May 13, 2007

Why Mr Wang Upsets People

I love psychology. I think that it is a fascinating subject. One of my favourite daydreams is to make a lot of money, retire at 40 and then go study for a psychology degree. Just for the fun of it.

It was during my DPP days that my interest in psychology first developed. I dealt with criminals every day. Many criminals are mentally ill or psychologically impaired. So quite often I would get to read all their psychiatric reports.

These days, my interest has veered away from abnormal psychology, into positive psychology. I'm also quite interested in the study of personality - for example, the Myers-Briggs system. The Myer-Briggs system is one of those very multi-faceted things. You think you've got it all figured out, but every time you come back to it, you discover something new. Either about yourself, or the people around you.

Recently, I have been thinking about the most common ways I upset people, and the kinds of people who are most easily upset by me. You can analyse it in terms of personality. The category of people I upset most easily are the Guardians (the SJ family, meaning the ISFJs, ESFJs, ISTJs and ESTJs). Unfortunately the Guardians are quite common - they comprise about 40 to 45% of the population. Whereas my own category - the Rationals - are estimated at 5 to 7%. So I'm outnumbered.

Why would conflicts arise between the Rationals and the Guardians? Essentially, Guardians are defenders of the status quo. They like things to stay the same. They seek to conform, they follow rules, they administer procedures, they respect tradition, they are the loyal, practical workers, the round pegs in the round holes, the reliable little cogs in the wheels that keep the world turning. Here, for example, is Keirsey's description of Supervisor Guardians (one of the sub-categories):

Supervisor Guardians are squarely on the side of rules and procedures, and they can be quite serious about seeing to it that others toe the mark-or else face the consequences ...

Like all the Guardians, Supervisors worry a good deal about society falling apart, morality decaying, standards being undermined, traditions being lost, and they do all they can to preserve and to extend the institutions that embody social order. Supervisors are so in tune with the established institutions and ways of behaving within those institutions, that they have a hard time understanding those who might wish to abandon or radically change them.

The Rationals, on the other hand, are the change agents of the world. They are constantly exploring new ideas. They are the inventors and the innovators. They have an intuitive understanding of complex systems and are constantly driven to create improvements. Preserving what is, is of no interest to Rationals, because their powers of imagination tell them about what could be, and they see that things usually can be a lot better. Here for example is Keirsey's description of the Mastermind (one of the Rational sub-categories, aka INTJs, which is my personality type):
To the Mastermind, organizational structure and operational procedures are never arbitrary, never set in concrete, but are quite malleable and can be changed, improved, streamlined. In their drive for efficient action, Masterminds are the most open-minded of all the types. No idea is too far-fetched to be entertained-if it is useful. Masterminds are natural brainstormers, always open to new concepts and, in fact, aggressively seeking them. They are also alert to the consequences of applying new ideas or positions. Theories which cannot be made to work are quickly discarded by the Masterminds.
You can pretty much predict how a typical Rational-vs- Guardian disagreement would arise.

First, there would be a System. Rationals are naturally gifted at understanding systems, so they know how to step out of the System, look at it from different perspectives, and see how everything fits together. As the Rational's mind is always geared towards making improvements, he immediately zooms in on the flaws in the System and says, "This is bad, that is out-dated, this is irrational, that is wrong. All of these things must change - how can we allow this situation to continue?!". Because the Rational is both analytical and creative, he has no problems pointing out the flaws AND proposing a dozen new ideas to fix the flaws.

Then the Guardians get upset. Guardians don't like change. They are comfortable with what is, and they are afraid of what could be. They get angry with the Rationals and wish that the Rationals would just go away. For example, they might say, "Oh if you are so unhappy with Singapore, why don't you just leave and don't come back." Guardians are also loyal, dedicated followers, and they view the Rationals' ideas for improvement as disrespectful to the establishment and to tradition. So for example, the Guardians might say: "How dare you criticise the PAP? They have done so much for us, in the past 40 years."

Guardians desperately want the system to stay the same; so in a debate, they will keep making any argument they can, to keep the system the same, whether or not they really believe in that particular argument. For example, in order to keep homosexuality criminalised, they will argue that it is "unreasonable", "uncivilised", "unnatural", "worsening the aging population", "psychologically disordered", "immoral", "makes me afraid of getting raped by a man", "abnormal", "disgusting", "the law says it's wrong, so it must be wrong", "it disgusts me even if it happens in private and I don't know about it", and finally, even "I am entitled to be irrational in my hate for gays".

