Religious Life & Temperaments

[Indwelling Trinity]

[quote name='Lilllabettt' date='06 April 2010 - 09:05 PM' timestamp='1270598703' post='2088025']
Oh, the drama.
[/quote]

Laughing...

[IgnatiusofLoyola]

[quote name='laetitia crucis' date='06 April 2010 - 04:55 PM' timestamp='1270590918' post='2087931']
What a scathingly [i]brilliant[/i] idea!
[/quote]

I love that movie (The Trouble with Angels), but haven't seen it in ages. Thanks for letting me know it is on YouTube.

But, I liked the book even better. (Typical of me--I almost always prefer the book to those "new-fangled moving pictures." LOL )

Edited April 7, 2010 by IgnatiusofLoyola

[Innocent]

[quote name='organwerke' date='07 April 2010 - 01:15 AM' timestamp='1270579552' post='2087777']
Well, for example, among the Qualifications required to become a Missionary of Charity I read that candidates must be of a cheerful disposition....
[/quote]

Do you know of any orders that would think one a prospective candidate if he had the disposition of Puddleglum?

[quote name='IgnatiusofLoyola' date='07 April 2010 - 07:26 AM' timestamp='1270601790' post='2088049']
But, I liked the book even better. (Typical of me--I almost always prefer the book to those "new-fangled moving pictures." LOL )
[/quote]

Amen!

Edited April 7, 2010 by Innocent

[Innocent]

[quote name='nunsense' date='06 April 2010 - 05:51 PM' timestamp='1270552904' post='2087600']
St Teresa wasn't talking about any personality profiling in her book, and in fact the use of the word melancholy in her day is much different than in ours.
[/quote]

Oh, is she then referring to the sin of Acedia when she says "melancholy?"

[zunshynn]

[quote name='nunsense' date='06 April 2010 - 04:34 PM' timestamp='1270593265' post='2087959']
zunshynn

This particular topic seems to have hit a nerve with you, or perhaps you simply don't like my posts, I don't know. But either way, I did find your post offensive to me personally because it implied that I had no right to my opinion if it was different from everyone else's and it attributed to me ideas and attitudes that I don't hold. Please quote to me a statement where I say that anyone who uses them are 'less than Catholic'. And as for the astrology comparison, I find all labeling odious, whether it is as new age as astrology or as 'scientific' as psychological assessments. I have seen too many people use a 'label' as an excuse for their behavior or actions.

I realize that I am in the minority here, and I stated that many times. I realize that the Church uses these things for assessment, and I stated that. I realize that it is only my opinion and that no one else has to agree and I stated that. I don't know how I could have been more fair in what I said.

Nowhere in my posts do I state that you should care about what I think so your comment is very harsh indeed. The OP said this


I thought that meant that my opinion was just as valid as yours, despite the fact that no one may agree with me! I also tried to include little smiley faces to show that it was only my opinion.

What I am trying to understand from your post is exactly what you are saying to me. Are you saying that I have no right to my opinion, or that I should not post it here? Really? Are you saying that I can't compare these things with other labeling systems such as astrology? Really? I could go into a great intellectual debate about these kinds of comparisons but I thought that this was not the Debate Table but the Vocation Station, where we discussed things about vocations. I tried to relate my opinions back to vocations, only to be told that it wasn't about how these were used for that purpose, but how they were used by individuals to learn about themselves and avoid sin. So then I tried to talk about it from that point of view and said that if some people found this useful, that is good for them (I think I said that I concede the point). But from what you write, I hear that I am not even allowed to disagree with this point either?

Honestly, if I have to 'toe the party line' here and agree with what everyone else thinks, then I don't know how I can continue to post. If we are talking personality types, I don't need a test to tell myself that I am a compulsively self-disclosing person who lays everything out on the line, heart and soul, and is as honest as I can be. I am forthright, opinionated and passionate. But I am also open and flexible and willing to listen to well reasoned out arguments pro and con. And I have been known to change my mind and do a complete about face. Sometimes I play the devil's advocate for a topic, and sometimes I just 'say it like it is'. If I disagree with someone, then at least they know where they stand with me because there is no hypocrisy, no deceit and no hidden agendas. If I meant that that people who use psychological assessments weren't Catholic, then I would have written that, but since I didn't write that, I didn't mean that!

I am sorry if my personality type offends you, but I certainly don't think that I deserve to be shut down the way you did in your post zunshynn, and although you tried to correct it later, the fact is that it strikes me as being a bit more personal than deserved, since all of us here are just stating our own opinions, and none of us are experts.

