#genuinely not asking for much here. a reblog on an informative post takes u 1 second out of your entire day | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

inkxlenses · 6 years

Note

Regarding post/172299066623/istj-hedonist-samlick23-istj-hedonist-when I don't get why people would compare mbti with astrology and shit. It's as flawed as any other personality theories but it's still a system that works. Astrology doesn't even deserve to be called a personality theory 😩 And just like u said it's never about 'personality' anyway?? That test clusters people yet only considers people's behaviors as if nobody doesn;t have shit like that

Okay. These are among the most exciting asks that I have received so far. I would like for this blog to be as drama-free™ as much as possible because it’s just my virtual escape™. I have also always expressed that I don’t consider this blog as solely an aesthetic™ and inspiration blog. In fact, I was very humbled to be encouraged by my friends and followers to continue including topics that interest me in this blog. But even though this is my blog, I know that I have the responsibility to check what I post here to ensure that nothing would negatively affect someone else’s mental and emotional health (especially as I have observed that most of my followers are minors). So I would just keep my response under the line—and because it’s just really, really, long. HAHA. Also, just for future reference, if you oh-so-hate MBTI [or whatever piece of knowledge I feature here/ if you’re only interested with the aesthetic™ content], you could blacklist my *mbti*, *text* and *photo* tags.

Coincidentally, I would be having a mini-hiatus, and this would be my only response regarding this topic because I’m not really fond of tumblr drama™. I would be temporarily disabling anonymous asks during my break, so if you have anything you would like to discuss with me, kindly contact me via private messaging (but please be patient with my response. I promise I would get back to you as soon as I become online). My only request is that you should first read what I have to say before reacting to anything, because I might have already discussed what you are trying to ask. No worries, I wouldn’t judge nor hate you for your opinions. I actually welcome and enjoy healthy debates (as it is part of my real-life job lmao). And I’m not a fragile snowflake™ so you could really talk to me about anything, I wouldn’t mind :P

Firstly and most importantly, I want to apologize to anyone who had been offended or had felt attacked on my rant. I was not describing a particular person in the *inner dialogue*, and it’s not my intention to offend anyone. So if anyone had felt this way, again, my apologies.

So what is this post about?

I had recently reblogged an MBTI post where I was referring to the function theory—not the common MBTI stereotypes and misconceptions circulating over the internet. And just like what I had mentioned over and over again [and on my tags on that particular MBTI post], online MBTI tests are not accurate and should not be taken seriously. It’s disappointing how 16personalities have been profiting from this by selling misinformation to people. This was OP’s topic, in which I had just agreed with their views and had personally shared my opinions as well. Yet it seems to be that there had been some misunderstanding regarding said topic. Literally OP’s argument—and the same criticisms we continuously read regarding MBTI *points to some of the anons above*—are exactly what we are critiquing as well, because these are common misconceptions and stereotypes which are not related to the theory anyway. So I don’t really understand the intense reaction regarding our opinions on the letter dichotomy and online MBTI tests, because we actually disapprove of the same things as well. Weird -_-

I never mentioned nor even vaguely expressed that MBTI should be the zenith™, the absolute “ Law™ ”, nor do I believe that it should monopolize all the ideas in personality theories. That’s just.. funny. We wouldn’t mind if the function theory is not your thing; you can leave it just like that. Simple. Just like how everyone else has their own beliefs and interests that others simply don’t agree with as well. Nobody would forcefully entice you to MBTI, especially if you had not expressed your interest and curiosity for it. It’s just a matter of respecting others’ POVs and interests.

I could easily brush this off because I truly believe that people are entitled to their opinions, and I respect that. More importantly, I had studied typology for several years now that I’m already quite confident of my knowledge about it. Thus, I won’t easily be shaken by criticisms about the theory—which I’m very much aware of anyway. Sadly, it’s seems to be an automatic impulse in tumblr to hate, rather than communicate. My friends had told me of someone publicly posting something defamatory with regards to the MBTI post that I reblogged. I don’t know what that particular blog had been aiming for, but clearly their hateful intent had failed miserably. I didn’t expect the support of my friends, more so, the consideration of people from the MBTI community. I really want to thank everyone who had supported and understood me even if I wasn’t online during that time. My friends are so protective of me, and the responses of people from the MBTI community had been so funny and adorable I’m SO flattered. Watch as my face turns vermillion xD

