What's your Myers Briggs Type?

[Canuckster1127]

Very well, we disagree. I believe you're creating a false dilemma. A statistically validated tool based on correlation is not astrology or hypnotism or any other of the analogies that you wish to make. Who do you think created us and in whose image are we made? Observing trends and characteristics of how God has made us and how we function is not by definition "humanistic psychology." I've personally been helped a great deal by elements of psychology that have helped me personally. It's also in the field that I have worked on a Master of Science degree studying how leadership functions within organizations and how group dynamics work.

I'm tempted to take offense at your summarily dismissing and lumping things like reading tea leaves, and astrology etc. with an area of science that while certainly open to debate and interpretation also ties a great deal into what I do professionally and also has been something that I've sought to use for God's glory. As it is, I'll choose to simply note that we disagree and also note that you are using some pretty glaring logical fallacies such as guilt by association and category errors and I trust that those reading will be able to look and see what is going on in that regard.

Sorry that this has caused you distress Rick. It certainly wasn't intended as such. I stand by what I've said and if you believe it would serve any positive purpose, if you're willing to set aside the broad sweeping generalities and actual converse with each other on this issue, then I'm willing. I really don't appreciate the methods you're using here however to express disagreement. It comes across as disrespectful, dismissive and doesn't demonstrate that you've read and listened to what's been said.

If others have concerns about this and want to discuss it that's fine. It was my hope that this element under chit-chat would have lead to knowing one another better and interacting. I didn't imagine when I put it up that it would raise elements of conflict in this manner. That was naive of me and I'm sorry for anyone whom I've offended.

blessings,

bart

[RickD]

Very well, we disagree. I believe you're creating a false dilemma. A statistically validated tool based on correlation is not astrology or hypnotism or any other of the analogies that you wish to make. Who do you think created us and in whose image are we made? Observing trends and characteristics of how God has made us and how we function is not by definition "humanistic psychology." I've personally been helped a great deal by elements of psychology that have helped me personally. It's also in the field that I have worked on a Master of Science degree studying how leadership functions within organizations and how group dynamics work.

I'm tempted to take offense at your summarily dismissing and lumping things like reading tea leaves, and astrology etc. with an area of science that while certainly open to debate and interpretation also ties a great deal into what I do professionally and also has been something that I've sought to use for God's glory. As it is, I'll choose to simply note that we disagree and also note that you are using some pretty glaring logical fallacies such as guilt by association and category errors and I trust that those reading will be able to look and see what is going on in that regard.

Sorry that this has caused you distress Rick. It certainly wasn't intended as such. I stand by what I've said and if you believe it would serve any positive purpose, if you're willing to set aside the broad sweeping generalities and actual converse with each other on this issue, then I'm willing. I really don't appreciate the methods you're using here however to express disagreement. It comes across as disrespectful, dismissive and doesn't demonstrate that you've read and listened to what's been said.

If others have concerns about this and want to discuss it that's fine. It was my hope that this element under chit-chat would have lead to knowing one another better and interacting. I didn't imagine when I put it up that it would raise elements of conflict in this manner. That was naive of me and I'm sorry for anyone whom I've offended.

blessings,

bart

Bart, I meant to compare astrology and tea leaf reading to show that just because something good may come from practicing these, doesn't mean that it's in the best interest of a believer. My Great-Grandmother read tea leaves, and believed it was a gift from God, and strongly felt she was using her "gift" for God's glory. I pray, and ask that you really look into the damage that psychology does to the church. It builds up self, and the sense of self. We all have been through certain things in life that afterwards help us see things that we didn't see at the time. When I saw Jung typology, it threw up a little red flag. I could see how my tone was offensive, and I apologize for that. I guess we do disagree on the place in the Church for psychology. Doesn't all psychology come from humanism? Isn't it humanistic in its origins?

[Canuckster1127]

Bart, I meant to compare astrology and tea leaf reading to show that just because something good may come from practicing these, doesn't mean that it's in the best interest of a believer. My Great-Grandmother read tea leaves, and believed it was a gift from God, and strongly felt she was using her "gift" for God's glory. I pray, and ask that you really look into the damage that psychology does to the church. It builds up self, and the sense of self. We all have been through certain things in life that afterwards help us see things that we didn't see at the time. When I saw Jung typology, it threw up a little red flag. I could see how my tone was offensive, and I apologize for that. I guess we do disagree on the place in the Church for psychology. Doesn't all psychology come from humanism? Isn't it humanistic in its origins?

