The problem with the MBTI test

The problem with the MBTI test

+ Reply to Thread
Hello Guest! Sign up to join the discussion below...
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 11
Thank Tree42Thanks

This is a discussion on The problem with the MBTI test within the Myers Briggs Forum forums, part of the Personality Type Forums category; The problem with it is that it was created by someone who has one personality type, and it's therefore not ...

  1. #1
    ENFJ - The Givers


    The problem with the MBTI test

    The problem with it is that it was created by someone who has one personality type, and it's therefore not an objective view of the 16 personality types.

    Let's pretend the person who created the MBTI is an INTJ and their name is Carl Jung. Carl is viewing the "16 types" through his clouded INTJ view of them.
    So if you were to say you are an ENTP based on a Jung-created MBTI test, you are just an "ENTP" in the eyes of an INTJ.

    IDK, food for thought. I don't think you can objectively fit into a personality types unless a personality-less being came down from the Heavens and made an objective personality test we could all take.
    MilkyWay132 and JungyesMBTIno thanked this post.



  2. #2
    INFJ - The Protectors

    For starters Jung was probably an MBTI INTP. He definitely did not have an Extraverted Thinking preference (and really didn't get along with people who did). Also many, many, many times in Jung's writings he acknowledges the limitations of his own point of view. In fact in Psychological Types he makes the claim that the only reason he calls Thinking and Feeling judging or rational is because of his own preference for Thinking and that if he was a Sensation or Intuitive he might very well see Intuition or Sensation as 'rational'.

    The other thing we forget is that Jung was a clinical analyst. He spent his life as a psychologist analyzing people many of which had big problems. Schizophrenia, dissociative identity disorder and all manner of other ills. So he is writing from the standpoint of a heuristical model attempting to describe the patterns that he observed during his practice. It wasn't simply some pizza dream he had and one day said "oh personality types." It was refined over years and years, and even more after he wrote PT and fleshed out his ideas of the psyche and so forth.

    The issue with MBTI is not so much it not being objective enough, quite the contrary, its so objective that it denies the subjectivity of normal human experience. By simply claiming that people can basically be categorized as judging or perceiving, closure-seeking or non-closure-seeking, and then trying to tie this behavioral idea to Jung's functions, is actually limiting. It says that people who don't fit the model can't exist. Where Jung makes no such claims. He is not trying to hold the entire world to his ideas, but rather putting forth a model that seems to generally describe the basic ways in which people go about their lives psychologically. His descriptions of the types, as you know, is much simpler than Myers'. Definitely nothing like the "all Fe-dom/auxes must be closure seeking," or anything like that.

    In her lecture on the inferior function Marie-Louise Von Franz basically ends by saying Jung's is a heuristic model that seems to be a good metric for now, but perhaps a day will come when a new, better way of looking at people's psychologies will emerge, just as Jung's did and his model will have exhausted its usefulness.
    firedell, MilkyWay132, Hosker and 6 others thanked this post.

  3. #3
    INTP - The Thinkers

    Actually, the larger issue with the MBTI is that it doesn't even type based on the functions the system is based on. It tests for a spectrum of each dichotomy, which really doesn't make any sense. You're supposed to be a "feeler"? Everyone has feeling somewhere in their function order; it's about whether it's introverted or extraverted, and how high or low it is. Same with the two perceiving functions. And don't get me started on this supposed "J vs P" dichotomy. MBTI tests for both Siand Ni to see if you have J, which is ludicrous. It asks "do you like keeping things in order?" for Si and then "do you like to take action and plan ahead or leave your options open?" for Ni. The problem is that nobody has both functions; an ISFJ and an ENTJ have very little in common, as they have the opposite functions, even though they share a J. It's just a messed up system, and it's inconsistent with what Jung came up with and what the creators of the indicator based the very thing on.

    You are right, however, that there is a fundamental problem with personality tests in general. It's something we superimpose onto human psychology, it's far from empirical. And there is confirmation bias, yes. It's pretty easy to read into the questions and see what they're asking for, and on some of the really bad tests, if you answer the questions "correctly" (giving reasonable and not outlandish responses) you get something like INTJ. That's from the writing of the test, and for the better tests, there's bias from the person taking it. It's hard to really answer correctly about oneself sometimes.
    firedell, eithnii, Rainbow and 4 others thanked this post.