With that said, I felt like I should at least explain my part and answer the anons who aren’t in favour of MBTI. I just want to stress that I don’t plan to forcefully persuade you to believe MBTI. My only intent is so that you could look into my perspective as I share my knowledge and understanding after many years of studying the theory, in contrast to the misconceptions and stereotypes about it, which I believe is what these anons were referring to. I emphasize that if MBTI is not your *thing*, then you could simply ignore it. This topic is very important to me because it had helped with my well-being, introspection, relationship with others, career, and general outlook in life. So I just want to clarify some points with regards to the asks above^ because I believe some misunderstandings had occurred. So thank you very much @hueristix, @clumsynix, @ckatharcis, @tzeentchs-secretary and anons for your messages. I am really so thrilled to discuss my views with you.

The cognitive function theory—more commonly known and referred to as MBTI [especially here]—explores the human cognition, NOT outward behaviours and personal preferences. Contrary to what the first anon had said, I believe that we cannot compare the theory with astrology because the former never categorizes how humans act the way they act, more so, it never simply propose their “ personality traits ”. The theory recognizes that every person has their own free will, inherent capabilities, traits, emotions, and preferences (etc. I could go on and on, I swear), and would be constantly affected by personal struggles, life circumstances and other external factors through out their life.. and well, basically just like what Jeanne (ckatharcis) had referred to, it acknowledges that humans cannot be “ clustered ” simply through their behaviours, personal preferences, traits, etc. because again, the theory is NOT about that. Thought process is the essential and primordial reason why outward behaviours, personal preferences, emotions, etc. are easily observable in a person, and NOT the other way around. Thus, it’s also the reason why your type cannot change contrary to common misconceptions, and essentially the reason why tests are not reliable. [Link 1, Link 2—I highly recommend this post.]

I think the first anon is not familiar with the function theory, but, instead, with the letter dichotomies (i.e. I vs. E, etc.) which is the general principle on the said 16personalities site [and other online MBTI tests]. This was exactly what OP had criticized and what I had discussed on my *inner dialogue*. Again, I do not blame the first anon or anybody else who are familiar with this concept because misconceptions and stereotypes are easier to be accessed, contrary to the theory itself which would definitely require time and in-depth research to get acquainted with. I understand that not everyone would be interested to invest time and effort on something that they would just like to casually learn. And it’s okay.

However, I would like to clarify that I [and I truly believe that OP as well] have no intention to humiliate, condemn, mock or ostracize people who had only been familiar with MBTI stereotypes (the letter dichotomy) and/or had only taken online MBTI tests, because we understand that [again], sadly, those misconceptions are disappointingly perpetuating in the internet and even on some books. OP had clearly stated that their only issue was how people who aren’t really familiar with the function theory should refrain from initiating any MBTI-related discussion. Even if I personally agree with OP, their premise was repeatedly contradicted by others who were justifying the validity of 16personalities. However, I believe that asking questions and expressing genuine interest to learn more is different from spreading misinformation to others. As long as you do your own research first, the MBTI community here is actually very welcoming of people who would like to learn more of the theory. The MBTI community here also encourages critical thinking, exchanges of different ideas, and endless rational debates—which is exciting, right?

I think OP had been very honest with their opinion (though may had been perceived as *offensive* and rude by some) and I truly concur with their points. I’ve said in my *inner dialogue* how I believe that spreading wrong information is destructive. It is damaging to other people who have only been starting to learn the theory, to take advice and information, or be mentored by people who had been misinformed as well. Why? Because above all else, the theory is used for self-evaluation and understanding of one’s strengths and weaknesses (with regards to their cognitive process), to provide clear direction on how to advance towards their personal growth and development. For that reason, if one is mistyped, and they generally believe that their thought process works this *particular* way and that they have *certain* strengths and/or weaknesses, then they are not only failing to seize the opportunity to recognize their *actual* strengths and weaknesses through fully understanding how their cognition works, but they could also potentially damage their mental health and well-being because that is not how their thought process operates. It worsens when spreading misinformation like that is increasing exponentially.

