Articles: New

Home II Forums Official & Introductions Articles: New

This topic contains 11 replies, has 6 voices, and was last updated by  faeruss 1 month, 1 week ago.

  • Auburn
    Keymaster
    • Type: TiNe
    • Development: ll-l
    • F Attitude: Adaptive

    Hello,

    I’ll be posting updates on new articles in this one thread, to keep things tidier than the last forum.

    Feel free to discuss the articles in this thread too, and if needed we can make a thread split accordingly.

    Pi: Worldview Function

    Here is article #3 of 4 Energetic Quadrants. I felt this would be of particular importance to our members @elisaday , @faeruss and @supahprotist , regarding the question of having a Ji vs Pi dominant function according to CT.

    I find it especially important in the identification of Ni-lead types, as what it means to be Ni-lead is quite different in CT from other models. While the subject matter of Ni (i.e. symbology, the esoteric) is often shared among all who have Ni in their hierarchy, few possess the temperamental attributes of Pi as the lead function. I hope this article helps shed some light on the matter, and as always I look forward to your feedback.

     

    • This topic was modified 1 month, 2 weeks ago by  Auburn.
    • This topic was modified 1 month, 2 weeks ago by  Auburn.
    Elisa Day
    Participant
    • Type: FiNe
    • Development: ll--
    • F Attitude: Seelie

    @auburn

    Interesting, thank you for notifying me of this. I remember seeing mention of the CT Pi temperament being related to the phlegmatic temperament awhile ago and that stood out to me as quite different from other models in which I’m well-versed; particularly Socionics.

    In Socionics this would all seem to correlate most closely with the Ji temperament (or what they call the IJ temperament as the j and p is switched on introverts):

    From Wikisocion on Ji temperament:

    calm, balanced and inert
    “unflappable”
    rigid but not very fast gait
    may appear passive-aggressive
    usually very stable mood
    more reactive than active
    little inclination to fidget during long periods of inactivity
    IJs are both static and rational, so they see reality as mostly not changing and when it does, it’s in abrupt “leaps” from one state to another. An IJ draws inner stability from a stable reality, especially as seen through his leading function. That makes him confident that things will probably remain as they are despite what he sees as minor disturbances; periods of clear upheaval are very disturbing and the individual is anxious that things will “settle down” one way or the other soon enough.

    As introverts, IJs tend to be calm and relaxed about initiating relationships with other people, mostly assuming that others will take the initiative, but will be more inclined to try to make sure a relationship is maintained once established.

    EP: IJs see EPs as unreliable, and too unpredictable in their impulses and initiatives.

    EJ: IJs see EJs as pleasantly energetic and willing to take the initiative and get things going in a balanced, constant way.

    IP: IJs see IPs as unreliable and unwilling to take any initiative, with too low levels of energy.”

    These are the people I always associated with the phlegmatic temperament. They seem like turtles to me. They also tend to ramble on for long periods of time about philosophy. TiNe in that system would be the most philosophical and have a tendency to talk a lot.

    The Pi lead (or IP as they call it) would more closely relate to the melancholic temperament, which makes sense to me as Jungian “ISTJ” is often said to be the pure melancholic type.

    Here are the characteristics of Pi lead from Wikisocion:

    “relaxed
    go-with-the-flow
    finds it easy to spend long periods of time in no activity, or at very low levels of energy
    movements are flexible, unhurried
    little inclination towards fidgetiness when having to remain inactive for longer periods
    IPs are both dynamic and irrational, so they see reality as in continuous, gradual, often imperceptible change. An IP is soothed by this, seeing reality through his leading function. This leads to a relaxed inclination to take things as they come and adapt to them.

    As introverts, IPs tend to be relaxed and somewhat passive about initiating relationships with other people, mostly assuming that others will take the initiative.

    EP: IPs see EPs as pleasantly energetic in an unpredictable and therefore not boring way, also able to take for granted variations in levels of energy in others.

    EJ: IPs see EJs as annoyingly pushy and insistent in their initiatives; they may respect their energy levels but also wonder if they don’t see that a lot of that energy is spent wastefully to no good purpose.

    IJ: IPs see IJs as boring and too concerned with stability.”

    This is the temperament I think best describes the melancholic temperament. I’m also pretty sure I’m not phlegmatic and although I’m not a pure type the melancholic (or lymphatic) is most suited to myself.

