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.

Antares

Moderators
  • Content count

    11,109
  • Joined

  • Last visited

2 Followers

About Antares

  • Rank
    Core Member

Personality

  • MBTI
    INTJ
  • Enneagram
    5w4
  • Global 5/SLOAN
    RCOEI
  • Astrology Sign
    Pisces
  • Personal DNA
    Reserved Creator

Converted

  • Biography
    An unspecified number of years ago, I was born. That's about it.
  • Location
    The Known Universe
  • Occupation
    Master of the Universe
  • Interests
    Calligraphy, Fountain Pens, Violin, Mendelssohn, Mathematics, Literature, Physics, Astronomy, Arts
  • Gender
    Female
  1. Yeah I think her reasons are a bunch of shit and I'm basically not the demographic she's talking to. I don't feel passionately about her judgement on my life choices either way. I was once into being child free, so I understand how the OP feels about being crapped on by mainstream society as some sort of deviant for not wanting kids or not even being particularly nurturing as a woman, so the fact that she had a rant in the OP doesn't bother me. The truth is outside of educated liberal circles, the world is very much pro children and constantly intimate that CF people are defective somehow, and most parents seem very dogmatic about their own choices to have kids, even frequently saying "once you pop out some kids you'll realize how great it is." It may even be true, but you can see how it sounds condescending AF. And ironically this statement is also being made in this thread. Even her supposed judgments on parents are really about her and the put downs that she probably endured. Adding to that fact is that "selfish" is often a moral judgment levied against CF people. So yeah, people who feel constantly morally judged are gonna lash out and try to gain the moral high ground by denigrating parents' motivations to have kids. Yeah, I want kids. I'm not going to go into my reasons and I KNOW they have nothing to do with narcissism, but I don't care if the OP knows it or not. The rights and wrongs about having children in their OP are just a rant with bad reasoning. But she's really driving at wanting to meet people like her. It's certainly okay to argue with her, but you could also just see that she's fed up with being judged by parents and people who want to be parents, that she's just lashing out a little bit and frankly it has nothing to do with me or you.
  2. This OP is not even about the rights and wrongs of having children, so it's interesting that it became about that. I have my own opinions on having children but why get so passionate about other people's choices and views? You don't have to defend your choices to internet strangers no matter what you chose, is basically how I see it. There's no real nobility in having children. Or not having children. Or indeed in most of the things we ever do. Most people morally posture, that's all.
  3. I wouldn't say feminine by nature. Feminine by both nature AND nurture is how I'd put it. I have no idea about which force overwhelmingly wins out. But yes, feminine.
  4. Add garbage collector to the list. They're like 4% woman. I hear they actually pay quite well.
  5. Because these jobs are 1. Seen as feminine. You have your masculine jobs (any physical work, positions of power). Then neutral jobs (professionals). Then jobs seen as actively feminine (hairdressers, all of the jobs in the OP). Same reason that, aside from the lack of physical prowess, women tend not to like to be trash people or plumbers or carpenters or miners or construction workers. Dirty. Gross. Sweaty. Unfeminine. I admit, that women seem more willing to take traditionally masculine jobs than vice versa. 2. These don't appeal to T types. Men are mostly Thinkers. These prioritize empathy and smiling and watching your tone and/or liking kids. Women tend to like kids more than men. As a woman whose MBTI is pretty biased towards the thinking side, these jobs sound nightmarish to me. I would think so. At least among mammals, females tend to take on caregiver roles. Examples, all great apes, dolphins, dogs, cats, seals, elephants, basically most mammals I can think of, they are the ones to take care of the young, if animals take care of anything at all. I cannot think of a mammal for whom FATHERS are the sole caregivers. If males care for anything, it will be their own children along with the mother, never alone. Of course not all females are good at caregiving and not all males are bad at it. You do see from time to time a blatantly unfit mother who mostly neglects her child in other mammals. I don't see why humans should be the exception.