We would never dismiss nor humiliate anyone who have only been starting to familiarize themselves with the theory, because we had been beginners as well. Mate, my blog is not an MBTI blog, but I have two mutuals who had been so humble to admit that they had fell for that abomination-of-a-test, and had asked me about the basics and other resources to study the theory. I never ridiculed them; contrary, I was so proud of their humility to admit that they had been misinformed, and of their willingness to learn. There is no shame in that. I really admire people who admit their mistakes or ignorance because I know that people who think this way are really the ones who have the desire to learn and improve, and have insatiable thirst to absorb more knowledge.

I’ve been studying the function theory for about 3 or 4 years now, but I still consider myself to be a newbie at this. Even if I’m already quite confident of my knowledge about it, I know that I still have a lot more to learn [and that’s exciting]. But OP and other legit MBTI blogs here have been studying this theory for many years now, and they are considered as reliable resource persons for other MBTI enthusiasts as well [at least in tumblr]. Which is why I think [just my opinion], they could easily retaliate on insults or misinformation thrown at them by people who don’t even make an effort to read just the basics and/or have poor acumen to just believe everything they read on the internet, yet have all the liberty in the world to whine and be [passive-aggressively] defensive to rationalize their misconceptions of the theory. These legit MBTI blogs know what they’re talking about, and I think you could be the judge as to how they could react to insults thrown at them by people who don’t even understand the topic itself. I’ll just quote hueristix here, “ laziness should not be an excuse to ignorance ”. As I’ve said before: be receptive to different ideas, yet skeptical enough to question everything before accepting any piece of information as real™. And yes, that includes everything I say. After all, I’m just responding to opinions as well and we’re all just stating our subjective views here. We wouldn’t mind if the function theory is not your thing; you can leave it just like that. Simple. Nobody would forcefully entice you to MBTI, especially if you had not expressed your interest and curiosity for it. It’s just a matter of respecting others’ POVs and interests.

Yes, I am passionate about this theory and I know it is fine. But never had I mentioned nor even vaguely expressed that MBTI should be the zenith™, the absolute “ Law™ ”, nor do I believe that it should monopolize all the ideas in personality theories. I don’t know if what the first anon actually meant was: since I’m so passionate of this theory, then MBTI must be My Favourite™ personality theory, thus, I propose that it should be held true above all else.. but uhm I just want to clarify that MBTI is not My Favourite™ (I even prefer Enneagram over it, sorry haha). I am aware that it’s not the most recognized personality theory in the field of Psychology. And I had said it before, and I’ll say it again: just like any other typological theories, I know that MBTI has its merits and flaws. Though there is qualitative neuroscientific research intended to point evidence to the existence of cognitive functions in the human mind, MBTI is still not 100% considered to be scientific by some [because according to them there is no physical manifestation of cognitive functions. Uhm. I’d just leave it like that.. For now]. No personality theory is infallible. And again, as I had said in verbatim on my *inner dialogue*: “ The human mind is so complex. And to propose that a person’s *personality* could easily be identified through a 10-minute test is just absurdly.. laughable to me [not to mention that that test is focused more on NATURAL HUMAN behaviours and not cognition—which is what the theory is about anyway xxxx xxxx xxxx] like wtf so amazeballs that they could identify my *personality* with such an overly-random question that any other person could have strong preference over the other. ”. So I don’t really understand what the first anon’s critic was, because what they had pointed out was exactly what OP, I, and basically all the people who had studied this theory are continually expressing. Based on my tags alone, we’re actually on the same team™ here.

How? (1) I had said earlier that the theory does not limit human free will. It understands that people have innate imprints in them that manifest on how they act, talk, feel, etc. In the same way, it also understands how people and their preferences are constantly developing and changing [and yes as the first anon said, “ evolving ”], because humans will continue to encounter and be exposed to several personal afflictions, relationship struggles, disappointments, successes, gratifications, religious beliefs, cultural conformity, and other life-altering situations and external factors throughout their lifetime that will heavily affect their behavioural makeup and adaptability to their external environment. Everyone—whatever their type may be—can behave any way they like depending on the situations and circumstances that they are dealing with, because there are many factors that affect and influence how people behave, not only a person’s type. BUT their cognitive functions have been there all along, constantly operating, even if their *functional stack* could fluctuate on their healthy and/or unhealthy states depending on how they had adjusted and adapted to these circumstances [uhm more advanced topic of the theory—see the beauty of this theory? It’s never obsolete. Contrary to misconceptions, the theory recognizes the erratic human nature. It pains me how people could outright dismiss and insult the theory without studying it first, because they fail to realize its usefulness in a person’s life, more than what that shite site says *ho hum*]. (2) I agree with most of the principles of the function theory because it doesn’t “ categorize everyone into 16 cutout personality types ”, nor does it have a manual that says “ ‘here are a few common personality traits, be free’ aspect ”. MBTI stereotypes and ideas from the 16personalities assert that; the function theory does not. (3) [uhm this is getting so repetitive now] The theory is not about what our external behaviours are, nor does it dictate what our *personalities* are. Rather, on the simplest terms, it analyzes how we think. It analyzes how we make decisions, through our cognitive process, when we encounter a particular situation.