Rick,

I understood exactly what you were saying in making the comparison and it remains a category error.

Do you understand what a correlative study is or how statistical analysis works in the science of psychology?

I'm not asking to be insulting. I just feel like you're completely missing the point of much or what I said and assuming that anything in the field of psychology is by definition contrary to the Bible. It's fine it that's indeed what you think, but I'd at least like to know if you understand what the baby is in the bathwater that you' appear eager to lump together and throw out.

And no, all psychology doesn't come from humanism and no all psychology is not humanistic (at least not in the sense you're using the word from what I can tell.)

Is all hard science humanistic? Is the narrow scientific observation of evolution wrong because some have interpreted it broadly and mistaken it for more than it is and interwoven a humanistic point of view into it?

Soft sciences like psychology are as prone and perhaps even more than other sciences to interpretative bias, but that doesn't mean that observations made and conclusions reached from valid correlative study have to be rejected by Christians just because they don't find mention specifically in the Bible.

To give an absurd analogy, the Bible makes no reference to toilet paper. Does that mean Christians shouldn't have it in their bathrooms?

I'm not trying to attack you here personally Rick. Believe me, I've given this a great deal of thought and consideration for many, many years and I don't lightly enter into a field of study and practice without examining the roots of the science and it's application. I'm convinced that there is a lot of junk in the area of psychology and there is a lot of humanistic non-sense and psycho-babble that takes place. That doesn't mean that there isn't some iron ore in the midst of the slag. Nor does it mean there aren't some things to be learned and observed as objective truth in the field that are simply human characteristics (not humanism).

Again, this isn't directed to you personally, but it deeply frustrates me to see christians and particularly evangelical christians, which is my background, summarily rejecting anything that is unfamiliar or which we haven't examined on our own with regard to its own merits. There is a culture within evangelicalism, which is slowly breaking loose, of anti-intellectualism which can, if its not careful even go so far as to glorify ignorance and make a virtue of being against anything which is "worldly" or outside of our culture and comfort level.

That was a bit of a rant there so forgive me.

Let me ask again though, do you know what statistical correlation is and how it functions in terms of actual scientific work in a field like psychology? If you do and you've chosen to dismiss it that's fine. I just want to be sure you're understanding what the entire field entails.

bart

[DannyM]

Bart, I meant to compare astrology and tea leaf reading to show that just because something good may come from practicing these, doesn't mean that it's in the best interest of a believer. My Great-Grandmother read tea leaves, and believed it was a gift from God, and strongly felt she was using her "gift" for God's glory. I pray, and ask that you really look into the damage that psychology does to the church. It builds up self, and the sense of self. We all have been through certain things in life that afterwards help us see things that we didn't see at the time. When I saw Jung typology, it threw up a little red flag. I could see how my tone was offensive, and I apologize for that. I guess we do disagree on the place in the Church for psychology. Doesn't all psychology come from humanism? Isn't it humanistic in its origins?

Rick, I don't wish to trample on any concerns you have, but I think you are reading too much into Canuckster's test, which is "merely" a tool to help identify and think about aspects of your own personality. This would be classed as a useful tool in that it helps us think about our approach (and perhaps) alter the way in which we approach different aspects of our lives.

The very link you provided does not touch on this harmless and helpful tool; probably because it has no basis in which it could criticise such a tool. Your link does make some valid points regarding certain Freudian techniques employed by some psychologists when dealing in "regressive therapy"; but this is so far away from what Canuckster has layed out here.

God bless

[zoegirl]

The movement of the stars can be a predictable and observable phenomenom, using those movements, however, to judge decisions, personality, or relationships, or the future is the philosophy and wrong.

That being said, the fact that astronomers and astrologers can both predict movement is simply due to God's predictable creation, nothing more nothing less. The fact that astronomers use those movements in some bizarre way to predict the future is what makes it wrong.

To look at how people function with regards to their decision making, their sociability, their outgoing-ness, has nothing to do with where those originated with regards to philosophy.

