Quote:
Originally Posted by JivinJeffJones
1. They are often so focused on the discussion and the subtext of the discussion that they completely miss the sub-subtext and the sub-sub-subtext of the discussion. Particular irl face-to-face conversation.
|
LOL (at me). Fair point. Although, I expect I don't even pick up on the subtext of discussions, let alone the sub-subtext or sub-sub-subtext. This is yet another social skill I wish I had, and it's one that it is hard to conciously learn because it's all about the unspoken/implied stuff. I do have a few colleagues at work who analyse out loud what's really happening or what someone really meant and that's been quite eye-opening. But sadly, that hasn't happened often enough for me to have learnt how to do it myself.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JivinJeffJones
2. They don't actually believe that the faults they are most often accused of (arrogance, coldness, lack of empathy) are genuine faults. In fact, they consider these to be strengths. Thus they typically don't consider their types to have any real weaknesses.
|
That may be true of some INT's but I personally don't fall into this broad generalization
. Well, I do have the arrogance, coldness and lack of empathy, but I don't consider them to be strengths.