    The sanguine/bilious/lymphatic/nervous system would be another interesting thing to discuss here as they have visual profiles as well. I’ve spent a lot of time matching the people in your database to those profiles and have found many of the Ji leads’ profiles align with nervous, the Pi leads align with lymphatic, the Pe (especially conscious Pe only) leads align with sanguine, and the Je leads align with bilious. This isn’t across the board, however, as some of the more unusual combinations (like Pe lead with conscious Pe and Pi only) seemed to align best with lymphatic, for example. Wish I knew how to post pictures and links to better explain myself here, but I hope you get the general idea of what I’m trying to convey.

    • This reply was modified 1 month, 2 weeks ago by  Elisa Day.
    Auburn
    Keymaster
    • Type: TiNe
    • Development: ll-l
    • F Attitude: Adaptive

    This is very interesting.

    It’s almost as though Socionics is rotated 90 degrees from CT in some ways.

     

    Animal
    Participant
    • Type: SeFi
    • Development: lll-
    • F Attitude: Unseelie

    Hmm. I’m not sure about that. In the descriptions of types in Socionics, Pi is considered phlegmatic, generally.  The descriptions of ILI, SLI, SEI and IEI all have anecdotes about how lazy they are, in contrast to their energetic Pe lead duals.

    It’s more that the IJ types are characterized as being rigid and having a stick up their ass, whereas Pi types are characterized as lazy. SLI (SiTe) is even called the “Lazy master” in many descriptions.

    For instance, let’s use the quote you posted:

     

    relaxed
    go-with-the-flow
    finds it easy to spend long periods of time in no activity, or at very low levels of energy
    movements are flexible, unhurried
    little inclination towards fidgetiness when having to remain inactive for longer periods
    IPs are both dynamic and irrational, so they see reality as in continuous, gradual, often imperceptible change. An IP is soothed by this, seeing reality through his leading function. This leads to a relaxed inclination to take things as they come and adapt to them.

    As introverts, IPs tend to be relaxed and somewhat passive about initiating relationships with other people, mostly assuming that others will take the initiative.

     

    This is exactly a description of Phlegmatic temperament.

    Being concerned with stability is not ‘phlegmatic’ per se. It’s more that they see IJ temperaments as being too rigid.

    On Sociotype.com for instance, which is the go-to for noobs:

    calm, balanced and inert
    “unflappable”
    rigid but not very fast gait
    may appear passive-aggressive
    usually very stable mood
    more reactive than active
    little inclination to fidget during long periods of inactivity
    IJs are both static and rational, so they see reality as mostly not changing and when it does, it’s in abrupt “leaps” from one state to another. An IJ draws inner stability from a stable reality, especially as seen through his leading function. That makes him confident that things will probably remain as they are despite what he sees as minor disturbances; periods of clear upheaval are very disturbing and the individual is anxious that things will “settle down” one way or the other soon enough. As introverts, IJs tend to be calm and relaxed about initiating relationships with other people, mostly assuming that others will take the initiative, but will be more inclined to try to make sure a relationship is maintained once established.

    IJs place great importance on maintaining and consistently following one’s own principles and rules. An IJ will judge another person very harshly if the IJ deems that person has not consistently followed his/her own principles. If the IJ vocalizes this criticism, it will often be couched bluntly and unencumbered by diplomacy, as the offender’s violation of principle(s) flies in the face of the IJs leading function, which dictates that one’s actions be governed byhis/her own principals. A severe enough violation, in the eyes of the IJ, may cause the IJ to question or even terminate the relationship with the other person. (Note that IJs do not necessary expect others to share their same values, and they are generally comfortable with others who have opposing viewpoints, as long as they are based on consistent reasoning.)

    Perception of other temperaments
    EP: IJs see EPs as unreliable, and too unpredictable in their impulses and initiatives.

    EJ: IJs see EJs as pleasantly energetic and willing to take the initiative and get things going in a balanced, constant way.

    IP: IJs see IPs as unreliable and unwilling to take any initiative, with too low levels of energy.

     

    The lack of fidgeting is more about being “rigid” than it is about being “phlegmatic.”  IJs see IP as too low energy.  So I’m not sure where you see ‘phlegmatic’ in IJ, @elisaday – I studied Socionics for years and took for granted that they were rigid whereas the IP’s were phlegmatic.