Some of us may have more or different experiences in this area, which may have affected how we perceive this topic (or any other). Don't forget I am 57 years old and have lived more than five different careers during that time in five different countries so I might not always see things the same way that others do. And yes, I do get passionate, but so do many others here and I thought up til now that we had all done well to speak our minds with charity and acceptance of each other's differences.

For the record, no, I do not like personality testing. I can tell a lot more about a someone's personality in the way they treat another person, especially when they disagree with them. It just seems to me that your attack was very personal and not directed at the topic at hand but at me. I am happy for anyone to disagree with me but I certainly don't appreciate a personal attack, especially in an environment where I should be able to expect better. It is very disappointing.
[/quote]

I've reread my posts and I'm not sure why you took any of them as a personal attack, as I never made any comments about your person at all, but rather about things you said. We've been on friendly terms as far as I was aware for the past several months, and no your "personality type" does not offend me... so no, it was nothing personal. I also said it didn't bother me if you, or anyone else, disagreed. I think you've made this much more personal than I would have liked to make it.

I would have said the same thing to anyone that compared temperaments to horoscopes... I honestly think that's an absurd comparison to make and I would have called anyone out on it. You're certainly entitled to express it, but I don't see why my arguing with that point makes it a personal attack and doesn't pertain to the topic at hand. To me, comparing temperaments to astrology would be like comparing the apparitions at Lourdes to the condemned "apparitions" of Bayside. Obviously there is nothing wrong with having no interest in Lourdes. But I definitely would hope most people would not compare them to one the Church has condemned, and personally, I felt compelled to say something just as I would have in that situation. It was not a personal attack and I didn't mean for you to take it as such.

[quote name='nunsense' date='10 March 2010 - 02:32 PM' timestamp='1268253151' post='2070478']
I am none of those. I am 100% Catholic.
[/quote]

[quote name='nunsense' date='06 April 2010 - 01:14 AM' timestamp='1270538059' post='2087559']
I said that I was none of the four types, I was 100% Catholic.[/quote]


I don't really know how one could take a statement that you are 100% Catholic because you do not have a temperament as not implying that someone is less than 100% Catholic if they do regard temperaments as legitimate things that everyone has, but I apologize if I was reading to much into that.




With that said, I am not discerning, am 21 and have much less life experience than others... so I doubt I have that much to contribute to the vocation station. Unfortunately, I just can't seem to stay on PM without getting aggravated by things on the Vocation Station. I'm not finding it to be beneficial to me anymore, and so what little I might be able to contribute probably doesn't balance out... and I a have a distinct feeling that I'm adding to the problem, which I don't want. So I think I'll be bowing out. I feel like this is a silly "last straw" to leave on, but it's been coming more or less for awhile and is certainly not only because of this, or because of any one person here.

I will definitely keep you all in my prayers though, and I hope you will keep me in yours.

Pax et bonum.

[Nunsense]

[quote name='zunshynn' date='07 April 2010 - 01:27 PM' timestamp='1270603620' post='2088091']
I've reread my posts and I'm not sure why you took any of them as a personal attack, as I never made any comments about your person at all, but rather about things you said. We've been on friendly terms as far as I was aware for the past several months, and no your "personality type" does not offend me... so no, it was nothing personal. I also said it didn't bother me if you, or anyone else, disagreed. I think you've made this much more personal than I would have liked to make it.

I would have said the same thing to anyone that compared temperaments to horoscopes... I honestly think that's an absurd comparison to make and I would have called anyone out on it. You're certainly entitled to express it, but I don't see why my arguing with that point makes it a personal attack and doesn't pertain to the topic at hand. To me, comparing temperaments to astrology would be like comparing the apparitions at Lourdes to the condemned "apparitions" of Bayside. Obviously there is nothing wrong with having no interest in Lourdes. But I definitely would hope most people would not compare them to one the Church has condemned, and personally, I felt compelled to say something just as I would have in that situation. It was not a personal attack and I didn't mean for you to take it as such.






I don't really know how one could take a statement that you are 100% Catholic because you do not have a temperament as not implying that someone is less than 100% Catholic if they do regard temperaments as legitimate things that everyone has, but I apologize if I was reading to much into that.




