stand out the most in the conflicts I see online.
  12. Care to define "leadership" in the context of a relationship? You've told us what you think it isn't, but not what it is.
  13. Heavy whipping cream, sweetened condensed milk, tortillas, a book about writing, and bedside table.
  14. 60. Apparently, I'm "mildly workaholic"... Will someone please inform my advisor?
  15. You could analyze art and pop culture from a Marxist perspective in a theoretical sense, but whether or not you like modern pop culture's current aesthetic has nothing to do with Marxism. Marxism is a socioeconomic theoretical perspective that mainly looks at who controls the means of the production of goods and services and how this control extends into the lives of workers themselves. Put simply, whoever controls the factories and farms is able to exert nearly unlimited power over the people who work for them. Thus, social change can only come about when the workers (i.e. the proletariat) rebel and take back the means of the production from those in power (the bourgeoisie). I fail to see how this relates to whether or not you enjoy Miley Cyrus or not.