[RickD]

Bart, show me where this is wrong.http://www.thebereancall.org/node/6951 Thanks and thishttp://www.thebereancall.org/node/5950 Edit; Bart, If these articles are misrepresenting Psychology, please tell me, and I will drop the subject. Thanks

[Canuckster1127]

Bart, show me where this is wrong.http://www.thebereancall.org/node/6951 Thanks and thishttp://www.thebereancall.org/node/5950

Rick,

I'll answer this as best as I can. I have to be honest however that I'm frustrated that you're not answering my questions to you personally and conversing with me. Just putting up links of general opposition which themselves don't interact with what I've asked you previously doesn't move the conversation along. If you're response to me is that you simply don't believe psychology has anything positive to offer and the reason you believe so is because you accept the authority of Dave Hunt and T.A. McMahon on the issues, then just go ahead and say it and we'll leave it at that.

Your first link is to a book with a general outline of what is in that book.

The premise of the book, based on their outline appears to be:

1. Psychology and Psychotherapy are essentially the same things. If you reject one then you have to reject the other.

This is patently false and a logical fallacy. I've already stated before that psychology is a science. Like any science, there are elements that are open to interpretation as to what conclusions you arrive at and then what you do with those conclusions. There are also people who take science and turn it into a pseudo-science laced with their own philosophy and clealy humanism, atheism etc. can do this in this field as in any other. That doesn't refute where psychology has in fact identified correlations or further, and this is not the same thing, even gone so far as to identify causal relationships. Taking that information and working with it in conjunction with Biblical truth is perfectly acceptable. Hunt and McMahon are taking the position that the root informtion itself is inherently wrong. This is the anti-intellectualism that I reference earlier to you.

2. The roots of psychology are completely secular humanist and inseperable and irredeemable for use or attention by Christians.

This is an all or nothing fallacy. First, it's impossible for any book to address all issues. Books of this nature, and believe me I've read many, rely upon anecdotal stories that are used in succession to shock the reader with the carnality of key figures in psychology, psychotherapy and tie in where there have been ties with spiritism, occultism, mesmerism etc. There's no shortage of such stories and they can be constructed and presented very strongly for shock value. Many of them are true as well. The study of the human psyche attracts all kinds of people. Where there is foundational hard evidence of truth that is objectively supported, that is not the same thing as what some, even if it is a majority, do with that truth and how it is applied.

The rest of the bullets pretty much all tie to the issues above.

With regard to the second link, It didn't lead me anywhere so I can't address what I can't reach.

Psychology is a very broad science. Psychotherapy and counselling are small subsets of that. The material you're referring to is rife with logical fallacies in my opinion. It equates the whole with the subset. It's presents arguments based upon analogy and anecdotal evidence, some of which clearly is true and deserves attention, but it then it collectively condemns the entire field of knowledge and practice.

As I mentioned earlier, much of the material you're referring too falls under the banner of Nouthetic Counselling. Now, as it happens, I've had training in pastoral counselling and read books by Nouthetic Counsellors and about Nouthetic counselling. There's a lot of good material there. Where I take issue with it is where it takes the position that Scripture alone is all that is to be used in counselling and addressing the needs of Christians who have problems.

The reasons put forward for this position usually include:

1. Counseling involves more than simply addressing cause and effect. There are values that are present in counselling techniques and approaches and those values have an impact upon the person.

There's a lot of truth to that. Often time forms of secular counselling simply look at things in terms of how to change behavior, but if the counselor doesn't believe the behavior is morally wrong then they may simply work with the counselee to convince then that what is wrong is the sense of guilt or shame that their experiencing and work to numb or shut off the person's conscience. That's pretty general. You know what? That's a valid argument. It happens. Again however, it's one thing to recognize where that is the case and it's another thing to say that because that happens the use of knowledge or techniques are then alway wrong to use and apply.

Rick, if you're seeking to build a house and you have a choice of using a hammar or a nail-gun to do a big job in that process which would you use? Now before you answer, make sure you understand this. Nail guns are dangerous. Here's a story of someone who was killed by a nail gun if you have any doubts of that. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,517699,00.html. In fact, all you have to do is go on the internet (and you know what an evil place that is ... ) and google and you can find any number of stories of similar acts of violence that have taken place with nail guns. What's more there are a lot of nail gun accidents. Nail guns are inherently dangerous. (so far all I've said is true from this point on I'm embellishing to make a point.) If you look at the history of the people who developed the nail gun you'll find that nailguns come from the same type of technology that produced guns and cannons. Millions of people have been killed by the precise technology that drives nailguns. What's more, some of those people who developed guns and cannons meant to kill those people. They were evil people. Do you think you can separate all of that and use the nailgun to build your house now that you know all that? Better just to use the hammar, don't you think?