With that said, I am not discerning, am 21 and have much less life experience than others... so I doubt I have that much to contribute to the vocation station. Unfortunately, I just can't seem to stay on PM without getting aggravated by things on the Vocation Station. I'm not finding it to be beneficial to me anymore, and so what little I might be able to contribute probably doesn't balance out... and I a have a distinct feeling that I'm adding to the problem, which I don't want. So I think I'll be bowing out. I feel like this is a silly "last straw" to leave on, but it's been coming more or less for awhile and is certainly not only because of this, or because of any one person here.

I will definitely keep you all in my prayers though, and I hope you will keep me in yours.

Pax et bonum.
[/quote]

I certainly hope you don't leave over something like this because disagreements in life are going to happen always, not just here. Yes, I took it all personally, but as we all know, things written on online forums are often subject to misinterpretation by one side or the other because of the lack of body language and tone of voice, etc. That is why personal contact is so important in any communication (and another reason why I don't like set questions on questionnaires!).

I felt your attack was personal, you say it wasn't, so I accept what your tell me at face value and we can move on and agree to disagree. You do tend to use very strong adjectives to support your arguments, and these can be taken as personal. Even in this post you comment that something I have said is 'absurd' which is fine, but can be taken personally.

I would like to address a couple of your points because they paint an incorrect picture of what I have said, in my opinion. When I said I was 100% Catholic, that was taken out of context from another thread where people were describing their percentages of this personality type or another. One would say that they were 20% melancholic and 80% choleric for example. I made a joke to the effect that I was 100% Catholic, implying that I didn't want to be divided up into percentages. Now this has been taken to mean that I consider myself to be the only 'real Catholic' because I don't believe in personality types based on questionnaires. I did not mean this and would never claim to be more Catholic than anyone else for any reason whatsoever. In fact, I often feel less Catholic because I am a convert who didn't practise her faith for a long time, so I feel very grateful just to be Catholic now.

As for the astrology thing, once again, this seems to have been blown up all out of proportion. My comment was relating to the fact that many people call themselves a label of one kind of another and then use this label to define themselves. Astrology is one area where even Catholics refer to themselves by their signs, even though the Church is against astrology and all new age things. As for comparing psychology to astrology, I did not go into any depth about this, and still don't think that this is the appropriate place to do so. If you want a debate about it, we can move over to the Debate Table for this. I don't see it quite as black and white as you do, and I think the Lourdes/Bayside comparison is a little off base, but once again, I don't want to get into another argument here.

Look, I have no idea why this topic has inflamed you or anyone, especially if I choose not to like some aspects of psychological assessment tools. I probably overreacted to your post, but it seemed like an overreaction to mine in the first place. Now we can both cool down and agree to disagree without any hard feelings. We have given others food for laughter (and perhaps even derision, if their posts are anything to go by) but that's okay. Everyone can live and learn from our mistakes here. I usually try to ignore posts that upset me, but this morning I chose to respond. Maybe you and I can both learn from it - but no one needs to go away. Really. Our wounded self-love will heal and we will be able to move on again... in pax and bonum, right?

[Nunsense]

[quote name='Innocent' date='07 April 2010 - 01:05 PM' timestamp='1270602337' post='2088061']
Oh, is she then referring to the sin of Acedia when she says "melancholy?"
[/quote]


I don't think so because acedia is much more like spiritual sloth and listlessness. I think, as the book states, she sees it as a much more physical condition rather than a personality type. She might actually be referring to it more as a metabolic condition, such as clinical depression is seen today (not reactive depression, which is caused by external events). The malfunction of the brain when processing the re-uptake of seratonin can cause some types of depression, and although she certainly couldn't have diagnosed all cases of melancholy in that way, I think sometimes she felt that the women were too 'sensitive' or 'highly strung' and that if women who suffered from this condition were to engage in a great deal of contemplation, they might find themselves subject to hallucinations rather than genuine visions, such as she experienced.

For women like this, she wanted them to eat well and sleep well and not spend as much time in contemplation. For genuine mystics, she had a great deal of patience, and would instruct a Prioress not to disturb a sister who appeared to be genuinely experiencing a state such as ecstasy, but she was also aware that some women, who are highly emotional in nature, might be subject to 'humors' or 'vapors' and be easily deceived into thinking they were experiencing mystical states when they were not. I think she must have had a terrifically difficult job trying to manage all those women from convent to convent because you can just imagine the number of them who were either 'in alt' and flying high or in melancholy. I do believe that emotional and mental stability are definitely important pre-requisites to the religious life, and I am sure, so did she.