Another example is Edmund Khoo's letter. You can see that Edmund's overpowering motivation is to support Lee Hsien Loong. As I've mentioned, on that particular topic, it's possible to support or not support PM Lee, but whatever side a Rational takes, it will be on a rational basis. A Guardian, however, is more likely to take a position first (and as a result of his loyalty tendencies, he will tend to support the incumbent), and then simply make as many arguments as he can possibly think of, to support his leader (whether or not the arguments actually make sense).

I've generalised a lot. But if you read my blog and the comments, you'll note that very often, when readers disagree with me, the Rational-Guardian pattern seems to be at work. Guardians endlessly seek to guard the System from change; while Rationals endlessly seek to change the System to make it better.
I, as INTJ, would be the Rational, while most of my regular critics, I suspect, are Guardians (the SF family).

These are the subtle patterns in our minds, the natural processes in our different brains that govern how we think and feel about approximately anything. Psychology is sooooo interesting.


Roger said...

I think the myers briggs classification is too cruel in shoving people into compartments. I've taken it a few times but keep getting placed differently.

But I agree it is a good starting point for analysis.

Anonymous said...

Very interesting. I am a Rational too (ENTJ), and I realise that you're right.

At my workplace, my conflicts with people usually arise from the pattern you describe. Me proposing new changes, and others resisting.

Some of these people really just want things to stay exactly the same, even though the changes I suggest are to simplify matters, reduce overall administrative burden, and make life better for everyone.

le radical galoisien said...

Is there any rigourous, empirical evidence for this entire thing?

Tim said...

Your analysis is not very accurate, Mr Wang. I am an INTJ too (I've taken many tests and always get either INTJ or INTP), but I tend to be the one wary of change and new ways of doing things when I'm in a group.

It's not that I don't like change, but just that I find many of the changes or new methods other people propose overly risky or infeasible. It is the analytical side of me at work - while my peers crave novelty and uniqueness, I am more conservative, and my philosophy is that "if it ain't broke, don't fix it".

Nevertheless, when it comes to social values, I am rather liberal too. I have a disdain for the morality crowd, and am rather anti-establishment.

Anonymous said...

Hi Mr Wang,

Think there is a typo error in your entry...

"the Guardians (the SJ family, meaning the ISFPs, ESFPs, ISFJs and ESFJs)"
should be
"the Guardians (the SJ family, meaning the ISTJs, ESTJs, ISFJs and ESFJs)"


Anonymous said...

Have taken MTBI several times over a period of around 10 years. Consistently ENFP each time I take it. Surprised that the ENFP Idealist type is only 3% of population... thought there would be more :-P

Anonymous said...

sadly, others often mistaken a mastermind as a power freak, which is not the case.


Anonymous said...

I'm an INTJ too. I've taken many tests and I'm always classified as INTJ.

I also have lots of problems with the guardians and holier-than-thou, "guardians of morality" fellas in my workplace. They're so annoying!

Anonymous said...

hmm... very small animal is INXP, usually more F than T lah; depend on mood also.

I think this kind of thing can be cultivated (to a certain extent) one. just depend on what you experiences are.

Anonymous said...

Hey...I'm an NT too (INTP to be exact)..and i have to disagree that SJs dislike change.

The greater motivation, I believe, is their appeal to charisma and popularity. Basically, reason takes a back seat when it comes to convincing of a feasibility of the idea. The real challenge is the 'charm' them (once it starts, the peer-support will do the rest) into accepting your idea.

Sometimes, when there's a change in a system, NTs may be even more veciforous in their opposition because, there is no sound reason to change - the leader is just changing for the sake of showing he's doing 'something'.

Just some of my ponderings... ;)

Anonymous said...

Btw... a good example may be the ministerial pay hikes?

Although there is general opposition, I do think the NT are stronger in theirs..

Anonymous said...

That is only part of the story. You have not mentioned the weaknesses of Rationals and the strengths of Guardians, and the role they play in complementing others, which are also typically mentioned in balanced reports of all personality types in the Myers Briggs.

Also, according to the system, people do change and switch in between types. This is an incomplete and biased write-up.

Anonymous said...

I'm not an MBTI expert but I believe for those whose MBTI keeps flipping, you're probably not a clearcut N vs S or P vs J.

That aside, actually knowing or being able to guess correctly your co-worker's personality type also helps you decide how you can influence a person to get the best out of him/her. As an example, to convince Mr Wang that something is right or wrong, you need to use hard-ass logic whereas logic probably wouldn't work with a clearcut F as opposed to convincing an F with touchy-feely stuff.