Now of course, the analogy breaks down, like any analogy does. Consider this though, can you think of instances where purely Biblically based counselling can be wrong? I can. There's cults aren't there where presumably, only the Bible is used and we hear stories of compounds where there are all forms of abuse which are justified using the Bible. Now, of course, the Bible is being misused there and my point isn't at all that the Bible is the source of that type of thing. I'm simply pointing out that even in the practice of Nouthetic counseling the faults, flaws and misunderstandings of the human counselor can come into play and seriously harm the counselee. There's always an element of humanity in the process and methods, even when the Bible is held to be the only source.

Frankly Rick, there's areas in counseling where the Bible is silent on what to do and the issue isn't purely one of bringing the counselee into alignment with the Bible on an issue. Eating disorders are an example. Take anorexia. Anorexia affects about 1 in 200 people. Of them, about 10 - 15% are males and the majority are females. Anorexia kills people. It and other eating disorders have the highest mortality rate of any classified mental disorder. The long-term recovery rate for those who have anorexia is about 30 - 40% percent. That's using hospitalization, counseling, medicine and every resource we have. These are pretty well established statistics. Please question me and go and look them up for yourself and confirm or correct me.

Nouthetic counselling operates on the premise that confronting, admonishing and correcting thinking to bring it into line with the Bible is all that a Christian needs. That's where he word "Nouthetic" comes from. It's based on the greek word for admonishing. The success rate for addressing eating disorders using nouthetic counseling are much less than the success rate (which itself is sadly alarmingly low) using all other approaches. Now, again, you can easily find some testimonies of people with eating disorders who will tell you that they've been cured through noutheric counseling. Praise God for that. I don't dispute their testimonies. However, holding those examples up doesn't change the fact that when taken as a whole very few recover using nouthetic counseling when compared with other methods. Why? Maybe there's more going on here than just the conscious thinking of the anorexic?

Let me ask you Rick. If you had a daughter who was anorexic and you had a choice of working with a counselor who used only the Bible to address the need and you knew that there was a 15% probability that your daughter would be dead in 10 years from anorexia or you had a choice of going to a christian counselor who believed the Bible but used every possible tool he could to help your daughter and you knew that there was a 10% probability that your daughter would be dead in 10 years from anorexia; what would you do?

There's all kind of nonsense that takes place in counselling and psychology. Don't mistake the baby for the bathwater. I'm fully in support of Biblical counseling and recognizing that there are things we call "disorders" that boil down to sin and wrong thinking. Not everything boils down that simply. The Bible addresses everything we need to know in my opinion with regard to moral issues and salvation. It doesn't address everything collectively outside of that.

[RickD]

Bart, Thank you for taking the time to address my concerns. I didn't answer your questions because I have no idea what you mean by those terms. As far as issues with anorexia, or bulimia etc. I believe that if someone's relationship with God is right, then everything else will fall into place. I don't believe we need counseling to make us feel better about ourselves. We need to die to self, correct? I've had a lot of respect for the way thebereancall.org has dealt with cults in the past. Although, they do believe very much in YEC, so they may be dogmatic on this issue as well. Again I apologize for being harsh on this issue, as I'm usually pretty levelheaded. If you go to thebereancall.org, and type psychology into their search engine, you can see where they're coming from. I was taking their word about this issue, because they have been pretty accurate about things I've studied it the past. Although, their creation views, and end time views, I don't necessarily agree with. Thank You again, Bart for being patient with me on this. I know how personal an issue can be when it has to do with someone's career.

[Canuckster1127]

Rick,

That's OK. It's fine that you're working through this issue and that you don't know everything. I've done Masters work in this arena and I'll be the first to admit that I don't know everything either. It's usually a good idea to be careful about rejecting something absolutely when it's not a matter of Biblical truth (assuming you're understanding it correctly) if you haven't at least given it some thought and also looked at opposing views so you're not just accepting something on somebody else's authority. That's true for what i say too. Don't just take me word for it, but perhaps it's worth at least considering what someone who has some knowledge of the field has to say.

