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.

Tie112

Members
  • Content count

    231
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Tie112

  • Rank
    Member

Personality

  • MBTI
    INTJ
  1. That is quite a misconception.. Plenty of people reached age 70 already in the distant past. The only reason that average life expectancy was somewhere between 30 and 40 during large parts of human history was that lots of infants would die in their early years of life, greatly pulling down the average. A woman aged 30 would typically only have a very slightly lower chance to make it through the next 20 years than a woman aged 20.
  2. I was being helpful to the OP by throwing in a male opinion on your suggestion, the OP's husband is male after all. Since the OP is female she might very well have been biased into thinking you're suggestion is greater than it is, if it weren't for a male opinion calling it out. There was no diss in my first post, at least no intentional one. In fact I made you a compliment because I did mentally note your idea down as described, I'm sure girls do like it. This an INTJ forum and that's just how INTJs communicate. Your reply to my post was a diss however, hence I returned the favour.
  3. Right, most is not the same as all
  4. I'll write that down as an idea for when I want to surprise a girlfriend, but seriously, rest assured most straight men won't get too excited by a bath with candles, chocolate and strawberries. Sexy lingerie ftw. Depending on what type of guy he is lie on the couch in the lingerie waiting for him when he comes home with either food ready, his favourite beer, sports or movie, and/or perhaps your sister or best girlfriend if that's a fantasy
  5. Well I guess this is proof not everything you read on the internet is true..
  6. Was it explicitly defined to be a hookup in advance? If not there's no reason why it couldn't grow into more. It's bullshit that sex on the first encounter means there's no chance of a serious relationship (for what it's worth I'm a guy). If anything it makes things easier, cause you already know you do like each other to a very relevant extent.
  7. In my experience Honey and Darling are more frequently directed by women at (stranger) men than the other way around
  8. Thanks, I feel good about it

  9. That definition is awesome, thanks

  10. Well that might explain part of the disagreement/confusion too. You're not the first that interpreted my post like that. Is this an American English thing? I started the thread with "I like tanning in the sun [..]" and have nowhere intended to refer to electric sunbeds, nor do I use them.. Anyway, thanks for all thoughts and concerns, as so often the truth probably lies somewhere in the middle. So I'll move a little into that direction.
  11. This specific topic is definitely not the point of this thread or much of a relevant argument for the sun exposure topic, but anyway, more fyi; "..scientists have compared the life span of adults in contemporary hunter-gatherer tribes (excluding the infant mortality rate). It was found that once infant mortality rates were removed, life span was calculated to between 70 and 80 years, the same rate as that found in contemporary industrialised societies." http://www.ancient-origins.net/news-evolution-human-origins/life-expectancy-myth-and-why-many-ancient-humans-lived-long-077889 I am not and have not, but I do think the advice given by most here to essentially structurally avoid the sun whenever one is not protected with some SPF is quite ridiculous (of course subject to one's skin tone and the strength of the sun at the place one lives)
  12. Having a discussion with you feels like having a discussion with an ESFP. It feels like you're intentionally misinterpreting me. My whole point was that you can't compare sun exposure with smoking just because both may be related to increased risks of cancer, exactly because you have to tradeoff the actual size of the risk. I never spoke of tanning beds. I never use (indoor) tanning beds. Perhaps American English presumes tanning happens on (indoor) tanning beds, but as far as I'm concerned the discussion is about getting a tan from natural sunlight. Well the article I gave you suggests there are health benefits to exposure to the sun. Health benefits aren't a shitty reason. You're unable to falsify my arguments and thus resort to emotional attacks. Very strong. Quote me where I said that tanning on tanning beds is healthy and good. You can't, cause I never did. Well I fully agree. The purpose of the thread clearly is to find out when normal sun exposure becomes too much sun. Either way, always using SPF50 as suggested by others sounds like avoiding the sun to me.
  13. Other factors that promote the risk of cancer are meat, sugar, alcohol and plastic packaging. We don't unconditionally boycot all of those either, because what really matters is the tradeoff between increased risks and benefits. Also, moderation is usually key. I think 'average' smoking has a much bigger chance of bringing about cancer than 'average' tanning, although I'm unable to find any specific studies on this. (Please do see the related study at the bottom of this post though before you comment) Referring to the below map, perhaps she was simply unfortunate enough to having been exposed to far too strong sun rays than what she was genetically equipped for (presumably Europe purple level). Note that California's sun strength goes several levels above Europe's level and that parts of California even seem on par with the levels of Northern Africa. I thank you for your honest concern and advocacy, but disagree with always having to provide links/sources. The way natural skin tones are spread across the world and how that relates to sun strength can be assumed to be common knowledge, especially on an INTJ forum. Also, I am not intentionally occasionally dipping in. I created the thread a month ago, then checked back for replies for a couple of days but nobody responded and then just forgot about it. Simple as that. But, to give you a nice link/source to bite into: "Avoiding Sun as Dangerous as Smoking" (no typo in there); quote: "This indicates that avoiding the sun is a risk factor for death of a similar magnitude as smoking" I still think our disagreement is caused a little by us living in different areas. I'm in Europe and the sun strength here only hits UV Index 8 a few days a year.
  14. I hope you didn't honestly believe I didn't understand that.. That was the whole background to my remark. If sun rays up to let's say level UV Index 5 would be bad for health, then why do the people that genetically originate from regions like Western Europe (where UV index can go up to 8 in summer) not have been genetically equiped with high-melanin (i.e. black) skin just like the people around the equator as means of protection against the sun? To me it seems that the fact that people's natural skin tone gets lighter as one moves away from the equator is a sign that the sun is not all bad. Yes, surely you need some SPF when hanging out in areas where the sun is stronger, but wearing SPF all the time, even in more moderate sun strength climates..? The fact that skin tones get lighter towards the poles in a uniform matter also seems to suggest that sun rays bring more benefit than just vitamin D or that vitamin D from food isn't of the same quality as vitamin D from the sun; why else would light skin people that originate from regions where fish has been a diet staple for (tens of) thousands of years have light skin too? May I ask what city/area your mom grew up in? This is simply not true, I'm very open to being convinced, but think I'm presenting a more than fair argument for the contrary that hasn't been invalidated yet, and the counter-arguments have been proposed have had little more nuance than "some people get skin cancer from sun exposure". I guess that perhaps the discussion also gets skewed a little because everybody is growing up in different region of the world, with different default sun strengths.