  4. #4
    INTJ - The Scientists

    I totally agree with this, although if the person can keep their biases in check, this shouldn't largely be much of a problem, although I doubt bias is completely unavoidable for any typologist. Just the fact that some types have largely more positive connotations associated with them than others on the internet is a clear indication of this problem (e.g. Te dom/aux types have a terrible reputation online overall, as well as to a slightly lesser extent, Fe dom/aux types...need I even get into Si and Se dom types *eyeroll*...Overall, the Ne dom/aux types seem to get the best rep online (the Ni doms/auxes are a close second, I think), largely due to the misleading (and wrong) stereotypes perpetuated about them being "open-minded" for some reason - and Ns, who are viewed, once again, fallaciously, as more intelligent than the rest). It's not surprising that there are Ne doms/auxes who have prejudice against all of the aforementioned types, since it's the odd one out in this trend (of course, many of these people might be mistyped as such, due to having issues with the stereotypes associated with the others to begin with). The largely mythical INFXs are pretty much worshipped on the internet - relegated to saint status for reasons once again largely rooted in stereotypes.
    firedell, MilkyWay132, Azure Bass and 4 others thanked this post.

  5. #5
    INTJ - The Scientists

    @LiquidLight raises interesting points. I find it interesting (and as a Te type, both a blessing and a curse, personally) how much influence Ti thinking has in Jung's theory. As a genius Ti dominant (not all are, btw, which, hopefully, most people here realize - they can probably fall far to the other end of the IQ spectrum as well), he is marvelous with defining his theories, observations, etc. so that his model is very sound theoretically (it's incredibly hard to find ways around his definitions after you just mentally crunch this stuff for hours to years), but since it's largely lacking in Te application and most notably, one of the most Fi-less psychological theories I've probably ever seen (instead, it comes off as very Ti with Fe as an end goal - tying subjective thinking into something that can justify the collective values of all people), it can feel a bit lacking in any sense of respect for the individual human values that justify the collective logic uniting the individual actions of all people (so, kind of Fi-Te or Te-Fi)...it's both refreshing in this way, but a bit uncomfortable also in this way. Yes, I'm speculating here, but I tend to have my off-and-on days with his theories - some days, they are remarkable and fun to think about - other days, I get my pet peeves. Just venting is all.
    firedell, MilkyWay132, Owfin and 2 others thanked this post.

  6. #6
    ENFJ - The Givers

    All in all, I think we're getting hung up on terminology, and blaming the instrument for social perspectives and misconstrued deviations of Myers' theory. I don’t think enough research is done before claims like this are released. It’s important to realize, as with any other instrument of science, that your information and sense of understanding must come from a series of credible sources; in this case, I’d recommend even official sources.

    We should also make sure we’re identifying which Myers Briggs theory we’re talking about. There’s the uninformed and misinterpreted social theory of MBTI, which usually results from individuals attempting to dissect the theory without using official sources of information (often because they are costly). Then there’s the official, consistent, and correct MBTI theory as written by its creators and developers. The latter theory is the one I’ll be reflecting on as I reply to this thread.

    Lastly, I just want to preface this with saying that this isn't a personal attack. I think the issues you raise are important, and that these conversations are crucial! I'm so glad there's a place that's having them.

    Actually, the larger issue with the MBTI is that it doesn't even type based on the functions the system is based on. It tests for a spectrum of each dichotomy, which really doesn't make any sense. You're supposed to be a "feeler"?
    Let’s go ahead and establish that even Jungian terminology can be misleading in today’s society. That wasn’t always the case, but language has evolved. The dichotomy of “Thinking” and “Feeling” doesn’t in any way claim that the Thinking end of the dichotomy is the only one with logical capabilities. In fact, this dichotomy is considered the “decision making dichotomy” which aims to identify the type of logic one prefers to utilize when making decisions. The key message here is that the theory states that healthy thinkers and feelers both use logic.

    I get quite frustrated when individuals suggest that Myers and Briggs imply that one makes decisions out of pure emotional state. Sure, some people use no logic in their thinking, you’re right. But those people have a whole section of the DSM-IV (and the soon to be DSM-V) dedicated to them.