Counseling is about far more than just "feeling better about ourselves." Counseling is about resolving issues that stand in the way of our having healthy relationship with others, a healthy relationship with God and to be at peace with things from your past. How you define something influences how you handle it. The attitude I see on the Bereans page is dogmatic, dismissive, misleading and a classic example of all or nothing. That doesn't make everything they have to say wrong. Nor does it make them necessarily unhelpful in other areas. I won't return the favor of doing to them what they do to others.

I wish I could agree with you that if everything else is with God then everything else will fall into place. That's certainly huge but I can tell you from long hard exposure to others as well as my own experiences in life, that we live in a fallen world and that complete redemption of us and this world is something that is coming in the future and is not now in place fully for any of us. Does being in right relation with God make a difference? Absolutely! However, there are things from our past that can have a large impact in our lives that at times can be impacting us and we're not even consciously aware of it. Further we can learn ineffective ways of coping with things that are beyond our control and not realize what we're doing unless God reveals it to us (which thankfully he does) or we have a counselor or friend who comes alongside us to help.

Things like anorexia are complex. There can be any number of things that contribute to whay someone sees themselves in some way. Perhaps Biblical counseling with regard to things like repenting of self-centeredness will address the issue and that's appropriate and great. A person with anorexia is not their disease. They're still a person with all the needs for Christ that anyone else has.

I have to tell you though that the thought you've expressed that being right with God addresses everything else in a person's life sounds very spiritual and right but I'd ask you and others to think very carefully about that. If that's true then that means that any problems we have are solely the responsibility of us. If we only were right with God then everything would be right in our lives. God's given us everything we need and he's perfect so if there's a problem, then it's with us. That means if you have any psychological disorder, then you're personally responsible either because of something on your part that's related to commission of wrong thinking or action or because by ommission you've failed to do something. Now, that is often times true. We do cause our own problems often. That doesn't follow however that every instance in our life equates to that.

If somebody egregiously sins against us and abuses us sexually, then that line of thinking above becomes one of teaching that the problem that victim of abuse has is in their response to that situation. Again, there's a lot of truth in that. We do have a lot of influence on how things affect us by whether we accept things God tells us like the need to forgive others just as God has forgiven us. In fact, I'm convinced that forgiveness andthe lack of giving it to others can often be at the core if issue like depression or even physical problems like high blood pressure.

However, there are things that simply don't boil down that simply. For example, we know that there are coping mechanisms that people develop to deal with situations that are overwhelming to them. Very young children who are sexually abused for example (and I know I'm using some hard issues here, and focusing on especially horrendous ones but this is reality) often times will repress memories of abuse simply because they have to. They're not equipped to understand what is taking place. To try and deal with something like this as a young child without understanding and without the power to make decisions to remove oneself from the situation is simply more than a child can cope with. So it is pushed down and forgotten.

How do you forgive what you don't remember? Might it be helpful to have a friend or a counselor who knows some of the signs to look for when this has happened? When something is just so overwhelming that it can't be coped with by someone, there are all kinds of things that we might do in order to cope or manage it. Some of them might indeed be very addressable by someone sitting down with us and using Scripture to help us make sense of things and know how to deal with them. Forgiveness in my mind is one such very important area just like that.

All kinds of other things can take place too in this setting. A counselor may think they see the signs of repressed memory for past sexual abuse and convince the counselee that they were abused by a sibling or parent when in fact no such thing ever happened. Some unscrupulous counselors even routinely do things like this to manufacture return visits etc.

All those things can be true in a given situation. There are things however that require more than just sitting across a table and telling people that they're not thinking about something properly. For some people, issues of forgiveness require more than just saying a prayer and making a statement that you forgive a person, important as that is in the process. It might just be helpful for a person to know that if they've established a pattern of thinking and response to things then it's going to take some time and effort to learn a more healhy way to think and live.

Biblical things like meditation and scripture reading to remind oneself of what forgiveness is and what it means so that when that conditioned thought of outrage comes it is confronted with the truth of what God says about what forgiveness means is a great approach to many problems. What do you do however when the person doesn't know where the thoughts are coming from and what the cause may be? It might just help to have someone who knows the territory and walk a person through to bringing up those feelings and memories and then walking through the solution.

Take that same scenario and apply it to physical illness. Cancer is an example. Let's say that someone comes to you and they have cancer. Do you stand back and examine their eating habits, work location, or any number of things known to cause cancer and then tell them that if they'd just repent of those things and admit they were wrong and get themselves into alignment with God's word and what he says about things, then the cancer will go away? Granted, psychological things are not usually so cut and dried. But that's the type of thing that well meaning nouthetic counselors do to their clients to push them into the box that they believe the Bible says will address every problem. Sometime's they're right and it works. Other times they're missing something and doing more harm than good.