Her main concern with applicants however, seemed to be that they accept what she referred to as 'holy' women, who had a real vocation. Her vision was very spiritual and she truly believed that contemplation was possible for everyone, although it was definitely a gift that was bestowed upon a person by God, and not something achieved through one's efforts alone.

[cmaD2006]

[quote name='zunshynn' date='06 April 2010 - 10:27 PM' timestamp='1270603620' post='2088091']
With that said, I am not discerning, am 21 and have much less life experience than others... so I doubt I have that much to contribute to the vocation station. Unfortunately, I just can't seem to stay on PM without getting aggravated by things on the Vocation Station. I'm not finding it to be beneficial to me anymore, and so what little I might be able to contribute probably doesn't balance out... and I a have a distinct feeling that I'm adding to the problem, which I don't want. So I think I'll be bowing out. I feel like this is a silly "last straw" to leave on, but it's been coming more or less for awhile and is certainly not only because of this, or because of any one person here.

I will definitely keep you all in my prayers though, and I hope you will keep me in yours.

Pax et bonum.
[/quote]

[quote name='nunsense' date='06 April 2010 - 10:46 PM' timestamp='1270604761' post='2088111']
I certainly hope you don't leave over something like this because disagreements in life are going to happen always, not just here. Yes, I took it all personally, but as we all know, things written on online forums are often subject to misinterpretation by one side or the other because of the lack of body language and tone of voice, etc. That is why personal contact is so important in any communication (and another reason why I don't like set questions on questionnaires!).
...
Look, I have no idea why this topic has inflamed you or anyone, especially if I choose not to like some aspects of psychological assessment tools. I probably overreacted to your post, but it seemed like an overreaction to mine in the first place. Now we can both cool down and agree to disagree without any hard feelings. We have given others food for laughter (and perhaps even derision, if their posts are anything to go by) but that's okay. Everyone can live and learn from our mistakes here. I usually try to ignore posts that upset me, but this morning I chose to respond. Maybe you and I can both learn from it - but no one needs to go away. Really. Our wounded self-love will heal and we will be able to move on again... in pax and bonum, right?
[/quote]

zunshynn/nunsense: I kept reading the sequence of posts and reminding myself how wound up I got to certain threads ... there are days that there can be things which are bugging me and I end up overreacting to something that's written when in reality it wasn't the thread. I also took a breather from VS when I kept getting wound up -- and what I personally end up doing is if the topic is going to hit a hot button I usually stay away for charity sake (so that I don't unintentionally offend someone).

zunshynn I do hope you choose to stick around VS -- *all* of us are important with respect to the discussions. Each of us brings ourselves to the table, be it young or old (I need a cane...), married or single or religious or discerning, American or Canadian or Australian or English or other, etc. We bring our gifts and our weaknesses, our limitation with the written text.


Blessings to all -- !Cristo Resucito! Aleluia! !El Vive!

[laetitia crucis]

[quote name='laetitia crucis' date='06 April 2010 - 05:11 PM' timestamp='1270584667' post='2087829']
Those are really neat links, TT! I am an INFP. I found it quite amusing to see so many of my favorite people (fictional -- well, except for Wesley Crusher Hah! -- and non-fictional) are supposedly the same!
[/quote]

Sorry, I know this is now somewhat off-topic, but I just took a few MB temperament tests after not having taken one in quite a while. Turns out I'm actually INF[b]J[/b]. So. Just asking -- just in case anyone has some insight on this -- is it common for one's MB temperament to change over time?

And just in case anyone else is really interested in the MB types (I find it quite interesting ) I found this page to be quite insightful: [url="http://www.personalitypage.com/high-level.html"]The Sixteen Personality Types[/url].

That INFJ description creeped me out it was so accurate. [b]ETA[/b]: Particularly the "Personal Problem Areas" for the INFJ.

Edited April 7, 2010 by laetitia crucis

[cmaD2006]

[quote name='laetitia crucis' date='06 April 2010 - 11:15 PM' timestamp='1270606553' post='2088134']
Sorry, I know this is now somewhat off-topic, but I just took a few MB temperament tests after not having taken one in quite a while. Turns out I'm actually INF[b]J[/b]. So. Just asking -- just in case anyone has some insight on this -- is it common for one's MB temperament to change over time?

And just in case anyone else is really interested in the MB types (I find it quite interesting ) I found this page to be quite insightful: [url="http://www.personalitypage.com/high-level.html"]The Sixteen Personality Types[/url].