    With that being said, both Thinkers and Feelers are capable of experiences and expressions of empathy and emotion. However, those that prefer Feeling dominantly, tend to make decisions on relative scales of value systems. This means that for the F, a task is solved based on the consideration of value systems. Socially, this can be translated (rather loosely in my opinion) as a F being more considerate of people than T’s. However, the truth of the matter is that F reasoning is first and foremost a system of rationale due to these value systems that are established using the inevitable law of reason (this comes straight from Jung). These individuals have a primarily focused sense of dealing with the task as it relates to those existing value systems.

    Now, that isn’t to say that T’s aren’t considerate of other people. However, the primary differentiation between the T method of logic and the F method of logic is that the T is most focused on solving the problem at hand, using objective measures of evidence as brought in by their sensing or intuitive preferences. This part of the dichotomy relies heavily on thinking neutrally in regards to solving the task and finding the sound truth to the issue.

    I think that as a whole, individuals are not understanding what this dichotomy is actually trying to explain. The prefered approach to making a logical decision.

    Everyone has feeling somewhere in their function order; it's about whether it's introverted or extraverted, and how high or low it is.
    You caught on to the fact that each individual has a sense of feeling in regards to empathy and emotion.

    Regarding how high or low it is, many individuals believe that the MBTI dichotomies to be on a spectrum. This is actually quite incorrect, and almost impossible. The term dichotomy is defined as the difference between to mutually exclusive extremes, even the distance between those mutually exclusive extremes. In which case, there cannot be a spectrum in a dichotomy, because only two points of choice are available in a dichotomy. Whereas a spectrum is a range of choices, and implies more than one choice, allowing for new points of subject to exist.

    A post I’ve been meaning to write but haven’t gotten around to yet, touches a bit more on the “levels” or “how much” of a preference you are. The MBTI instrument was made using forced-choice questions that imply a certain preference within the dichotomy. That means that there was one or the other. No in-between. The scoring of the instrument is what we really need to consider when you talk about how “high or low” someone’s preference is. Since individuals are human, and given the way that the instrument is made (which is not to measure amounts of preference): to say that I’m a “super extrovert” or that I’m a “slight judger” is incredibly incorrect. The numeric data reported on official MBTI results (and the percentages reported on non-official MBTI forms such as the humanmetric Jung test; shame on you by the way for taking the fake test) is not meant to provide an amount of preference. Rather, the numerical data that results from your submission reveals the confidence of the instrument in placing you in that specific dichotomy. So really, for you the consumer, those numbers shouldn’t mean a thing to you. The only implication those numbers might have, are that if you don’t feel or think that you identify with your reported type, you can use these numbers to guide yourself to the dichotomy the instrument struggled with the most (based on your responses). Since the instrument does not report your true type and only your reported type, you can do additional reading on the dichotomy most unclear and determine your true type yourself.

    The reason why the 16 types work so well, and why it does not place people in as much of a box as they think it does, is because the 16 types are meant to provide function overview, and not define or predict human behavior. The goal is to simply identify preference patterns in individuals. Ultimately, YOU choose your true type, not the instrument.

    This debriefing would be provided to each person who took the instrument, and would ultimately assist in removing those misconceptions about the instrument, if people decided to actually invest in taking an official instrument. MBTI type theory cannot explain those poorly constructed online tests you’ll find on OkCupid, HumanMetrics, etc because they are not using official type theory to compose those knock-off inventories.

    I realize it’s expensive. But if you want to complain that the theory doesn’t work, or that there’s a major flaw with it, I’ll need you to make sure you’ve done all you can to confirm that the stance being questioned is actually the stance of the instrument.

    Same with the two perceiving functions. And don't get me started on this supposed "J vs P" dichotomy. MBTI tests for both Siand Ni to see if you have J, which is ludicrous. It asks "do you like keeping things in order?" for Si and then "do you like to take action and plan ahead or leave your options open?" for Ni. The problem is that nobody has both functions; an ISFJ and an ENTJ have very little in common, as they have the opposite functions, even though they share a J. It's just a messed up system, and it's inconsistent with what Jung came up with and what the creators of the indicator based the very thing on.
    I have no idea what you’re trying to argue here. Questions meant for the J/P dichotomy, are meant specifically for that dichotomy and no others. While we use J/P to point to the type dynamics, it is dependent on every other function they share. Your question is confusing, and I’ll need some more clarification in order to answer it.