    • This reply was modified 1 month, 2 weeks ago by  Animal.
    Elisa Day
    Participant
    • Type: FiNe
    • Development: ll--
    • F Attitude: Seelie

    @animal Maybe it depends on your sources, but I always got the impression melancholic were the lazy ones but I may be remembering incorrectly.

    What stuck out to me most about the article above is how often “stable” is used. It’s true Phlegmatics are thought of as the most stable types as well as the Ji temperament in socionics. The Pi temperaments are more unpredictable making them appear less “rooted.”

    Animal
    Participant
    • Type: SeFi
    • Development: lll-
    • F Attitude: Unseelie

    @elisaday
    I could understand the confusion, but I was just citing Sociotype.com which is the go-to for Socionics noobs, and I was citing the sister description to the one you posted. You posted IP, I posted IJ, from the same list.

    I don’t think we’re reading different descriptions. Pi has always been portrayed as phlegmatic, as I demonstrated. SLI was known as “the lazy master” in many Socionics descriptions, whereas ESI and LSI are  known as dutiful hard workers. The problem with the LSI and ESI descriptions is that the “Stick up your ass”  goes WAY too far. In real life they can also laugh, have fun and be playful.

    There are a billion descriptions to back up what I’m saying; I would have trouble finding one that doesn’t.  Starting here, though I’ve read even more beyond this…

    http://wikisocion.net/en/index.php?title=Category:Type_descriptions

    I’m not saying the stuff written on CT is perfect either; it’s very hard to write a description that is perfectly satisfactory for millions of people that possess that particular type structure. I’m working on a post on what Se is ‘really about,’ based on real people here that I’ve spoken to.

    But really, it’s not that far off from Socionics. In fact I think Socionics & some early MBTI theorists got something right that Auburn didn’t which is — that Se is volitional.

    Se is not like MBTI says “just appreciating pretty things” and “enjoying some sex, sports and highs in the moment.”  These are people who interact with the real world volitionally, willfully, bend it to their will.

    SeXi I— will perhaps not have a long-term vision or goal, whereas me , being SeFi III- , I have more long-term visions and goals and trajectory laid out – but the idea is the same in that all Se’s have a volitional relationship with the world moment to moment. That is explored well in Socionics but it’s left out of the description here.

    Nonetheless, the actual Se leads who have been typed here, all embody this principle. So the reality has revealed itself – the proof is in the pudding.

    Before I got here, I wasn’t a perfect typer but I typed several people based on nothing but socionics descriptions, and Auburn ended up typing them the same way based on vultology. I was spot on about some, close with others.

    I spent a lot of time thinking about how the functions manifest in reality, something that Se people are very concerned with.  Then tried to break down the mechanisms that were running within each person.

    I  never follow descriptions word for word like gospel, because I know that in reality, that doesn’t work.  If you try yourself to write a description of a type that resonates with everyone who is that type – but NOT with people who aren’t- you’ll see how hard it is to do.

    The core principles run ‘in the background’  while real humans manifest in a variety of ways, based on taste, environment, etc. So no type description ever covers the full reality of things, unless that description deals strictly with the core metabolism of what’s going on behind it. But metabolism is abstract and not  relatable on a human level, so many people reading articles about information metabolism will go “huh?”  “So what?”  Most people need to know what this looks like in actual people; so those who write descriptions try to cover this – and yet there’s so much variety in how the type comes out. It must be worded and explored with great care.

    I wrote something about this here:

    The Limits of Descriptions

    • This reply was modified 1 month, 2 weeks ago by  Animal.
    • This reply was modified 1 month, 2 weeks ago by  Animal.
    • This reply was modified 1 month, 2 weeks ago by  Animal.
    • This reply was modified 1 month, 2 weeks ago by  Animal.
    • This reply was modified 1 month, 2 weeks ago by  Animal.
    • This reply was modified 1 month, 2 weeks ago by  Animal.
    • This reply was modified 1 month, 2 weeks ago by  Animal.
    • This reply was modified 1 month, 2 weeks ago by  Animal.
    • This reply was modified 1 month, 2 weeks ago by  Animal.
    Tea
    Participant
    • Type: NeFi
    • Development: l--l
    • F Attitude: Seelie

    There are a few that go around in Christian circles, also based on the four humors. The system was devised by Dr. Gary Smalley and someone else:

    http://becycling.life/lion-beaver-otter-golden-retriever-test-96/

    http://thecompatiblebattle.blogspot.com/2015/03/lion-otter-golden-retriever-or-beaver.html

    When my husband and I were dating, he was really struggling with his introversion, thinking he should be more social, more extroverted. One day he listened to a talk he’d heard before on the Four Temperaments, and something fell into place. He suddenly accepted himself and by extension, he accepted others, too.

