[NF] How do NFs view INTJs?

[Haphazard]

When you INTJs seek to tear arguments apart, to me you engage in what Chesterton called "the fine art of missing the point". You either comprehend the point or you don't; if it's necessary for you to tear it apart, then you really don't grasp the point - you missed it big time.

This makes no sense.

Explain yourself before I destroy your point.

 

[Sniffles]

I think that a typical INTJ is more adept at channelling pure intuition into the debate by means of Te whereas your access to it in the context of the debate is limited since it's got Ti to take into account, so you lose the intensity of either Ni or Ti, but you win the ability to understand both. I'd guess that lacking Te it's sometimes difficult to express your standpoints.

Yes that certainly is one major difference between INTJs and INFJs. INTJs can actually express more of their standpoints, wheras INFJs seem only able to express the tip of the iceberg.

I often say that I need an audience that's able to connect some of the dots on their own.

 

[Sniffles]

This makes no sense.

Of course it wouldn't to you.

Explain yourself before I destroy your point.

And thus miss it altogether completely.

 

[Haphazard]

Of course it wouldn't to you.

And thus miss it altogether completely.

INTJs are surprisingly practical people. If an argument doesn't make sense for the real world, we will shoot it down. We're working under the assumption that theories are going to be used, that models are going to be built, that ideologies are going to be recognized. We won't allow something that is incorrect stand.

So by taking your superior tone, you allow these things a pedestal to support them, when that pedestal is undeserved. They should either see use or be dismissed for something better.

 

[Uytuun]

Peguy, there's a post of mine on the previous page that I'd like you to reply to. I'll also say that a normal INTJ has certain distinct advantages over a normal INFJ when it comes to formal debate. Only an INFJ with high Ti will have a chance.

Possibly you have a problem with the foundations of debate being logical, but that's what debate is about.

 

[Athenian200]

Yes, with you people it's like "Accept our position or ELSE!"

And you brow-beat anybody who disagrees with you to submission.

Actually, that has not been my experience with most INTJ's. A few have been like that, but they were generally immature, and I knew better than to keep messing with them.

The only problem is what I described above, how the INTJ is more analytical in argument, while the INFJ seems more mystical. And trust me, you simply cannot apply analytical tactics to mystical arguments; it's a completely different realm.

When you INTJs seek to tear arguments apart, to me you engage in what Chesterton called "the fine art of missing the point". You either comprehend the point or you don't; if it's necessary for you to tear it apart, then you really don't grasp the point - you missed it big time.

I'm not so sure that's the right analogy. I think it's less about mystical vs. analytical, more about accuracy vs. practicality. Ti vs. Te. If it's Fe vs. Te, that's not a debate, that's a personally-charged argument about the importance of people vs. goals.

I think what you're seeing in INTJ's is a different thought process. INTJ's are always thinking in terms of goals, what should be done, how it actually works. There's less of a "should" and more of a "how." Does that make sense? It's not as aggressive as you think, they're just not processing things in the same terms you are, and I don't think their approach is any less valid.

INTJs maybe positionied to understand the limits of logic, they still cannot going beyond those limits.

I think what they are concerned with is going beyond the limits of usefulness to the situation, not going beyond logic. They can go beyond logic when it's clear to them that logic has nothing to do with the situation.

And I admit I'm a bit hostile to INTJs lately, due to some recent incidents in my life - namely an INTJ girl breaking my heart.

I think this is the source of your whole perception about them right here. I've had bad experiences with several INFP's in debates, and it's colored my whole perception of Fi for a long time. It's taken several intelligent INFP's to help my opinion of them improve again. Sorry to hear about this. But I think that for the purposes of the point you're making about INTJ's being very vicious, this would be something of a violation of Ethos.

 

[Sniffles]

I don't understand where this hostility comes from, really, unless you're projecting.

This is how you people come off to me, and quite frankly I don't look fondly upon it.

Doesn't mean I hate INTJs in toto, it's just there's many traits of your type that I utterly despise.

The Ti person later admitted to being defeated, he just didn't want to admit it right then, so I had to make sure he'd been fully undermined.

Which gets to what I said above, literally going at it untill the bitter end.

By contrast, as I said, I leave an opponent alone once he's down on the ground. As far as Im concerned, at that moment there's little point in continuing the discussion.

It was a matter of his argument being unsound, not his accepting my position.

Ok, I was mistaken on that, but my main point still stands.

And what would a mystical argument be?

