u/Whole-Average-9876

So the ESTJ who dumped me several months ago over the phone after a multi-year relationship is back.

She says via text: "It was never my intention that our phone conversation (where she broke up with me) would be the last time we talked. But one day became months, and here we are. I wanted to explain "my process" in getting to that decision to you."

How charitable.

ESTJs seem to like to be definitive in one conversation leaving no wiggle room and then, somehow, always have some additional explanation that they couldn't seem to bring up during the first conversation.

My instinct is to tell her to pound sand and to live witrh the consequences of her actions. I have zero sense she wants to get back together and only wants to bring some kind of closure for herself since it is yet another ESTJ "process."

Anyone want to chime in as to whether there's any value in hearing her out?

I think I'll stick with the pound sand option unless I get some serious rationale to do otherwise.

I am an ISTP who is very flexible and adaptable. I have dated an ESTJ, who is not.

Sometimes, I have felt that my ESTJ partner when we were dating would make a decision and dig her heels in, often going against available evidence. It was as if she would flip a switch and that would be that.

The thing I can't square is that ESTJs examine a lot of evidence in making a decision. They are really good at synthesizing information. But after the decision is made, they seem to have trouble reassessing if new evidence becomes available.

Are my perceptions in any way correct? And, if so, how do you motivate an ESTJ to reconsider a decision when they seem to have stopped considering data?

As someone who just working on the rules for whether an auctioneer can remove an item from bidding in a non-reserve auction in Contracts, I am personally embarrassed for the NCBE, which seems to think that this drivel somehow relates to most practices of law and minimum competence.

I have taken and passed this exam before and gone on to practice law. Let me tell you from experience that what is on it had zero applicability to my practice and that this 'thinking like a lawyer' approach that they purport to test never meant a thing to me or my success as an attorney.

Thankfully, they are changing this abysmal test of byzantine trivia. Not one person on this forum should view the piece of crap the NCBE has developed and sprung on us as some test of competence as having merit.

When an ESTJ makes a big decision are they likely to reverse it if you give them additional data to the contrary and time to process? Or are ESTJs more likely to dig their heels in?

I am approaching this from a breakup perspective, where an ESTJ broke up with me partially because my work travel made it feel like long distance. I get it. Now, since breaking up, my work circumstances have changed and the problems she cited wouldn't be there any longer.

So I wonder if (a) it is worth pursuing the ESTJ who broke up with me with evidence of the changed circumstances or (b) it is not worth it since ESTJs tend to be a little rigid when it comes to well-considered decisions. I really do want her back.

I took a bar exam years ago and passed it in MA. I have been licensed for years, but I haven't practiced.

So I decided I want to pursue a law job in OH for family reason which requires local licensure to start practicing. That means I have to take the whole thing again this summer since I don't qualify for practice to waive in.

This exam seems to me a lot tougher than it was 10+ years ago before Civ Pro was an MBE subject. As a former passer, I can say I seriously doubt I can pass the bar exam the way it is today.

Am I just rusty? Or is this MBE a lot harder than it was back in the day?

I feel like abandoning a potential move and finding some law job in MA where I don't have to toil through ghastly Civ Pro. Other than the loss of money for registering, has anyone ever paid to take the exam and just not taken it?