    His first thought was that I was a lion (Je), but otter (Pe) seemed more fitting. It became like a nickname, and it’s part of identity now. He felt he could see all of them in me (and indeed, we have all of them). He related to the golden retriever and beaver.

    My main interest in typology is one of curiosity, but it can be transformative too. The kind of awakening he had with self acceptance was life changing for him. The change happened within minutes and was profound and lasting. I won’t go into the emotionally gooey detail. 😛

    • This reply was modified 1 month, 2 weeks ago by  Tea.
    • This reply was modified 1 month, 2 weeks ago by  Tea.
    • This reply was modified 1 month, 2 weeks ago by  Tea.
    Animal
    Participant
    • Type: SeFi
    • Development: lll-
    • F Attitude: Unseelie

    @teatime
    I always test as Choleric and people associate me with fire – even before I put them in my collages 😀
    People always guess my soul color is red and my astrology is a fire sign. All my childhood stories are about me ‘directing.’ Like how I was called “King of the Playground” because I told the kids what roles to play in my fantasy world and they obeyed.  But I’ve had Te developed all my life.

    I’m far more playful than real Je leads, and far more retentive and picky than any extrovert irl. It just doesn’t add up for me. Complicated animal. The only thing I’m NOT is phlegmatic. I guess my development levels show here.

     

    That’s cool what happened with your husband. Enneagram helped me tremendously with self-acceptance but I’ve never felt that these temperaments per se described me.

    • This reply was modified 1 month, 2 weeks ago by  Animal.
    • This reply was modified 1 month, 2 weeks ago by  Animal.
    • This reply was modified 1 month, 2 weeks ago by  Animal.
    faeruss
    Participant
    • Type: TiSe
    • Development: llll
    • F Attitude: Directive

    @auburn

    Good article, I like the description of Pi here, it seems a bit more nuanced/based on the emergent properties rather than necessarily tied to some preconceived idea of what it should be. Reading this article and comparing it to the Ji article I have become even more convinced by the possibility of my Ni leading Ti. I will write some thoughts point-by-point here:

     

    Pi: Global Narratives

    I am always focused on such explanations. I look at things historically, genealogically, and I explore theories along these lines. When asked by someone to explain a concept such as the mind/body problem I tend to give an account of the context in which the problem arose, as well as what the main thinkers thoughts about it, and how everything ties together. The history of ideas and of thought-schemas/paradigms has been one of the most stable sources of intellectual interest in my reading and in my thoughts. The sense that to understand what something is one must understand its origin and its final destination.

     

    Pi: Philosophy & Counsel

    Again, yes. Most of my interpersonal relationships see me naturally gravitate toward the role of counselor and mentor. Even to my parents on many occasions, or people much older than me. I have a stable worldview and philosophy and can draw easily from it to place a person’s problems in a larger scheme of things, giving a proper sense of significance and importance.

    Pi: Steadiness & Temperance

    Again, yes. People close to me would describe me as very stable and settled. My views don’t change much across the years, nor does my style, preferences, or much else. For the most part I am cautious and don’t rush into things. I like to have a good understanding a something before attempting it, though my Se having recently come into consciousness definitely introduces a counterweight to this approach, that, however, remains, subordinate.

    Pi: Probabilities & Predictions

    Yes, a sense of inevitability has always been with me. I saw myself doing a PhD in Europe from a very young age. And more generally I predict things all around me, from plots in television and entertainment to the unfolding of political and social events. And this is in a different way than what say my SeFi gf would do, where the prediction is more relating to the immediate future, based on a single observed detail or gesture that has off here or there. My prediction seem broader and more long-ranged than short-ranged.

    Ji: Identity & Individualism

    Yes. and no here. I wouldn’t say I have this obsession with expressing how I truly am or achieving this. I would agree to the sentiment of wanting to “embody whatever would be the most perfect and beautiful manifestation of themselves according to an ideal they envision in terms of ethical values, character and aesthetic”, changing however the part about manifestation of “themselves”. I want to embody the most perfect manifestion, period. There is no clear personal sense in my vision here, it feels more a-personal and timeless to me, more like embodying an archetype than finding my true essence and perfecting it.

