INXJ closed-minded certitude

[InvisibleJim]

Ok, but where is the "I am INTJ, closed minded, but I quite proud of it actually" option ?

+1

Where's the 'Yes, by your definition of 'I disagree with you thus I am closed minded' I am closed minded'.

 

[JocktheMotie]

+1

Where's the 'Yes, by your definition of 'I disagree with you thus I am closed minded' I am closed minded'.

Pretty much this. For every type, there's a functional explanation for why/how their "closed-mindedness" is going to manifest, as perceived by an outside observer. For INTJs, they're going to trust in the truth of their inner vision and convictions, because, well, it's served them well their entire life and probably has never led them astray. So of course they're going to seem stubborn from someone who doesn't understand that inner vision and typically can't even demonstrate lucidly why it could perhaps be wrong.

 

[uumlau]

Everyone is "close-minded" if you don't know how to explain things to them in their terms. One of the more helpful aspects of MBTI is gaining a clue as to how to express one's own ideas such that another type can easily understand what one is saying.

Each of the introverted functions (Ni, Si, Fi, and Ti) are stubborn in different ways, and this stubbornness appears whether the function is dominant or auxiliary (and sometimes even tertiary or inferior). Ni is applying a unique subjective perspective that is unlikely to have been observed/adopted by anyone else, even other Ni-doms. You have to learn the perspective and apply it in order to convince an INTJ to change his mind. I'm less familiar with Si, but it's a similar deal: there is some personal, subjective concrete experience(s) that lead inexorably to a particular conclusion, and you need to learn what these are to lead one to other ideas. Fi and Ti are trickier, in that they essentially resist "being told what to do," where "do" equals "think" for Ti, and "feel" for Fi. Both Fi and Ti need to figure things out on their own, and you can't just tell them differently.

The extroverted functions provide gateways to convincing the introverted functions. Thus one familiar with Te modes of communication will find convincing any XXTJ (Si or Ni) of the facts of the matter by presenting Te-style empirical evidence. Similarly Fe will apply to convincing XXFJs, and Se or Ne will provide opportunities to convince Fi/Ti.

The stubbornness becomes most evident when one applies reasoning by way of a function that doesn't "match up". An INTJ trying to convince an INTP will be expressing Te-style evidence in a direct way, which the INTP will instinctively reject as being told what to think. In reverse, an xNTP will tend to Ne-express ideas in a (to the INTJ) random, roundabout way which doesn't emphasize the relationships between ideas that an INTJ expects, thus a typical INTJ response might be "Yes, that's all true, but it doesn't prove me wrong."

 

[Coriolis]

The stubbornness becomes most evident when one applies reasoning by way of a function that doesn't "match up". An INTJ trying to convince an INTP will be expressing Te-style evidence in a direct way, which the INTP will instinctively reject as being told what to think. In reverse, an xNTP will tend to Ne-express ideas in a (to the INTJ) random, roundabout way which doesn't emphasize the relationships between ideas that an INTJ expects, thus a typical INTJ response might be "Yes, that's all true, but it doesn't prove me wrong."

OK - so how do INTJ and INTP get over this so they can have a productive discussion? Their functions all have opposite attitudes, so it is near impossible to find one in common, or to do very well speaking the "other language".

 

[Nicodemus]

OK - so how do INTJ and INTP get over this so they can have a productive discussion?

They cannot. But whoever gets to the guns first, wins.

 

[uumlau]

OK - so how do INTJ and INTP get over this so they can have a productive discussion? Their functions all have opposite attitudes, so it is near impossible to find one in common, or to do very well speaking the "other language".

Actually, Ni/Te and Ne/Ti can "emulate" each other pretty well, with practice. If I need to confer with with an xNTP about something, I respect their definitions and labels and work within that framework. It also helps that both types are interested in the facts, so there is, eventually, an objective truth upon which we agree. The difference is that my path to that truth and the INTP path to that truth are very much at odds.

 

[esidebill]

Who are you calling stubborn? Hpmh.

My dad is an INTJ... if there is a closed minded person I have met, it is him. So therefore, by association, you're all impossible.

 

[Thalassa]

Love you guys!

 

[Chiharu]

I am not an INxJ and I think it's at least a slight problem for all INxJs.
Why isn't this an option?

 

[Usehername]

It's 2012. We have new members who need to contribute to this productive discussion with their new thoughts.