  6. I don't think they know why they made the money. There was no thought involved. They were just so desperate to be financially solvent for so long, they made money like it was going out of fashion. Not long ago, say, 15 years ago, they were on the brink of bankruptcy and they still wanted to pay for my expensive private school so there was no other choice. And before they know it, we're in this situation. I don't think they can unlearn these habits. I would say I take care to dress well, but I'm not fashionable. I take care to choose things that flatter ME, my specific proportions and face shape. I don't particularly keep up with the fashion world. But yeah, I agree with you in a sense. I take care to dress well. It's not hard. If I fill my wardrobe with great looking pieces (and they're not hard to find, nor expensive, if you know where to look. Most girls I know spend way more than I do) that are uniquely suited for me, I can literally toss things together and the outfit will look like a million bucks. Dressing well takes a bit of thought and intentionality, and I enjoy the process. Worked their asses off. Lived apart so they could have higher salaries. She got a high salary and a small inheritance, which she put towards a house. Made more choice investments. China's economy took off. The rest is history. It's a combination of being willing to work like a dog (she took no maternity leave from her small business at the time. She was working up until her water broke, then went back to work the next day), live in unimaginable and inhumane conditions, and keeping an eye out for opportunities. ...... added to this post 6 minutes later: My proposed solution is that from now on I will book the hotels. I have a taste for luxury like she does, but I'm also aware of what my dad's comfortable with. Seems like the best of both worlds. They both seem fine with that so far.
  7. I mean, I accept that, as a young woman of reproductive age, I might be more of a risk for employers than other demographics. After all, more than half of women become mothers between the age of 15-44 in the US. And that's even higher in non Western countries. And mothers have a higher rate of absenteeism than any other demographic including fathers. And mothers who leave the workplace permanently to become SAHMs after birth vastly outnumber fathers. So if any employer hires me, there's a significant chance that I might fall pregnant in the next few years. And if I do I absolutely will take maternity leave. And I've been toying with the idea of becoming a SAHM should that happen. I accept and understand that they are looking out for themselves, so I know they're going to discriminate and then lie to me about why I'm not hired. However I don't have to let them look out for themselves to MY detriment. So, if asked about my relational situation and family planning I will lie through my teeth and feel no guilt. It's not right or wrong. Everyone's just trying to do what's best for themselves. I accept it. I'm not mad about it. But I'm not going to take it lying down.
  8. This is interesting to me, because numerous studies show that both men and women prefer male bosses over female bosses, and that female bosses who act assertive are seen as bitchy and aggressive whereas in males it garners respect. This video seems to contradict that. The woman channeling Trump is clearly the more aggressive one, down to her posture (a very masculine one, because it's Trumps) but somehow I prefer her. Maybe these studies need more nuance? Or maybe the female actress is just more charismatic.
  9. That's about my sense of humor. Tell me if it doesn't work for you. once my roommate and I weren't talking for a while. He said: sometimes I'm worried that you'll come in one day and say "hey, I'm moving out next week." I told him: "you don't need to worry about that. Even if I don't like you I still love your flat."
  10. Yes. If nothing else, a rogue AI could start out perfectly innocuous. Make toothpicks. His directive is to find better ways to make toothpicks at a lower price. With this extreme intelligence, he achieves his goal. But it turns the whole town into toothpicks. This will be due to bad programming, not a malicious AI. And there's no reason to think we'd have any trouble shutting him down, provided we don't get into the way of his making toothpick. which, come to think of it, we just might. It might decide we are in it's way of making toothpicks and choose to kill us. But it would take a spectacularly stupid programmer not to see that this could be problematic, and at that point I'm sure we'd have AIs whose only directive is to find ways to shut down other rogue AIs.