Anyway, as you note, I'm passionate about this subject. I've been on both sides of situations like this. I've seen people greatly helped and deeply wounded by well-meaning nouthetic counselors who simply refuse to admit to anything outside of their narrow interpretation of the Bible.

I think you're onto something when you say,

Although, their creation views, and end time views, I don't necessarily agree with.

Maybe the way they approach these issues where you see the possible disconnect says something about the method they use to reach their conclusions. That doesn't make everything they say wrong. It might however be worth examining the method and the framework used in the areas you see the disconnects and then ask yourself if they're doing the same thing in the other area.

Anyway, forgive my frustration please. It's fine that you're at a different place. It's fine that you're asking questions and it's fine if you don't completely agree with me. I just was feeling like I wasn't talking so much with you as with Dave Hunt and company and I'm already pretty familiar with what they think and even why they think that way.

blessings,

bart

[zoegirl]

I think as well that, with regards to the Myers-Briggs test, it merely points out that we have been made differently...that God has presented us each with unique personalities and gifts!! If you simply examine the 4 Gospels you can see that each Gospel in inspired by God and yet is also flavored with that particular person's thinking and approach. Some are more analytical and historical while others are more emotional. Paul was certainly a more assertive and aggressive personality while Peter has a softer tone (not meaning anything other than language).

It is very crucial that we seek to understand each other. We are the Church, the Body of Christ, and many, many of the disagreements come about from out stubbornness and obliviousness about how the other person thinks and makes decisions. We trod on each other's toes thinking that this person wants it this way because, of course, I make decisions this way and interact with other people this way.

We are not carbon copies. How wonderful that God thought through and knit us differently. That someone is so extroverted that they can bring people together! That another person is so thoughtful and analytical and that they can bring to the table something no one else was thinking of. The bubbly, the serious, the quiet thinkers, the intuitive people, the emotionally in tune, the people that see in black and white, the people who can multitask, the people who can focus. All of us create a marvelous symphony if we would only hear each other.

I think part of the fall means that we are so blind to each that we don't seek to lift each other up through our strengths.

If something like this can help us see beyond ourselves, then that is certainly a useful tool for Christ.

As for psychology in general, it is certainly a less exact science; but that doesn't mean that all of it is junk. As with anything out there we should be ready to examine it, to glean the parts that reflect God's truth by comparing it to His word and reject the dross.

[B. W.]

With regards to the Myers-Briggs test, it changes over time. I had to take these test for jobs and school. According to the span of time you could say I am a cross between ENTJ and ISTP now depending on the day I guess.

This would make me like Gen Patton and Gen Macarthur without the egos of course! What a mix!

Instead of the flashy uniformity of the world I now wear the Robe of His Righteousness

For Pearl handled pistols - I carry pocket size New and Old Testaments

Turned away from the swear words and cursing for the high praises of God in my mouth

I lead by example and not afraid to slap deserving slackers into the reality of a changed life in Christ

I tell others there are no losers in Christ and that they can become what Christ wants them to become - you can do it - overcome

I look after how each person's feet are shod, make sure they are feed, and make sure they are fully dressed for battle with the spiritual foe

And by God's help we will take that next Hill...
-
-
-

[Canuckster1127]

Myers Briggs is only as accurate as the answers given in the test and it's not unusual for there to be changes in profiles over time. Each of the 4 couplings move on a scale from one end to another. I'm pretty close between an F and a T for instance. I usually come out as an INFP but I'm right near the border of being a INTP. It's a tool. It's not an absolute. It gives general characteristics that are usually about 80% accurate of any individual for that profile. It helps to explain why people in certain categories tend to behave in certain manner. It also helps for team members to know in general how to work to strengths and weaknesses within their team. Not a bad thing, but certainly not an absolute predictor of howeve every person in every situation will tend to act.

[Gman]

INTJ for me...

Stands for Idiot, Nincompoop, Twirp, and Jackass..

[B. W.]

INTJ for me...

Stands for Idiot, Nincompoop, Twirp, and Jackass..

Yea - Go ahead - Make MY DAY....


-
-
-

[zoegirl]

the test I just took said INTP...I have been INTJ...ah well...