That INFJ description creeped me out it was so accurate.
[/quote]

I took it a while back ... I remember the 1st time I was one thing, the 2nd time I was slightly different. I suspect if I took it again today it would be yet another.

[IgnatiusofLoyola]

Just for the fun of it, I just took an online version of the Myers-Briggs test. I am an INFP--the same type I was the last time I took this test years ago.

I have mixed feelings about personality tests--especially ones not administered by professionals. I think they can be fun and interesting. I don't know if I got any new insights, but I found the analysis interesting, and gave me things to think about.

But, I also think there sometimes can be an overdependence on tests, and in some cases they can be given far too much weight. Once at work, we all took the Myers-Briggs test, primarily for us to better understand the people we work with. It was helpful, and it never became something that was used to place people into little boxes or typecast them--mainly because we forgot the results in a week or two!

My ex-husband is a clinical psychologist who specializes in neuropsychological testing. I think in the hands of a professional, tests can be extremely helpful. A professional might be able to detect a personality trait in an aspirant that could harm the community--but, obviously tests aren't the best indicators of whether someone has a vocation.

As an amateur guide, tests can be interesting and fun and help us understand ourselves and others a little better, as long as they are not taken as "gospel" or given more importance than they deserve. They can be one tool in helping understand candidates and members of a community, but the judgement of a wise and Godly person can be much better.

So, I come out right in the middle in this debate.

BTW--The test I took online said that the Virgin Mary was the same personality type as I am--INFP. I find that a "not very credible" conclusion, although it means I am in good company. LOL

[Nunsense]

I feel that I owe everyone on here an apology for my posts on this thread, especially to zunshynn. In Matins tonight, the first letter of St Peter said that we should [i]"Never pay back one wrong with another, or an angry word with another one; instead, pay back with a blessing." [/i]I am not saying that anyone else did anything wrong, but in assuming myself wronged, I allowed myself to get upset and made a harsh response. For this I apologize. Another phatmasser sent me a pm and I think that perhaps I wasn't as gentle with her as I should have been so I apologize for that too. And for those who just laughed, good for you. Blessing on everyone for being so patient with me.

I won't explain the circumstances, but I just ask you all to forgive and forget this if you can. I am going to take a break from posting for a few days. I have had some good news tonight, and that helped me realize that I allowed myself to get upset over something that really is so unimportant in the grand scheme of things. God is very good to us, His weak and sinful creatures. Praise Him.

Your sister in Christ Jesus, Our Risen Lord - Nunsense

[organwerke]

[quote name='Innocent' date='07 April 2010 - 02:58 AM' timestamp='1270601924' post='2088052']
Do you know of any orders that would think one a prospective candidate if he had the disposition of Puddleglum? [/quote]


I'm not sure of what Puddleglum means but, oh, no, I don't know orders, on the contrary I know orders that DON'T accept candidates with Puddleglum!!

But I think that temperament is different from disposition...
I think temperament is a sort of natural tendency, while disposition is something we can determine by our will.

Anyway...
Nunsense: personally I fogive and forget all what you want...even if I don't think I've anything to forgive or forget!
I only dare to advice you to think that younger persons sometimes feel things deeper than older ones...at least if I think to my 20s I was much more sensitive and I could suffer much more than now that I'm 30. In general, I think that young persons need much compassion, much understanding, much love because they usually can suffer more than older ones (this is not a rule of course and maybe there will be persons who don't agree with me).

Zunshynn you say:
[quote]With that said, I am not discerning, am 21 and have much less life experience than others... so I doubt I have that much to contribute to the vocation station. [/quote]

well, I don't think your age matters for writing here, I don't think that if you are not discerning this matters for writing here...
I simply think that you can contribute to the vocation station much better than I could ever do, and so I hope you will continue to write here!!!

[laetitia crucis]

[quote name='IgnatiusofLoyola' date='07 April 2010 - 01:21 AM' timestamp='1270614074' post='2088222']
Just for the fun of it, I just took an online version of the Myers-Briggs test. I am an INFP--the same type I was the last time I took this test years ago.

I have mixed feelings about personality tests--especially ones not administered by professionals. I think they can be fun and interesting. I don't know if I got any new insights, but I found the analysis interesting, and gave me things to think about.

But, I also think there sometimes can be an overdependence on tests, and in some cases they can be given far too much weight. Once at work, we all took the Myers-Briggs test, primarily for us to better understand the people we work with. It was helpful, and it never became something that was used to place people into little boxes or typecast them--mainly because we forgot the results in a week or two!