    Ji: Idealism

    Again, a bit of yes and no. I can be idealistic in some setting, but no one who knows me closely would use this adjective in their top ten to describe. It’s there, but doesn’t dominate. I do have a strong sense of what is not-right, of what is not-north, but I don’t defend it at all costs. I think wise compromise is more important toward the realising, or more towards approaching ever more and more, some ideal that will never be manifested in our world.

    Ji: Nobility & Conscience

    I value these traits highly, but I am not haunted by how I fail to achieve the ideal. I do strive to live up to the highest standards of honesty and truth and virtue, but I don’t pursue these with the zest that seems to come through in these descriptions.

    Ji: Pickiness & Perfectionism

    This is the most descriptive trait, and I would say I embody this one the most on an ongoing basis. I do “[direct my attention] towards the criticism of outer structures. It will manifest an acute attention to detail in their crafts, and be picky about shapes, colors, textures and forms”. This trait shine forth very strongly in my research and high standard of proof and argumentation, even if in an informal context.

    Mythology and Humour:

    I don’t think people associate me to a princely energy, and I don’t really see it in myself. I don’t think I come off as super poised and polished in that technical/sleek way most of the TiSes (both here and celebrities) do. People close to me would say I embody a more senex or kingly archetype than a princely one. Likewise, I am not really melancholy. I do tend to be pretty phlegmatic however.

    Hrafn
    Participant
    • Type: SiFe
    • Development: l-ll
    • F Attitude: Adaptive

    Great job on the Pi profile! I especially liked/related to this part:

     

    Both Pi functions have different ways of anticipating what the future will be like, but both generally expect a continuity and can help leverage this sense of continuity in their favor. Sometimes this can make Pi conservative, but this is not always the case. At other times Pi can appear radical if it tracks a trend that has an S-curve on the horizon. A political party’s imminent demise may be foretasted, the long term effects of people’s eating habits may be brought into a conversation at every opportunity, or the exponential growth of a technology may be predicted. In this sense, Pi can be a paranoid function as well as a hopeful function; the difference lying in the content of the data itself.

    Spoiler:

     

    Tea
    Participant
    • Type: NeFi
    • Development: l--l
    • F Attitude: Seelie

    Animal, I don’t know how to tag you!

    You just helped me understand the meaning of something I painted once. It was painting on a ceramic plate that was supposed to represent me (HS art, yay). Two elements I understood, the third just clicked in:

    1. A flying dove, collecting the sunlight and diffusing it into many colors.
    2. A faceless brown man sitting in a green hillside with a drum.
    3. A fiery but calm crimson/scarlet woman walking on top of a deep blue ocean, walking right into a huge blue wave, as if she could be swallowed but didn’t care because she’d keep burning anyway. Yet the wave came to a stand still anyway, being held off by the woman.

    Three, then, is a FiTe enclave within NeSi, but not entirely consumed.

    faeruss
    Participant
    • Type: TiSe
    • Development: llll
    • F Attitude: Directive

    To continue the discussion and analysis, and offer a useful and contrasting experience, Linus (a TiNe with, I posit, Si conscious) has written his reactions point-by-point to both the Ji and Pi articles:

     

    Pi: Global narratives

    About the rote memorization, I don’t lean towards it either. I will do it, it’s important, but it’s more of a conscious choice than an automatic proclivity. I will remember particular details that are important or that capture my attention. However, they’re not exactly the point to me: the point is figuring out the context, where they fit in within a bigger narrative. This also comes with an awareness that particular details can appear different if you change the narrative, and a lot of my rambling is not so much about the details, but about setting up the context through which the details are understood – even if that context is set up through a gestalt of numerous particular details. This also is where that interest of the “evolution of ideas [or things, I’d rather say] over generations or centuries” comes from.  I like knowing the endurance of patterns and the contingency of details, but also the contingency of patterns. Overall, I don’t like things (ideas, “facts”, structures, manners, actions, objects) being presented to me as isolated or as givens, because they never are: they have a context and history that needs to be known.

    Pi: Philosophy and counsel

    Haha, I just realized that I was philosophising above! I guess I don’t have much to say about this since I already elaborated above; I’ll just focus on some particulars. I agree with the need to have an explanatory framework, and a lot of my frustrations come from often not having one (which is fine, that’s life). But I don’t think this framework needs to be monolithic; it should be dynamic, having nuance, multiple components, and different levels of truth. (If anybody reduces this perspective to “my” “Ne/Si polytheism”, I’ll blow a fuse.)