Philip said...

Excellent analysis. So, is Mr Wang as fierce as the cat he has put up there? ;)

Mr Wang Says So said...

"I think the myers briggs classification is too cruel in shoving people into compartments."

You may prefer the Enneagram. Nine basic types but 5 levels in each type - leading to 45 possible classifications.

Is there any rigourous, empirical evidence for this entire thing?

No. In that sense, it's pretty similar to most other theories in psychology.

Think there is a typo error in your entry.

Thank you. I will correct that.

sadly, others often mistaken a mastermind as a power freak, which is not the case.

The power freaks are not the INTJs, they're the ENTJs. The E & I make all the difference.

You have not mentioned the weaknesses of Rationals and the strengths of Guardians,

I have not. My intention is to illustrate how conflicts between Rationals & Guardians arise, not to discuss their respective strengths or weaknesses.

I'm not an MBTI expert but I believe for those whose MBTI keeps flipping, you're probably not a clearcut N vs S or P vs J.

Yes, that's right. Some people naturally lie on the borderline for one or more of the traits measured.

Over the years, I myself have morphed from INFJ to INTJ. The T/F is my borderline trait,

angry doc said...

"Is there any rigourous, empirical evidence for this entire thing?"

The MBTI is a popular tool and its various components seem to have a good correlation rate for certain behaviours, career choice, and even diseases:

You can do a pubmed search on it.

Here's one that looks interesting (abstract only):

Personally I think it's just a systematic way of saying people are different in different ways. The key is what one intends to use the MBTI for. Match-making? Risk-assessment for insurance purposes? Employment? Enrolment into medical school?

As you alluded to, the test will probably be tested for validity in each specific context.

Anonymous said...

You know what you are - you are a Cat Person. Cat people are usually anti-social, go against the grain, arrogant, ngo (petty), and have a high opinion of themselves.

ben said...

haha if I partly inspired this post, then surprisingly I'm a INTJ, from a MBTI test I've done with a trained Myer-Briggs user/facilitator/psychologist or whatever you call it.

However, I wouldn't say that a person's MBTI keeps flipping, as that person's personality roughly fits into a MBTI classification, not the other way round.

Your analysis is not very accurate, Mr Wang. I am an INTJ too (I've taken many tests and always get either INTJ or INTP), but I tend to be the one wary of change and new ways of doing things when I'm in a group.

In MBTI, although everyone can roughly fit into one of the 16 classifications, each and everyone of us has 4 different "faces", called the dominant, auxiliary, tertiary and inferior type, whereby we exhibit different parts of our personality to different context. This perhaps leads to the Forer effect, where the descriptions are so vague that it applies to everyone. However, I would only use the MBTI to constantly remind me to think about the strength and weaknesses of my personality and not instead rely on the personality description given by the indicator, as the human nature is just too complex to classify it into categories.

inspir3d said...

"Over the years, I myself have morphed from INFJ to INTJ. The T/F is my borderline trait"

Mr Wang. This is theoretically impossible. The theory of the MBTI dictates that you can only have one secondary function, not a 'borderline' combination of two.

And it is impossible to 'morph' between different personalities, at least according to the theoretical foundations of the MBTI.

I suspect what happened is not that you 'morphed'. Rather, your understanding of yourself has become clearer over the years.

Distinguish carefully between your understanding of your own personality and your understanding of the MBTI theory.

inspir3d said...

"I think the myers briggs classification is too cruel in shoving people into compartments."

I think this statement stems from a misunderstanding of the MBTI.

The MBTI was never meant to 'shove people into compartments', in fact, it was created to recognise the diversity in human talent.

Furthermore, any application of the MBTI which seems like it is 'compartmentalising' people is a rather ameteurish application.

When using such theories as the MBTI, one must remember that there are multiple dimensions to an individual, other than personality type. Such factors include character, social background, sex, cultural background, age, occupation, experiences in life, and many many other factors.

So, while INTJs share certain traits in general, an INTJ born in Africa in the midst of civil war and who lost his mother when he was 2 years old, can behave very differently from an INTJ in Singapore born as the eldest son to a father who was prime minister.

Ryan Bong said...

I am an ENTJ.

I don't crave for power; I usually try to stay out of limelight and work behind the scenes.

Somehow, many a times I had to step out of the shadows and assume some sort of leadership roles. That happened in some situations when things don't go well and somebody had to clear the mess before it got worse.