  11. Whenever AI is brought up in the context if futurology, many people assume that we might have robot overlords who might one day turn bad for us. Then we try to shut him down. And he's not going to let us do that. It will turn into some sort of robots vs humans situation. My question is WHY? Why would a robot want to preserve itself at the expense of humanity? Why should a robot have self interest? Sometimes I feel like people project their self preservation instincts on robots and imagine them to be some kind of mechanical people. Why should they be? Self preservation doesn't arise out of a vacuum. Species that have evolved through natural selection must have it if their genes are to continue. But none of that applies to robots. We create them to serve us. But just because they can be as intelligent as we are, or even more intelligent, doesn't mean they are remotely like us in their instincts. Indeed their instincts are whatever we assign to them, and their intelligence will be used to fulfill these instincts. It does not follow that just because they are intelligent like us, that they will think like us, or have the same goals as us. No company in their right mind would create a robot that even they themselves cannot control if need be. Nor will they program into the robot a tendency to resist destruction or deactivation by their users out of self preservation. I don't see why any human would create a robot servant that will resist its own destruction. We humans have the self preservation instinct. Due to this we will not create a tool whose self preservation instincts conflict with our existence. My iPad doesn't want to preserve itself. It doesn't care. It doesn't care because Apple doesn't care. Apple doesn't care because there's no real good reason to make my iPad want to protect itself against me. But I keep seeing this kind of scenario proposed. Is there another reason why they might have self preservation instincts against humans? Am I missing something?
  12. Yes, this. In male dominated industries women have to act and think like men in order to be more successful. http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/5671415 the reverse is of course also true for a man in a female dominated industry. But female dominated industries aren't as lucrative. In fact the percentage of men in the industry is a good way to predict how high the salaries are. In my field at least, girls who have trouble due to their gender are not untalented. They just don't know how to, or are unwilling to act and think like their colleagues. To fit into any workplace culture you have to conform a little bit to your colleagues. Who happen to be 80% men. Needless to say, displays of overtly feminine behavior, such as crying, or tone moderating, are not taken well by the men. And by that I mean, if it's even understood. It goes over their heads most of the time. This is not because they're sexist, but because this is just not how the culture is in this field, and they don't have to accommodate you. And that's not sexist either. In any group the tail does not wag the dog. You conform to the majority not the other way around. ...... added to this post 3 minutes later: That's changing though. As men take on traditionally feminine roles, the rhetoric in the workplace has changed a little. It used to be that childless coworkers disliked mothers. Now they just don't like parents, period. Of course my response to all that is, bitch, they're raising the generation that's gonna pay your pension. If you don't want to do that and pay it forward yourself in the form of a child, I don't even think you deserve any of their children's labor. Since you're getting it though, at least have the graciousness not to bitch and moan. Consider it your minuscule way of paying it forward.
  13. I think that's about what I would write in my prenup also. I think allowing the ex spouse to enjoy the previous lifestyle is BS. The payor doesn't enjoy that either. The previous lifestyle IMO, you only get to enjoy while you're my spouse. After the divorce I can see the ex spouse being supported for a number of years (3-5 at the max) so they can get their job training/earning potential back up. After which they will be completely cut off. The lifestyle maintained should be something like: "the lifestyle you can have with your earning potential prior to marriage" or the payor's ability to pay. And if the ex spouse has never had earning power (say, never worked, married outside of high school/college) then they should be paid welfare rates. Since in my eyes they ARE on welfare. Just paid by the ex spouse. They get a limited number of years to get their skills up to speed then it's done
  14. As in, do you think it needs to exist? Do you have any experience in the subject? Would you resent having to pay it? When is it justified, and when is it not?
  15. LOL deeper meaning? I don't understand. My life has no deeper meaning. Enlighten me. What deeper meaning is there? We're a bunch of organic material that is decaying. The heat death of the universe is coming. Tell me that all this is not true. Where does your deeper meaning come from? Why is your way laudable but theirs contemptible? I think the ability to make do without meaning is a strength not a weakness. Because truly I cannot find much meaning in anything, except for the ones I'm almost certain are subjective. It would be sad if I could only live with objective meaning because I don't think it's forthcoming.