Well we can consult the dictionary for guidance:

mys�ti�cal �� (mst-kl) KEY �

ADJECTIVE:

- Of or having a spiritual reality or import not apparent to the intelligence or senses.
- Of, relating to, or stemming from direct communion with ultimate reality or God: a mystical religion.
- Enigmatic; obscure: mystical theories about the securities market.
- Of or relating to mystic rites or practices.
- Unintelligible; cryptic.

mystical - Dictionary definition and pronunciation - Yahoo! Education

Hope this helps. "Enigmatic" is probably the best word to describe it. It's not easily apparent, and one has to grasp it's deep inner meanings. And you cannot arrive at those meanings through logical analysis.

I guess I can point to the example of the philosopher Lev Shestov(INFJ), as described here:

"Shestov's philosophy is, at first sight, not a philosophy at all: it offers no systematic unity, no coherent set of propositions, no theoretical explanation of philosophical problems. Most of Shestov's work is fragmentary. With regard to the form (he often used aphorisms) the style may be deemed more web-like than linear, and more explosive than argumentative. The author seems to contradict himself on every page, and even seeks out paradoxes. This is because he believes that life itself is, in the last analysis, deeply paradoxical, and not comprehensible through logical or rational inquiry. Shestov maintains that no theory can solve the mysteries of life. Fundamentally, his philosophy is not 'problem-solving', but problem-generating, with a pronounced emphasis on life's enigmatic qualities."

Lev Shestov - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Sniffles]

INTJs are surprisingly practical people. If an argument doesn't make sense for the real world, we will shoot it down. We're working under the assumption that theories are going to be used, that models are going to be built, that ideologies are going to be recognized. We won't allow something that is incorrect stand.

Yes I know. From my standpoint, practicality is a means not an end. Practicality has to be made to suit the worldview, not the other way around.

 

[Sniffles]

Actually, that has not been my experience with most INTJ's. A few have been like that, but they were generally immature, and I knew better than to keep messing with them.

Well I've admitted to focusing on the characteristics of INTJs that piss me off here. Of course Ive had more positive experiences with this type.

I'm not so sure that's the right analogy.

Well it's the best way I could describe it.

I think it's less about mystical vs. analytical, more about accuracy vs. practicality. Ti vs. Te. If it's Fe vs. Te, that's not a debate, that's a personally-charged argument about the importance of people vs. goals.

I would agree.

I think what you're seeing in INTJ's is a different thought process. INTJ's are always thinking in terms of goals, what should be done, how it actually works. There's less of a "should" and more of a "how." Does that make sense?

Yes it does.

It's not as aggressive as you think, they're just not processing things in the same terms you are, and I don't think their approach is any less valid.

I actually agree, and I actually expressed this earlier somewhat. In fact Im pretty much in agreement here.

I think this is the source of your whole perception about them right here. I've had bad experiences with several INFP's in debates, and it's colored my whole perception of Fi for a long time. It's taken several intelligent INFP's to help my opinion of them improve again. Sorry to hear about this. But I think that for the purposes of the point you're making about INTJ's being very vicious, this would be something of a violation of Ethos.

Well that's why I pointed that out, so people would get an idea of where Im coming from; to dispel any notion that Im just out to bash INTJs. It's more or less venting, not to be taken too seriously.

There are plenty of INTJs I get along with quite well.

 

[Uytuun]

Ok, I'll reply tomorrow, have to go to bed now, but yeah, I know what mystical is, just didn't see what you mean by argument...I see now, but I'll comment tomorrow.

So far, I consider what you've said here to be quite the example of tunnel-vision as well, TBH, and I see that you've chosen not to address my pointing that out to you before.

 

[Sniffles]

So far, I consider what you've said here to be quite the example of tunnel-vision as well, TBH, and I see that you've chosen not to address my pointing that out to you before.

Fresh my memory, where did you do that? I often unintentionally miss certain points here or there in order to keep up with the discussion.

 

[Athenian200]

Well I've admitted to focusing on the characteristics of INTJs that piss me off here. Of course Ive had more positive experiences with this type.



Well it's the best way I could describe it.



I would agree.



Yes it does.



I actually agree, and I actually expressed this earlier somewhat. In fact Im pretty much in agreement here.




Well that's why I pointed that out, so people would get an idea of where Im coming from; to dispel any notion that Im just out to bash INTJs. It's more or less venting, not to be taken too seriously.

There are plenty of INTJs I get along with quite well.

Okay, now it makes sense, then. So, I can gather that you're specifically focused on what traits of INTJ's bother you, right? In that case, the things you're pointing out make sense, and I hope that a few INTJ's manage to explain them to you in a way that helps you truly realize that these things aren't intended the way you tend to perceive them, so that it doesn't rub you the wrong way as often in your dealings with them. I hope this turns out well for you.