Hopefully, my explanation would be enough to clear up some misunderstandings from the aforesaid post. However, I believe that this explanation alone would not suffice for anyone who are still confused with the theory and/or for those who are interested to learn more. Hence, the next section is really just for reference and further clarification, just in case there are still some questions that others are still confused about. That said, I know that I would not be able to articulate these ideas the way this particular blog do [and I don’t want to sound like a bot if I would just be reciting their ideas exactly as they had expressed it], so I’d just be quoting one of the most reliable MBTI blogs here and a personal favourite of mine (mbti-notes), to give insight on some issues that had been critiqued on that post. These are really interesting and thought-provoking ideas so I hope you could take time to read them. Also, I highly-recommend their blog!

[With regards to common MBTI stereotypes and misconceptions]:

Anonymous: Stereotypes give people wrong assumptions about what types are. They don’t define what your personality or your actions are going to be like. They don’t even define what thoughts you have. It’s simply the pattern and the functions you use to come to conclusions. I’m an ENTP (22) and my best friend is an ENFP (23). Yet people would probably switch our two types because I tend to be very gentle and kind around others while she appears more tough and openly says what she thinks.

I appreciate your point. Part of the reason for the stereotyping problem is that the information online and even in books is dominated by two main schools of thought that focus very heavily on behavior at the expense of cognition (Myers-Briggs and Keirsey Temperaments), so a lot of people do not realize that there are other (better) interpretations available. My first exposure to typology was through Keirsey and, although I thought it was interesting at the time, I wasn’t able to see the full potential of the system because everything was masked behind simplistic labels (stereotypes) that didn’t seem to connect with real life to the degree that I thought was necessary to be a truly viable theory of personality. I think a lot of people get interested in MBTI because of its practical applicability in situations like personal relationships or group/work environments and MBTI is good for learning some general rules of thumb that can help you improve the ways in which you deal with different kinds of people. However, general rules of thumb very easily morph into stereotyping and pigeonholing when people do not understand the finer details of the theory and then apply the ideas and principles too carelessly. The human mind is prone to lazy overgeneralizing or drawing invalid conclusions as it is and the lack of depth in the information available unfortunately encourages that laziness. (Source)

[With regards to MBTI’s *accuracy*]:

Anonymous: Do you think that other personality identification types such as Alignment and Global 5/SLOAN are more, less, or just as accurate as MBTI can be?

“Accuracy” is not really the right question. Every theory of personality that is developed by academics is put together very deliberately to serve a particular purpose, and it must be used as intended in order to preserve validity. Unfortunately, when the ideas trickle down into mainstream consciousness, the original purpose of the theory often gets lost in translation, with the general public using it more like a horoscope or fortune cookie and then complaining about the inaccuracies. Every kind of theory has its advantages and disadvantages. For instance, the Five Factor model is a trait theory, which has the advantage of being easily quantifiable and very reliable for statistical analysis. However, there is no actual theoretical underpinning for it because the traits are derived from factor or data analysis, which offers no explanation as to why traits exist, how they arise, why there are only five, and so on. Trait theories are limited in what they are able to explain about human behavior but they remain very useful for doing replicable research studies. There is of course some overlap of concepts between trait theories and type category theories like MBTI.