 

[MacGuffin]

It's 2012. We have new members who need to contribute to this productive discussion with their new thoughts.

Maybe they already made up their minds, INXJ style.

 

[garbage]

It's 2012. We have new members who need to contribute to this productive discussion with their new thoughts.

INxJs are known to be strategists. I believe that this is just an INxJ strategy to make us believe that INxJs will welcome new members' new thoughts, but that, in reality, those new thoughts will not actually be considered because they are closed-minded and already certain of their own thoughts.

And nobody will ever convince me otherwise.

Let's see. Some other bullshit type-based ideas, off the top of my head..

• People who exercise extraverted judgment are, by necessity, closed-minded
• Ni is a perceiving function; INxJs lead with it and therefore are open-minded
• INFJs are more open-minded than INTJs because Fe tends to listen to other people
• Kiersey claims that INTJs are open-minded
• Naranjo links INxJ with Enneagram Type 7, which is not exactly known for its closed-mindedness

Other ideas...

• Unadulterated, unchecked, pure, raw open-mindedness is not a good thing
• The first few pages of this thread are hilarious. We were so young and naive back in 2007.
• Man, some people sure are absolutely certain about their perceptions of all members of particular types

There. There are some ideas that are bound to raise new discussion on this important issue.

 

[UniqueMixture]

It's not a problem as long as you act on it and it comes from a place of love

 

[Mia.]

I have a similar experience with an INTJ friend of mine. Whenever you point out a flaw in his argument he retorts, "That's what I'm saying!" He says that even if it's obviously the exact opposite of what he's been saying.

It's absurdly cute. And so much fun to just play along with.

This thread seems mostly aimed at INTJs (I voted that way too), because I have not seen this behavior from INFJs. Or perhaps they hide it better.

INFJs do it as well. I have two close to me, and while more diplomatic, they are just as sure of their rightness. INFJs are wonderful conversationalists. But unlike an INTJ, who will often debate an issue and listen to reason, even if being a complete yet adorable ass during the process, an INFJ is more likely to be threatened by the idea of taking apart their assertions rationally and get offended and then you have an Fe hissy fit on your hands.

So why is it so difficult for INXJs to truly acknowledge our CC (I refer, of course, only to those of us who suffer from it )? I believe the cause of our denial is actually pretty simple. What is the core competency of an INXJ that we trade in the social marketplace? What is the unique value that we bring to our relationships with other people? Even if well-rounded (and hence possessing to some degree the hallmark qualities of other types), what is likely to make up the foundation for our identity is our insightfulness. No wonder we are scared when we perceive it is threatened. (And no wonder we are uncomfortable around ESXPs, the types who are the least likely to appreciate it.)

This. INXJs are savory sweetmeats of insight. They are wonderful bastions of laser-intense focus and impeccability. They truly do have a unique contribution in this respect. This is why they should always keep an Ne user close so they have someone who can appreciate and laud the contributions of Ni while simultaneously reminding the Ni when appropriate that it’s a possibility….just maybe...potentially.... perhaps…. they don’t always have it perfectly.

 

[Rail Tracer]

Right until proven wrong?

I don't think most people will start talking with the assumption that their ideas are wrong in the first place, no?

Else you've defeated yourself before the conversation has even started.

 

[Cellmold]

Twice now I have posted the following regarding what I find is the most common, vexing and self-destructive problem area for INTJs (and possibly INFJs?), namely closed-minded certitude:



The single follow-up I have gotten is from an INTJ who wrote:





So I figure it's time for a poll. I'm making it multiple so that non-INXJs can vote on their experience with both types.

Im not sure, personally I think a lot of people read descriptions online then decide that this type is them, ignore cognitive functions and then play up the stereotype of their supposed type to the max.

 

[Coriolis]

Im not sure, personally I think a lot of people read descriptions online then decide that this type is them, ignore cognitive functions and then play up the stereotype of their supposed type to the max.

What do you mean by "ignore cognitive functions", and what would motivate someone to play up their type stereotype? I hear that assertion from time to time, and have always wondered what is behind it.

 

[AphroditeGoneAwry]

No.


I am always open to a better way........

if you can prove it's Truer.

 

[Cellmold]

What do you mean by "ignore cognitive functions", and what would motivate someone to play up their type stereotype? I hear that assertion from time to time, and have always wondered what is behind it.

Well franky the only observable evidence is....just that: observable and in fairness it depends upon who is viewing it. I'm afraid I was being far too certain in my pronouncement.