Sometimes I had been mistaken as a power freak. That is never my intention. I realize that there are very few people around me who have the ability to analyze situations and problems, organize tasks and people, and prepare plans and strategies. Thus, my main reason to assume leadership roles is for the greater good of the group.

Anonymous said...

I am INTJ too. I think what matters most is to us, perhaps all rationals, is "what works", not necessarily changing things (i.e., whether we want change or not depends on how well the system is running). INTJ especially want things to make sense before we do them -- thus I.N.T.J.= "It's Not Thoroughly Justified!".

Mr Wang Says So said...

Mr Wang. This is theoretically impossible. The theory of the MBTI dictates that you can only have one secondary function, not a 'borderline' combination of two.

By borderline, I am referring to the score you get.

Eg two persons can be "I" instead of "E". However the degree of "I"
in each individual will differ. Eg "I" can be "moderately expressed" or "strongly expressed". In the numerical scoring, for example, one could score 80% on the "I", the other could score 51% on the "I". Both are regarded as "I", even though one is much more "I" than the other.

Now, over time, your borderline trait could measure differently. For example, a very weak "I" could score as an "E", say, in five years time, if he did the test again. Of course, a very strong "I" is very unlikely to become anything but an "I".

I think that personality can change, although huge differences, past a certain age, would be extremely rare and would happen only as a result of major life experiences. I say "past a certain age" because some people do not believe that MBTI tests on children or adolescents are of much value. The reason is that their individual personalities are still in flux (ie still actively changing).

Anonymous said...

I think the reason why Mr Wang upsets people is because Mr Wang is a virulent Rational - one capable of infecting Guardians with rationality.

7-8 said...

I veer in between INTP and ENTP. A rational, like you.

It's a good thing that you want to fight against the system. But we who know the system well must also see it for what it is.

Some things we would never do, like we know for sure that we should never try to build an anti- gravity machine, or a rain making machine, or a perpetual motion machine because it's impossible.

But we still strive to pit the 7% of us against the 45% of them, thinking that we can overcome them. We can, but not in the long term.

Sometimes you might want to consider this: it's not that "the system" are oppressing "the people" and you're helping "the people" "liberate" themselves from "the system".

Rather it is that "the people" are an integral part of "the system". That the critical mass that you have to get on your side in order for the system to change - will not get on your side for an extended period of time.

boon said...

Mr Wang,

Instead of making counter-arguments against viewpoints you disagree with, you attack the people and their personality types. Doesn't that sound like how a certain LKY behave?

As a psychology graduate, I come across incomplete understanding of personality tests like yours all too often. The tragedy is that as a result of all the sweeping statements you made in this post, more people than ever will have a skewed and wrong understanding of personality tests.

First thing to note is that the best personality test only has a 0.3 correlation with measurable behaviour such as work performancec i.e. It can only explain 10% of the variance.

They're nowhere near as accurate as what personality test companies claim them to be. Obviously they have a vested interest in saying otherwise, how else would they earn their money?

If only you will stick to things he understands, like law and (hopefully) finance.

rse said...

Psychology is interesting, yes, but I will not take psychological theories, let alone instruments like MBTI very seriously. Psychology is not an exact science, unsurprisingly.

It is a real danger that you will end up being too greedy and assuming that people will act in such and such a way, which is a caricature of who they/you really are.

People are far more complex than what Enneagram/MBTI or whatever other commercialized pop-psychology tests/therapies say they are. Between a test and my own intuition of people, I'd pick my own intuition.

I can tell you outright that I am a very strong INTP and E5, but what good would that do you?


Mr Wang Says So said...

Boon: Sounds like you're attacking me, LOL. Why so violent? It's ok, I have a thick skin.

Rse: Yes, you're right - psychology is not an exact science. Neither is law or finance, actually, LOL.

YCK said...

Interesting post. Myers-Briggs Type Indicator has been around for a very long time. It fasinated me that the classification could be so predictive of behaviour, even though many would argue that it is far from providing a causal explanation.

You might like to consider the new varaible Right-wing Authoritarianism (RWA), which Robert Altemyer came up with.

I discovered it in Atheist: A groundbreaking study of America’s nonbelievers which he cowrote with Hunsberger. In this study, he applied his questionaire and managed to separate RWA from less objectionable qualities in the faithful. I wrote a "book review" in case if you are interetsted.

