ROLOLOLOL

> I don't know what an "INTp" is -- that seems like one of those weird
> Socionics hybrid invention things...? Who knows, who cares.

I have explained exactly what it means, which part has eluded you? Any
"invention" that furthers our understanding of the world around us is
a good thing and one should care about it.

*** I recommend you pursue a career as a politican or perhaps a consultant, since you want to promote an "invention" that demonstrates a total lack of understanding for the original idea that you are trying to "improve."

*** I don't care about it -- and nobody I know who's serious about type cares about it. We have infinitely more interesting type "inventions" we care about -- and you know we're serious because we've submitted ourselves to formal training programs with our peers, just like people in any other certification program.

> I've been happily married to an INTJ for 7 years (we got married at
> Stonehenge, in fact). So if you're suggesting NTs and NFs can't be
> happily married, I'm delighted to say our marriage puts the lie to
> that, as do many other happy and successful NT/NF relationships I
> know. (That's based on experience btw, not *ahem* "theory.")

Sorry, the existence of anecdotal examples does not invalidate the
theory. The theory does not say you two cannot be happy, after all
happiness is a very subjective thing. The theory only says that it is
not an ideal match, esp, not for an NT person. There is a reason why
NT subgroup is called rational. That is also a reason why for that
subgroup theoretically optimal matching exists.

*** If "happiness" (which is being "scientifically" studied in a great deal of depth right now, as it happens) is not a way to measure an "ideal match," then what criteria might one use? The perfect symmetry of letters as they appear together? The aggregate income of the two partners combined?

*** Emotion is the currency of relationship. And relationship data can only be useful when empirically demonstrated -- there are no "objective" measures that exist.

> What the interaction between you and me makes painfully obvious is
> that some NTs resort to sarcasm when confronted by an NF who's
> competent and has done her homework. I wouldn't chalk that up to
> type, however -- in our house we call that by its old-fashioned
> word: "immaturity." Sarcasm is considered a shadow practice. (I
> confess: I lapse into it too. Sigh.)

What the interaction between us makes obvious is a classical example
why an NT should not get mixed up with an NF. NFs *never* attack the
ideas. Why? Instead they *always* resort to attacking the messenger on
a personal/emotional level.

If you want to attack the idea, go ahead, it has been clearly
stated. Why do you have to tell me how you have done your homework and
how competent you are and call me immature (ROFLMAO)? Do you feel
threatened? Is this supposed to impress me (or the others)? Just
*demonstrate* your competence and show where is the logical fallacy in
the presented idea.

*** As best I can tell, the person making ad hominem attacks here is YOU, and has been YOU from the get-go. My earliest emails provided facts and resource suggestions, remember?
1) I'm an MBTI Master Practitioner.
2) Type is not traits.
3) The assessment does not measure "strength." It measures clarity. There is no way to measure "strength" of a preference.
Check your facts.
Hint: An MBTI user manual is filled with all the psychometric measurements anyone's heart could desire.

*** It's not my job to tutor you. You're on your own.

*** But for the record, you don't "threaten" me in the least. If you want to go and do empire-building with your ill-informed crackpot theories, don't let me stop you. Why don't you send me a postcard from time to time and let me know how it's going? :-)

> Nevertheless, I'll take knowledge and experience over sarcasm and
> "theory" any day of the week, no matter what type or person it's
> coming from. I've no doubt you are the same when pride doesn't get
> the better of you. :-)

ROFLMAO, an NT does not suffer from pride, it is a domain of
emotionally charged people, NF in particular.

*** I suggest the only "emotionally charged" person here is YOU. It's kind of funny how your Ego is boasting how rational you are, when I daresay that everyone else reading this exchange is vividly aware of how NOT rational your messages are. In other words, your pride is making a fool and a liar out of you.

*** But don't let me stop you from having fun.