    You are right, however, that there is a fundamental problem with personality tests in general. It's something we superimpose onto human psychology, it's far from empirical. And there is confirmation bias, yes. It's pretty easy to read into the questions and see what they're asking for, and on some of the really bad tests, if you answer the questions "correctly" (giving reasonable and not outlandish responses) you get something like INTJ. That's from the writing of the test, and for the better tests, there's bias from the person taking it. It's hard to really answer correctly about oneself sometimes.
    Since this is an inventory, not a “test”, there is not right or wrong answer. Confirmation bias does not happen with the instrument alone, given that the instrument doesn’t attempt to get a specific result. Hopefully, if you’re taking the MBTI, then you realize it’s a personality inventory. There’s no secret to what the MBTI is measuring, and it isn’t expecting a specific result from anyone. Thus, confirmation bias is not a major issue. Larger issues for MBTI revolve around validity and testing, whether frequent exposure to the MBTI is skewing your result, and whether the individual taking the inventory is at a healthy state and self-reported accurately. All of which are issues of science in general, not just the instrument.


    I would recommend some official literature from places like CPP Inc., or CAPT (Center for Applications of Psychological Type). Specifically, you may reference the MBTI Manual: A Guide to the Development and Use of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator Third Edition to double check my comments. I think they should all be included in that manual.
    Donovan and JungyesMBTIno thanked this post.

  7. #7
    Unknown Personality

    @Silas the Idealist

    he meant confirmation bias on the part of the test taker not the instrument, as in "i have very little knowledge on what this is all actually about but i know how i want myself and/or others to perceive me--so if i think T or N=intelligence, and i know i'm intelligent the i must be T or N"--and variations of that, where everything they're saying makes complete "logical" sense but what they're drawing inferences from, the subject that the "logical" flow comes from, are wrong.

    and i've never understood the hate towards the J/P dicotomy. maybe i don't understand the real reasons of why it's so bad (other than being a misnomer, or a confusing label). it's just nomenclature saying that your most preferred J-function is extraverted and your most preferred P-function is the opposite attitude for a XXXJ-type and the reverse for a P-type. is it the initial confusion people are bound to be in, or is it the explanation behind what makes someone "J v.s. P" (as in you're bossier v.s. free-spirited) that drives people insane?
    @JungyesMBTIno

    on the bias of typologist: aside from having a bias towards certain functions, either for or against, it also seems like they could have... i wouldn't call it a bias really, more that since they do have a considerable amount of information they believe that it allows them to correctly type someone based on something said in passing--without really knowing them. EricB said that he was talking to a well known (?) typologist and she was convinced he was an ENFP instead of being a Ti-dom based on how he was interacting (i'm guessing). basically, it seems like people get too caught up in visible signs that they forego asking the person in question about the motivations/origins of those signs. it's almost like seeing the tip of an iceberg, and from there, seeing it's shape above the water one is now able to accurately guess the shape of the other 3/4's without doing in sort of test (when in reality you could find a way to match up almost any function with any visible sign, right?)... this is just something that i've noticed in people in general--not necessarily good or bad--almost a bias of knowledge, in that having knowledge directly equates with their ability to execute that knowledge. anyhow, just some thoughts.

  8. #8
    INFJ - The Protectors

    and i've never understood the hate towards the J/P dicotomy. maybe i don't understand the real reasons of why it's so bad (other than being a misnomer, or a confusing label). it's just nomenclature saying that your most preferred J-function is extraverted and your most preferred P-function is the opposite attitude for a XXXJ-type and the reverse for a P-type. is it the initial confusion people are bound to be in, or is it the explanation behind what makes someone "J v.s. P" (as in you're bossier v.s. free-spirited) that drives people insane?
    The issue arises because J/P is understood to mean closure-seeking/non-closure seeking. If it was just an adjectival reference of your extraverted functions that would be silly (why not introverted functions?) So J/P doesn't really point towards judging/perceiving as in your function preference, but rather points toward extraversion. This is where we begin to have issues because either the dominant function is the captain of the ship as Jung states (and type dynamics doesn't disagree with this), in which case it would be profoundly irresponsible to categorize someone based upon their auxiliary function in the case of an introvert, or it doesn't and the orientation of the extraverted functions is what's more important.