Cognitive function theory is a qualitative and holistic model of personality that sprawls into other related areas of psychology. Qualitative research excels at theoretical analysis and depth of detailed explanations and is less conducive to statistical analysis/prediction. Jung developed psychological types as a part of the psychoanalytic tradition, however, that tradition fell out of favor in the US to make way for more popular quantitative research methods, though it continued to expand in certain European circles. Myers & Briggs and David Keirsey brought it back to life in a more digestible form but it was never meant to be distilled to such an extreme degree; MBTI essentially turned into a corporate money making tool and Keirsey rejected the notion of cognitive functions in favor of behavioral descriptors. Many of the criticisms that are leveled at MBTI are legitimate but not actually applicable to cognitive function theory because of not seeing the full extent of it and how it is embedded firmly within the long history of psychoanalytic theory, a school of thought which has done more than any other to reveal the qualities of the unconscious mind. Now that there is emerging neuroscientific research that confirms some of these old ideas about the unconscious, there is some resurgence in their popularity within research circles. (Source)

[With regards to MBTI’s basics, development and “scientific” basis]:

Anonymous: The J/P dichotomy is particularly interesting because, say, you have already three letters I N F, the last letter decides not only your dominant and auxiliary functions, it flips the stack; INFP (Fi-Ne-Si-Te) vs. INFJ (Ni-Fe-Ti-Se), and then we read that according to descriptions those types are very different. But then we also have a lot of people who can’t really decide if they’re INFJ or INFP. It’s all very strange to me.

It’s strange to you because (judging by the earlier question) you haven’t understood what the J/P distinction really means and you haven’t properly distinguished cognition and behavior. Two different cognitive functions can manifest similar looking behaviors on the surface (as I have explained numerous times in the guides, please read them carefully). E.g. Any introvert can be reflective but the reasons WHY a particular individual is reflective, the motive and explanation behind it, differs according to the cognitive functions involved (Fi vs Ni). If you don’t know the details of their inner cognitive processes, you cannot see the differences because, just looking from the outside, all you see is that they are both reflective in demeanor. xxxx xxxx xxxx MBTI type descriptions are purposely simplistic because newbies don’t know the theory and therefore must identify themselves through simple behavioral descriptors. MB designed their system in part to sidestep the complicated process of learning function theory so that more people could access it, a noble intention, therefore simple type descriptions do not include all the info you need to type accurately because they do not address variations within type and cognitive function specifics. In other words, problems with typing stem from lack of knowledge of the theory, usually because of not going any deeper than the simplified descriptions/tests. The test was meant to be administered and interpreted by an expert, which means that people run into all kinds of problems when they try to self-type with limited to no knowledge of type theory.

[continuation of the ask] Is there any real scientific proof that Jungian cognitive functions exist? Dario Nardi’s attempts are certainly interesting, but it’s a common knowledge that EEG method is far from being reliable. Also, on one of his AMA discussions on reddit he presented instances when he was testing midlife INFJ adults who he couldn’t differentiate from of ISTPs, which he attributed to the use the second most common pattern (Ti-Se for INFJs). So, which model is true, or is this a combination of dichotomies and functional stack model? Can you shed some light on those issues and inconsistencies? Additionally, I’d really like your opinion on Reynierse’s articles (“Preference Multidimensionality and the Fallacy of Type Dynamics”, etc.). Thank you. The question of “science” has already been beaten to death over and over again so I’ve grown impatient with this can of worms. I don’t have much to say about Nardi, he’s pursuing his ideas and more power to him, but his work is not particularly interesting to me because it is getting away from other aspects of type theory that I am more interested in. xxxx xxxx xxxxx Some people latch onto him because they desperately want some kind of “scientific proof” of the functions. Some people dabble in typology and keep demanding “scientific proof” but don’t understand the differences between quantitative and qualitative research. There are different kinds of theories, with different kinds of objectives, with different standards of measurement, with different methods of application - the scientific method is only one valid research framework and it should not be the measure of all things. Traditionally, science often includes the concept of falsifiability but you can’t falsify that which is not within the realm of empirical fact, e.g., you can’t falsify human valuations or subjective meaning/experience, so are these things not “real”? Do you understand the difference between facts and values? Do you believe that only scientific measurements can imbue ideas with value? Do you believe that materialistic explanations of human psychology are the be-all and end-all? Not everything about human experience can be reduced to neurons and electrons. If you think it can, then feel free to dismiss type theory as crap because it’s not going to fit well with your assumptive worldview. Also, abstract and concrete knowledge are different and should be treated differently. No idea is “real” because “real” implies concrete, and ideas are abstract. One can easily claim that any idea is not “real” depending on how you want to set your standards of measurement. xxxx xxxx xxxx Similarly, people claim that “types” or “functions” are not real even when they themselves: behave as type theory describes, suffer the problems that type theory describes, feel attracted to the relationships that type theory describes, follow the developmental path that type theory describes.  