    And, yeah, that grandfatherly energy things applies. I could give examples, but the point is that often people assume that if I say something is so, then it probably is, and that they can come to me for perspective and advice….which is unfortunate, since I’m only 21….

    Pi: Steadiness and temperance

    One of my best friends is SiTe, and I know that by comparison I have a Pe devil that’s itching to do something impulsive and fun or disastrous, which is why he beats me at board games…. I think there’s a part of me that takes everything lightly… except for the things that aren’t to be taken lightly, haha! And, regarding those things, I’m not inclined to rush or to change. Things need to be done at the right time, when the situation is appropriate and they’ve had a chance to mature. (That need for proper context comes in again, you see.) And perhaps some things never need to change: it’s idiotic to think that just because something is new, it’s also better. In any case, I think this groundedness goes hand-in-hand with my lightness: in knowing to differentiate between what is important and what is not, I realize that most things are pretty trivial and can enjoy them as such…while also being aware of the importance of the trivial…. I don’t know, man, life’s complicated.

    Pi: Probabilities and predictions

    I mean, hardly a week passes without me mentioning how I expect the housing market to collapse any moment now….. But, yeah, I expect the future to be like the past, which means I base my expectations, for better or worse, on what I’ve seen so far, which also means that, if I don’t have enough information, I’m not likely to make any predictions for the future (here’s that steadiness and temperance). At the same time, I’m aware that the past is often fairly contingent, so I make the same assumption for the future – the eternity of contingency. I guess what I’ve learned from the past is that we can never fully know what to expect, so we just need to do the best with what we’re given in the moment.

    Ji: Identity and individualism

    So I get “longing to embody whatever would be the most perfect and beautiful manifestation of themselves according to a[n] ideal they envision in terms of ethical values, character and aesthetic”. Yeah, I want to be the best I can be, and according to standards that are true to me. But I would deemphasize the “to me” part that takes on the sense some concern with my own identity as a unique being – something I’m not particularly concerned about. Sure, I should be honest about who I am and such things, but that’s not really an end in itself. Instead I seek to model myself based on ideals – rather than the other way around.

    Ji: Idealism

    I have some trouble with “the purely rational sense of wanting what is fully aligned to reason”; I don’t believe in capital-R reason. I think “the sense of wanting what is fully aligned to principles” may be a more accurate description. As for myself, I think this applies, as I’m often zealous for what is “true” or “right” over what is “realistic” or “expedient”. But, except when I’m revising, I don’t think I’m inclined to lock myself in a castle in the sky. I want my ideals to exist in the real world and not in my head: if they don’t actually lead to any change, are they real?

    (That being said, while I do care for my principles, I do realize that just because people aren’t with me according to some perfect standard, they’re not necessarily against me, and we can understand each other. I’m not a bigot.)

    Ji: Nobility and conscience

    I don’t like that this section begins by associating Ji idealism with low self-esteem. Sure, there will be feelings of inadequacy whenever you hold an ideal, but it’s a choice whether or not to let them overwhelm you; of course, you also have to be careful what ideals you choose. Overall, I think this section is permeated by a solipsistic negativity. Nonetheless, I do hold myself to high standards, which can make me very stubborn. I once read a story about two samurai who, when parting ways, promised to meet again at a certain place and time. One of them was captured and put in prison, making him unable to meet his friend; so he committed suicide in prison so that his spirit may escape and meet his friend. This is a story I keep in mind for its practical lessons. Now, while I do value “authenticity, transparency, self-knowledge and truth”, I’m not particularly irresponsible, lacking follow-through or neglectful, because I also value being “dependable, hard working, patient and dependable”.

    By the way, I’m unsure how authentic, transparent, and self-aware a person is if they’re constantly trying to obliterate (or “purify”) or mask themselves in order to alleviate distress.

    Ji: Pickiness and perfectionism

    Yeah, I do this too. My previous paragraphs should show how picky I can be. And I prefer quality over quantity. But, as I was saying earlier in the “temperance and steadiness” section of Pi, I’m pretty easy-going about most things, so it really depends on if I value the thing enough to give my attention to it.

Viewing 12 posts - 1 through 12 (of 12 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.