My ex-husband is a clinical psychologist who specializes in neuropsychological testing. I think in the hands of a professional, tests can be extremely helpful. A professional might be able to detect a personality trait in an aspirant that could harm the community--but, obviously tests aren't the best indicators of whether someone has a vocation.

As an amateur guide, tests can be interesting and fun and help us understand ourselves and others a little better, as long as they are not taken as "gospel" or given more importance than they deserve. They can be one tool in helping understand candidates and members of a community, but the judgement of a wise and Godly person can be much better.

So, I come out right in the middle in this debate.

BTW--The test I took online said that the Virgin Mary was the same personality type as I am--INFP. I find that a "not very credible" conclusion, although it means I am in good company. LOL
[/quote]


My best friend is a clinical psychologist that is currently specializing in neuropsychological testing! (No worries, my best friend is not your ex-husband. )

Also, I think I pretty much stand where you do about these personality tests, especially your third paragraph.

Oh, and this made me literally laugh OUT LOUD: one of the pages said Jesus was an INFJ. Ditto what you said: [i]I find that a "not very credible conclusion, although it means I am in good company. LOL[/i]

[vee]

I was reading the posts where people mentioned they are an INFP, INFJ, ASPCA, or CSI: Miami and I realized the most important personality/ temperament acronym. The one we all should be working for, trying to imitate, and trying to see in others.... [size="2"][b]INRI [/b][/size]For me I know my own personality (and temper) need a lot of help from God otherwise Im a mess so all I can do is ask God for the grace and mercy to be more like Christ and at the end of the day all that matters to me is how I measured up (or not) to that.

[vee]

[quote name='organwerke' date='07 April 2010 - 08:55 PM' timestamp='1270637741' post='2088289']
I'm not sure of what Puddleglum means but, oh, no, I don't know orders, on the contrary I know orders that DON'T accept candidates with Puddleglum!!


[/quote]

Im not sure what puddleglum means either but since it has the word glum in it it doesnt sound good! Haha orders that dont accept puddleglum people... they sound nice to me....which orders? If you dont mind saying that is.

Edited April 7, 2010 by vee8

[laetitia crucis]

[quote name='vee8' date='07 April 2010 - 08:18 AM' timestamp='1270639081' post='2088293']
I was reading the posts where people mentioned they are an INFP, INFJ, ASPCA, or CSI: Miami and I realized the most important personality/ temperament acronym. The one we all should be working for, trying to imitate, and trying to see in others.... [size="2"][b]INRI [/b][/size]For me I know my own personality (and temper) need a lot of help from God otherwise Im a mess so all I can do is ask God for the grace and mercy to be more like Christ and at the end of the day all that matters to me is how I measured up (or not) to that.
[/quote]

+1!!!



Both funny AND profound -- most excellent!

[Innocent]

[quote name='organwerke' date='07 April 2010 - 05:25 PM' timestamp='1270637741' post='2088289']
I'm not sure of what Puddleglum means but, oh, no, I don't know orders, on the contrary I know orders that DON'T accept candidates with Puddleglum!!
[/quote]

Don't accept such candidates, eh? Oh, well, that's what I expected all along. But we mustn't let that make us down-hearted. Nothing to do but put a good face on it.




[left]
[size="1"]([url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puddleglum"]Puddleglum[/url] is a Marsh-wiggle from Narnia.)[/size][/left]

[Cherie]

[quote name='vee8' date='07 April 2010 - 07:18 AM' timestamp='1270639081' post='2088293']
I was reading the posts where people mentioned they are an INFP, INFJ, ASPCA, or CSI: Miami and I realized the most important personality/ temperament acronym. The one we all should be working for, trying to imitate, and trying to see in others.... [size="2"][b]INRI [/b][/size]For me I know my own personality (and temper) need a lot of help from God otherwise Im a mess so all I can do is ask God for the grace and mercy to be more like Christ and at the end of the day all that matters to me is how I measured up (or not) to that.
[/quote]

My former Superior used to say, "Who cares what letters you have after your name if you don't have an "ST" before it?"

I think that's in the same vein as what you're saying, too! I'd love that to be my personality type - wouldn't we all?

[brightsadness]

According to the MBTI which we took as part of a "retreat" at work last year, I am an X (E/I split) NTP.Whatever[img]http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/public/style_emoticons/default/rolleyes.gif[/img]