I would like to read his other books though, but have not found time yet. If you do find them relevant, hope to see your post on it soon :) I guess you would not score vey high on the RWA scale.

Mr Wang Says So said...

Interesting. You're right, I would score low on RWA. However, I am not an atheist. I am simply not a member of an organised religion. I am keenly interested in the Big Questions - it's just that I don't believe that any one particular religion has the Answers. Well, more precisely, the Answers might be there, but they got buried and mixed up along with the customs; the traditions; the culture; the babblespeak of too many religious leaders; and the general stupidity of the ever-faithful-&-blind followers.

Anonymous said...

Your smart use of language makes the article sound like its innocent, but to me, it sounds real sacarstic. I would love to see how you would change the system in Singapore. I will be waiting to see YOUR name in the newspaper saying, "Oh you saved Singapore!". I am waiting. Save all these words, what's the use of saying all these, when you yourself can't even make the change? If you can change Singapore, then let's talk. Otherwise, haha. I don't see the point in typing so much here, talking and debating so much, when no action is being done by YOU. *LAME*

Anonymous said...

Mr wang, someone trying to imitate you?
I got confused, and thought you changed your blog's layout. Only to realise, it's an imposter. hehe.

your loyal reader said...

Why would the "Guardians" be deemed "wrong" from the tone of your content?

Why not the reverse that the "rationals" are trying to be different and thus being the minorities, they are "wrong".

In a content like this, you have to portray each characteristics as fairly as possible. Atlas, being a "rational" yourself, you are trying to portray yourself in a better light.

YCK said...

So you are an agnostic too? What a coincidence Hunsberger and Altemeyer also admitted to be agnostic. Suppose there is any relationship between the curious streak and being agnostic?

I like the idea of keeping my mind open without my brain falling out :)

Anonymous said...

Anonymous 3:57 -

Stupid pple engaging in stupid ad hominem attacks. 'Nuff said.

To your loyal reader:

Rationals making a deliberate attempt to be different? Haha you make me laugh. Most rationals wouldn't need to. Most of them are just diff by default (by the very fact they form only 7% of the pop). To determine why 'they' are different needs more extensive work (actually it's already v obvious) rather than your hasty generalisations. And also, just because sth is popular does not make it 'right'.

boon said...

Well Mr Wang, it'll be good if you could answer the issues raised in my previous comment instead of dismissing them with a LOL.

Mr Wang Says So said...

But Boon, I kinda ignored your comment because it wasn't really relevant to my post.

Eg you say that my understanding of personality tests is incomplete. You say I give people a skewed understanding of personality tests. You say that the best personality has 0.3 correlation with work performance.

Errr, how is that relevant to my post? I wasn't planning to write a thesis explaining all about personality tests. Mine was a blog post, not a textbook. You challenge the accuracy of all the personality tests in the world and suggest that they are a grand fraud perpetuated by commercial companies so that they can make money testing workers' performance. Come now, you seriously expect me to respond to that? That's not within my scope of my post.

Mr Wang Says So said...

"Rationals making a deliberate attempt to be different? Haha you make me laugh. Most rationals wouldn't need to. Most of them are just diff by default"

Within the MBTI framework, that's quite an accurate observation. In fact if you click on the link I provided, you'll see that it says that INTJs are so inherently different that many of them like to pretend to be the same as other people, just for the sake of convenience or privacy.

Mr Wang Says So said...

"So you are an agnostic too?"

I'm not merely agnostic, but an actively-seeking agnostic.

There is a reason why my old blog was entitled "Mr Wang Bakes Good Karma".

Mr Wang Says So said...

I would love to see how you would change the system in Singapore. I will be waiting to see YOUR name in the newspaper saying, "Oh you saved Singapore!". I am waiting. Save all these words, what's the use of saying all these, when you yourself can't even make the change? If you can change Singapore, then let's talk.

This reminds me of Bernard Leong's recent post where he said that people in Singapore have excessively high expectations of bloggers (in terms of what they can do for Singapore).

One of his readers, Twasher, then argued with him that in fact, no one has any such expectations of bloggers, and no one should.

Well, it's interesting to see where you personally lie on that spectrum of opposite views.

LKY is an ENTJ. So am I. said...

I am a senior executive in an MNC. Actually I find that Guardians do have their uses. They work hard and execute my plans for me.

The Artisans - those are the flighty ones. Fun-loving, talk a lot, and always want to leave the office at 5:30 sharp.

Anonymous said...

Dear Mr Wang,

So you think i am a ?