But an example for me would be, (and this isnt directed at you or anyone here), someone does some useless online test, gets INTJ, read's a misleading title like 'mastermind' and goes "Oh that must be me" without any real understanding of what is behind the description and theory.

Ive seen this on other forums where someone feels obligated to be as offensive as possible because; "I am a thinker". When in reality the reason some thinkers, especially Te ones, come off as offensive to feelers is that a thinker often views things from an impersonal, logical angle and when they appear to be criticising something, they are often just analyzing it without bias, they are looking at flaws but usually not for the use of personal insults. This is often perceived by some feeling types as criticism which leads into some generalised opinions that thinking types take pleasure in casual cruelty.

This then leads into some posts ive seen before I joined here, on other forums, where people were going out of their way to be insultive or hyper-critical without any benefit to those they were criticising, but using the fact that they had a T in their letter as the excuse. And this is just one example. I havn't got into those who feel they have to be fluffy and pleasant just because they have an F in their type letters.

Or perhaps opinions such as: N's are more abstract and intelligent than sensors which is complete shite. I suppose im talking about stereotypes and generalisations. But these lead from misappropriations of the theory in the first place. I also remember a forum I used to go on where a member switched their type from INFP to INTP and suddenly, almost without warning, they started being critical of everything they saw, pointing out flaws and problems, often where there weren't any.
They may have truely had the functional lineup of an INTP, or an INFP, but the point was that once they thought they were that type; they felt influenced to play up to what they obviously perceived as being part of it.

As for the motivation to do this, it's simple; it gives people a bit of grounding and confidence, not knowing your MBTI type is a cause for doubt just like any other uncertainty, people have even talked about this themselves, how, once they believe they have ascertained their type, that they notice themselves becoming more like the description of said type. It is for the same reason that some people gain a great deal of pride from being, (or assuming they are), a rare type, the motivation is personal, there isn't anything tangible to be gained except a bit of self-affirmation and confidence.

The descriptions online dont really mean anything...unless you do have some grasp of the functions of each type and how they work. For example, someone reading an INFP description might believe they see some of themselves in it, but like astrology these descriptions often give such generalised traits that most people can identify with several different types at once. So this same person reading this description does not think of an INFP as Fi-Ne-Si-Te, instead they see the type as:

Generally thoughtful and considerate, INFPs are good listeners and put people at ease. Although they may be reserved in expressing emotion, they have a very deep well of caring and are genuinely interested in understanding people. This sincerity is sensed by others, making the INFP a valued friend and confidante. An INFP can be quite warm with people he or she knows well.

This also might reinforce a sense of doubt if that person does not see themselves matching up entirely with everything or seeing something similar in an INFJ description and doubting themselves, doubt being what is behind these little play acts in the first place.

The important point is that while one type might share certain traits because of their functions, no two types will ever be the same as individuals.

So, essentially, one INFP is not the same as another INFP. The idea is that this theory explains people and how they observe and evaluate the world around them, leading into their interaction with it to the furthering or our understanding of each other. It is not so that people can generalise and stereotype by putting others into boxes.
For myself when I first discovered this theory I did some pointless online test and got INTP...the questions were so vague that it was hard to know what answer would be my own reaction or observation, especially since your most dominant function is often automatic in it's usage. Anyhow I read the description and then read some others...many of them seemed to fit all at the same time, I knew that was a problem in itself, then I ended up going onto the cognitive functions themselves and I actually read up on those and the entire theory itself and Jung's work. Then things actually started to make sense and I was able to work out that there was no way that Ti was my dominant function, it was definitely present, but not so strong as to be dominant. So after months and months of research here I am.

The way I typed online and interacted with others in real life and online, never changed, my views and opinions change all the time of course, but the way they change didn't.

I know this is just anecdotal, but if you want I can go on a little search for evidence to try and prove that this is more than just a cognitive bias on my part. Of course im not sure if im allowed to link other forums.

 

[Coriolis]

Thank you for the explanation. So you're saying that people will identify too quickly wiht a type description that they do not understand well, and attempt to act according to the description because it increases their confidence and reduces insecurity? I can see such a motivation, and know plenty of people are cavalier with the system, not learning enough about it to put it to constructive use. I have never had any uncertainty or ambiguity in my type, so perhaps I overlook how confusing it can be for those whose type results appear borderline or inconclusive, and don't follow up with enough research to sort it all out.