 

[Haphazard]

Fresh my memory, where did you do that? I often unintentionally miss certain points here or there in order to keep up with the discussion.

Allow me to quote:

if it's necessary for you to tear it apart, then you really don't grasp the point - you missed it big time.

So if we disagree with your point or find it's not valid and point that out to you...we don't grasp the point...that sounds an aweful lot like what you said of us in the first quote.

At least bad logical arguments can be refuted. Claiming that an argument is 'mystical' and therefore cannot be torn apart is a cop-out in debate. It's like saying you've won before anybody gets a chance to move.

 

[Sniffles]

Okay, now it makes sense, then. So, I can gather that you're specifically focused on what traits of INTJ's bother you, right?

At the moment yes. I did mention a difference between INTJs and INFJs; claiming that INTJs can better articulate their standpoints while INFJs usually can only articulate the tip of the iceberg.

I meant this to be taken as a complement to INTJs. Indeed I find it helpful to have an INTJs as allies in debates. To use a military analogy; I tend to be more the amoured spearhead, and INTJs tend to be more the heavy infantry. The former can strike fast and deep, but leaves its flanks exposed. It needs the infantry to come up the rear and consolidate the gains. I dont know if this makes sense, it's just how I see it.

In that case, the things you're pointing out make sense, and I hope that a few INTJ's manage to explain them to you in a way that helps you truly realize that these things aren't intended the way you tend to perceive them, so that it doesn't rub you the wrong way as often in your dealings with them. I hope this turns out well for you.

Of course. At the moment though I just a little cautious about getting too personal with INTJs. I seem more comfortable dealing with them on a more impersonal level. There's a saying that INFJs are hard on the outside, soft on the inside(which is true in my case).

 

[Sniffles]

At least bad logical arguments can be refuted. Claiming that an argument is 'mystical' and therefore cannot be torn apart is a cop-out in debate. It's like saying you've won before anybody gets a chance to move.

That's not how it is at all. I guess to borrow the wording of Pascal; you can certainly challenge a "mystical" argument and show how another perspective is more correct, but you cannot ever fully refute it 100%.

Now Pascal said this in regards to arguing about the existence of God. You can prove to an atheist that it's reasonable to believe there is a God, but you cannot ever fully prove his existence. That issue can only be decided through the faith of that individual.

In this context, logic is not useless, but it has its limits. Example: I cannot prove God's existence via logic, I can only present reasons to believe there is a God through logic. But ultimately whether or not one chooses to believe in God is a decision made beyond logic.

 

[Haphazard]

People will believe as they please when it comes to God. The only things reasonable for debate are the things right in front of us.

 

[Sniffles]

People will believe as they please when it comes to God. The only things reasonable for debate are the things right in front of us.

Well as one INFJ, GK Chesterton, once noted: one's view of eternal things colours one's views on everything else. That's my take on it.

Another INFJ, Martin Buber, also expressed this: "The world is not comprehensible, but it is embraceable: through the embracing of one of its beings."

Which of course keeps bringing us back to the main point here: INTJs and INFJs view the world differently.

 

[tereza]

There's a saying that INFJs are hard on the outside, soft on the inside(which is true in my case).

It's kind of funny that you mentioned that. I'm finding that INTJs are ridiculously hard on the outside and almost scarily soft on the inside. I think the main difference is that the INTJs shell is way more thicker than an INFJs because what they're protecting is that much more fragile.

And god forbid that you throw any of their harsh comments back at them. Cause it's not a personal attack when they say it, but of course coming from me it is. :rolli:

Still, I rather like them though.

 

[MrRandom]

Well... I ended up using INFJs' special move, The Doorslam, against the only INTJ I knew. That preeeetty much sums it up.

Nah, I wish I knew more of them. Not all of them can be obnoxious.

 

[Sniffles]

It's kind of funny that you mentioned that. I'm finding that INTJs are ridiculously hard on the outside and almost scarily soft on the inside. I think the main difference is that the INTJs shell is way more thicker than an INFJs because what they're protecting is that much more fragile.

And god forbid that you throw any of their harsh comments back at them. Cause it's not a personal attack when they say it, but of course coming from me it is. :rolli:

Ahh man, if I got paid everytime this happened with the one INTJ girl I knew. LOL!

Well... I ended up using INFJs' special move, The Doorslam, against the only INTJ I knew. That preeeetty much sums it up.

Likewise in my case.


Anyways, today at work I gave considerable thought to this issue. I'm too tired to articulate it much, but it goes into what others have said here. Hopefully when I regain some energy.