    The MBTI's type dynamics seems to infer that the orientation of the first extraverted function is more important than the dominant function, but still, in many cases, maintains the supremacy of the dominant function. So which is it?

    You see with MBTI if we have a theory that is rooted around behaviorism, as MBTI is, not psychology, then it's perfectly fine to suggest that Extraverted functions make more of a difference, because with behavior we are only interested in what people project outward (extravert). We can't measure behaviorally an introverted process, we can only infer it, which is what the MBTI instrument attempts to do. If the Instrument sorts 80% T or F and above 50% J, then the assumption is that the person has a preference for Extraverted Judgment (thinking or feeling) and thus will manifest outer behaviors that correlate.

    The issue here then becomes that now we've left Jung altogether and we have to ask, by what standard is behavior sufficiently judging or perceiving? What is the correlating outer behavior? This is why J/P can't just mean first extraverted function, it HAS to also be descriptive of some other component of a person's outer disposition, otherwise what would be the point? And the main criticism of the MBTI's J/P dichotomy is that the measures of what judging and perceiving are definitionally, are largely MBTI constructs themselves. The instrument sort of begs its own question. Colloquially to like things decided (generally by other people) is said to represent extraverted judgment. Now definitionally this is true (though its something of an overstatement), but practically at what point does a person 'like things decided' enough to be considered a J? And under what circumstances?

    I always contend that a ESFP or ENFP who favored their Te (assuming type dynamics) might very well score ESFJ or ENFJ, even on the actual instrument, which theoretically is ridiculous. This would be simply based on where the person fell in the J/P dichotomy not their functional preferences. At very least it might throw their J/P score and at worst might also throw their T/F score (especially since as @Silas the Idealist pointed out, Feeling is often confused with feelings and Thinking is often confused with intellect or thoughtfulness - or intuition in many cases). You end up with an Extraverted Sensation type scoring as an Extraverted Feeling or Thinking type and you hope they have enough self-knowledge (and a good enough practitioner) to be able to correctly find their best fit type.

    Obviously this becomes much more complex with Introverts who may be 'j"s but not actually have many 'J' tendencies (like INFJs). You see in Jung's theory an Introverted Feeling type, for instance, lives firmly in the world of judgment. Comparing and contrasting against an inner standard or inner ideal and then there is an unconscious counter reaction toward the external world through Extraverted Thinking. THe problem is, with the focus only being on Extraverted Judgment, we miss the fact that the INFP or ISFP is also a judgment type (it's profoundly silly to characterize an Introverted Feeling type by their Sensation or Intuition preference). Fi and Ti-dominants are definitively judgment types, and although consciously they often do not extravert that judgment, in reality the Inferior Te or Fe of INFP or INTP plays an unmistakeable role in the makeup of who they are whether or not the individual realizes it. To pay attention only to conscious extraversion (fine like said for behavioral purposes but incomplete for psychological purposes) denies the greater motivations that are taking place within the individual (namely what the person is seeking not to be).

    I personally do not have too much issue with MBTI, despite my criticism of it as a psychology, for what it attempts to do and what it is generally used for. It's probably a valuable tool in helping people manage workplaces more effectively or better deal with people, and a metric that I think takes more of the human equation into account than say a SLOAN test and actually attempts to create a construct of motivations. It's just that as a psychology it falls a little short because that isn't really its intention and I think the problem, especially on this site, is that many people confuse it as being a psychology and try to use to figure out all manner of things (based on crap online tests no less) like why they can't get a date, or anger management or how to deal with their parents, should they get a tattoo, how to deal with a breakup, money problems and everything else under the sun that no test or temperament description can really provide answers for (and certainly this isn't the intent of the MBTI Instrument). I think its the nebulous void between the Instrument and people trying to figure out their own lives is where the viral misinformation that @Silas the Idealist seems to be lamenting seem to come from. I would tend to think very few people on these types of sites have taken anything more than an online test or had people in 'Type Me' forums give them some (often misguided) advice. But they don't know any better and so it's just an endless loop and I think that is the real problem.
    Donovan, Zero11, MilkyWay132 and 4 others thanked this post.