Jack Ryan

scb said...

I just wonder why are people classifying themselves according to some so called researchers> Why cant you people live as nature makes you? Do you really need to classify and categorise yourself according to somebodys" idea of things? I happen to be an atheist with lower secondary education and in my lowly employment was made an Investigation Officer without any rank and was an acting Military Transport Sergeant during NS again holding the rank of private> Once I was asked by a commission officer to take charge of reservists for a night during reservist trainning and today I am still no higher than a private in rank> Just live and forget about glory man< it does not last< think anyone could be another Jesus< Confucius? Do not get too confuse< just stay healthy in body and in mind! I am presently doing nothing< too tired and sick that is! The most I had ever earned in a month was five thousand dollars but on average it was only about one thousand two hundred dollars and there was offers of one thousand eight hundred but at fifty six year old I told the offerers to give to others who are more deserving for I am sick with working< maybe even mentally unbalanced!

Anonymous said...

hello mr wang,

out of topic comments. china took a potshot at singapore by purposely skipping us for the olympic torch relay. why so?

Anonymous said...

Mr Wang, why are there so many pictures of cats in your blog?

whybegay said...

Astrology is the most accurate.

For examples, inspir3d's star sign is Leo.


"The Sun in Leo gives you an ambitious nature, but you are also practical in your ideas. You are self-confident with a lot of creative energy. Your personality is outgoing and optimistic. You can fire up others with your enthusiasm. As a result, you have strong leadership potential. Dominating others is very easy for you. If you don't attain leadership through a career which channels these strengths, you could become a bit bossy in your dealings with family and friends.

With love of position comes the love of the trappings of position and ostentation could be your most characteristic weakness. You can be pompous at times. Your love of ritual stems from a reverence for the past, for tradition.

You are basically straightforward and frank, and rather than harbour a grudge, prefer to fight in the open. The strength of your personality invariably commands the respect of those about you. You are big-hearted and generous, so your fiery temperament is often excused. Your temper is easily provoked and your feelings readily injured. You often say things in the heat of the moment which you regret later on. The result of these tendencies is that you can lack tact in your dealings with others. You are, however, loyal to a fault. You value lasting relationships and are usually the first to take steps to heal any breach. You expect loyalty from others, too. In health matters you need to avoid placing undue strain on the heart. You need to learn to rest and take things easy. High blood pressure is a point to be watched, as are problems with blood circulation. Back trouble is also a natural weakness and muscular pain can be common in this region, particularly if you are in work that demands standing for long periods.

In your working life you are likely to rise to a position of authority, whatever field you choose. Leo was said to be the sign of kingship in traditional Astrology, as the lion is the king of the beasts.

You can learn a lot from people born with the Sun in Aquarius. Where you enjoy status and power, Aquarians are more rebellious against restriction; where you have a sympathy for traditional ways, they take on new ways or methods with ease."

scb said...

Mr Wang< there are many intelligent and educated rascals calling shots everywhere> Are they respectable? Do they deserve others taking their orders without questions? Many make twenty thousand dollars annually and make do with it> We did have one senior cabinet member who went back to the private sector citing income as a reason for it and later returned back to the cabinet again< the Cabinet was as though his home which he can chose to walk in and out! And there was this opposition member Chee Soon Juan who as a psychologist chose to quote a sum of seven billion dollars aid package to Indonesia when the MSMs< newspapers< newscasts and telecasts repeatedly reported the amount at five billion dollars> The then SM Lee Kuan Yew then proclaimed CSJ "kaput"< I was not surprised by the proclaimation> Even if I supposed that CSJ had private or private information to the sum he claimed< as a psychologist he should have stayed with the medias reported(published) figure> Till today I am unable to fathom his(CSJ) motive> There is some digressions here and I do hope that Mr Wang and readers will forgive< my purpose is to link intelligence to folly< life is full of paradox!

Anonymous said...

/// out of topic comments. china took a potshot at singapore by purposely skipping us for the olympic torch relay. why so?

May 14, 2007 11:56 PM ///

anon 11:56 PM - also out of topic, but given the potential Olympians from Singapore are mainly ex-China citizens, it would be considered a domestic matter...

Anonymous said...

Mr Wang, out of curiousity, what is Mrs Wang's MBTI profile, seeing that INTJs can be quite hard to get to know due to their private nature?

- A Curious INTP

Slawek said...

I am also an INTJ. Now I have a psychological basis to understand why your thinking resonates so well with mine.