Before you ask for “scientific proof”, you should first define exactly what standards of proof would satisfy you and make you believe that cognitive functions are “real”. It is quite often the case that people who like to harp about scientific “proof” don’t even understand what they’re asking for or to what end, they demand proof but no matter what proof is offered, they keep moving the goalposts because they are actually more interested in criticizing than understanding (see climate change deniers as the perfect example). Just so you know, many mbti bloggers are tired of dealing with such people, we’ve already gone through all these arguments a million times. I’m not saying you’re one of these people but beware that you’re stepping into a complex discussion and don’t seem sufficiently prepared. Instead of making people explain or educate you, state your exact criteria of scientific proof and I’ll happily tell you if type theory passes. Type theory is a big theory and some people find it hard to understand even the basic type concepts which barely scratch the surface because the theory goes far beyond simple typing. It is an incomplete and fragmented theory, with many people working on it for different reasons in different directions. Many people have found elements of type theory very useful and accurate in their lived experiences, even using it to permanently solve long running psychological issues, even using it to deftly cure relationship problems. There is piecemeal neuroscience evidence which does not directly relate to type theory but nonetheless corroborates it. I wouldn’t know if any of this is enough “proof” because you haven’t specified exactly what proof you’re demanding. If the book falling on your head doesn’t prove gravity is “real”, then I suppose all the people whose thought processes match the principles of type dynamics don’t count as real proof either. The results say a lot. I run a popular typology blog and have dealt with thousands of people, so I at least don’t suffer from sample-size-1. Type dynamics describes very specific problems and offers workable solutions, and I’ve witnessed many different kinds of people from different backgrounds, cultures, walks of life apply these ideas with great success. Is this “empirical evidence”? I’ve had the most hardened scientifically-minded strangers think I’m a magical wizard when I can knit together their life story and reveal their innermost insecurities based only on four letters, yet all I’m doing is applying and extrapolating from the theoretical ideas as I understand them, nothing more.  

All I will say about arguments against type dynamics is that they usually can’t see the forest because they’re stuck in the trees: they get wrapped up in granular details and superficial inconsistencies; they don’t see the historical big picture of how every model evolves from and contains the same set of ideas; they don’t see how some disagreements between models are merely semantic and actually address the same underlying concept; they don’t fully grasp the principles of type dynamics and then produce strawman criticisms (some of the points in those articles actually support, add to, or help clarify type dynamics rather than debunk it); they perceive the explanatory flexibility of type dynamics as a flaw, not a strength; they probably prefer trait theories because they are easily quantifiable (and then completely miss the point of type dynamics); they don’t see how the ideas could potentially fit with mathematical dynamics and energy flow. Any theory worth its salt should remain open to criticism, development, and further clarification but, in order to critique a theory successfully, you must first understand it, and I don’t think the author of those articles has understood type dynamics well enough. (Source)

Again, I apologize to anyone who had been offended of what I said in my tags. And thank you very much for taking the time to read this post! :)

P.S. I have no intention to answer that anon who made a sexist comment about M & B. I have already discussed what my points are regarding MBTI Tests™, so I wouldn’t really judge them or anyone else for having fun with taking multiple personality tests. But since I think this anon have zero knowledge of the theory anyway, I have to clarify that it wasn’t created by M & B [who, by the way, even if they had not been psychologists by profession, had made extensive research of the theory—probably more than you would ever do, anon. Then again, I don’t really adhere to M & B’s approach], but was devised by one of the best minds psychology has ever known. FYI that person was a man—if anon would feel more validated™ to know that their own sex is the perfect authority for objective™ measurement of intelligence or competence *cough* it actually isn’t *cough*. Also, I really am so tired already to rebut something that is completely illogical, it’s even barely understandable. *ho hum* I’m very open to discuss opinions that differ from mine, but if you are trying to establish your argument through a sexist comment, then don’t expect that I would answer you with respect.

#asks #anonymous #answered #tagging this as:#negativity #just to be safe #ckatharcis #clumsynix #hueristix #tzeentchs-secretary #please ignore any typos and grammatical errors #i'm too tired to proofread this haha

100 notes · View notes