  9. #9
    INTJ - The Scientists

    I agree with @LiquidLight 100%. On a more basic level, J/P is largely horoscopic and really the least horoscopic when attributed to behavior, which is not usually an accurate reflector of the actual psychology of a person. I mean, hello, you'd have to be psychic to be able to figure out whether or not a person truly possesses a "J" mentality or a "P" mentality, but the catch here is, I doubt such mentalities even exist - normal psyches are going to have aspects of both mentalities that may be totally unpredictable, due to unpredictable complexes in a person that can give rise to them, so here, one can see where major problems arise from this dichotomy. These aren't ever just there, controlling a person's mind (unless a person has a severe complex or sorts) - after all, if J/P really meant anything psychologically, wouldn't this mean that a person with either such "mentalities" would be extremely susceptible to being brainwashed to dysfunctional levels (in other words, hypnotized)? After all, if you always like one way or the other, then isn't the brain going to be lacking any sense of balance and control over the information it takes in and thinks about? Come to think of it, the F functions can largely explain preferences for "liking things open" or "liking things closed," since these are value judgements, but taking the F functions into consideration here, you still can't find any typological correlations between high and low F types and feeling this way, so why then is it considered valid to make presumptions that two classes of types exist who have either preference made by the F functions: J & P?? Since the JCFs don't show any correlation toward being any specific type or type category and feeling this way, then why do some labels called "J" and "P" decide that type correlations to these preferences should even be made? Why should IXXPs, who have dominant JUDGING functions, be "Ps" - how does that even make sense (LiquidLight already explained this in depth a lot, btw)?
    MilkyWay132 thanked this post.

  10. #10
    Unknown Personality

    ... so yeah... it's set up as a confusing place for people start because it's sort of contradicting, it borrows from something that came earlier and tries to build on it without using the fundamentals from the theory that it's borrowing from, and then takes it in a completely different direction in order to justify the reason for it's nomenclature (or really, that's backwards).

    i didn't really mean "what are the problems with it/how does it work?", more like... and i don't want to offend anyone with this i just don't really know how to explain myself otherwise (i'm not sure if i have offended anyone in someway with the earlier posts) but this is how i see it is:

    over at Bob's house he calls his car a "house" and his house a "car", and then he breaks it down even futher and relates certain "cars" (houses) back to being houses because of a slight difference that both share and vice versa with the "houses" (cars).

    but once that's overcome... i don't know, i guess it was more of a "what is about the above that irritates people so much?"--potential problems that people encounter that makes it even harder to overcome misinformation, so you're constantly encountering more of the same it's (the misinformation) more prevalent than relaible sources? or even that it's set up in a way to capture people on a superficial level because when it comes down to it that's what necessary in cultures that happen to be more commercialized? and because of this it gets "demonized" when really it's just another method of categorization that's using it's own means of becoming influential/popular?

    (and i am sorry if i offended anyone--that really wasn't my intention--and if i'm reading something that isn't there then just humor me in a subject/topic that i'm apparently more inept than i thought i was... that is dealing with people lol).


 

Quick Reply Quick Reply

Register Now

Please enter the name by which you would like to log-in and be known on this site.
If you do not want to register, fill this field only and the name will be used as user name for your post.

Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Please enter a valid email address for yourself. *Note* To protect our forum from spam, we require all users to verify their email. We will send you a confirmation email after you've created an account. Be sure to check your "spam" box if you don't receive it in your inbox.

Log-in

Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.


Similar Threads

  1. [Enneagram Type 6] Typical six problem: Now unsure of MBTI type
    By frenchie in forum Type 6 Forum - The Loyalist
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 02-02-2012, 01:26 PM
  2. MBTI Test
    By Kilgore Trout in forum Personality Test Resources
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 11-11-2011, 10:40 PM
  3. MBTI test vs. Cognitive Functions test
    By Rune in forum Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 08-25-2011, 10:37 PM
  4. The one problem with MBTI and a forum dedicated to it
    By Exayevie in forum Myers Briggs Forum
    Replies: 26
    Last Post: 06-12-2011, 08:14 AM
  5. What do you think of this test (MBTI)?
    By Halfjillhalfjack in forum Personality Test Resources
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 02-12-2010, 01:25 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may post new threads
  • You may post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:05 PM.
Information provided on the site is meant to complement and not replace any advice or information from a health professional.
© 2014 PersonalityCafe