[INTP] INTP lies

[pac-man187]

The INTPs I know closely (my Mum and sister) would never lie exactly. Even when pressed they will tell the exact truth in a way that can be interpreted in several ways. Or leave out some information. The words themselves will be truth though.

I agree INTP's do not lie most of the time unless it is necessary. Like to the police. I personally find it hard if not impossible to lie straight out to ppl I like or love. What you may be perceiving as dishonesty is possibly honesty at its worst. We like to be very accurate and most other types do not put so much emphasis on accuracy. So the honest to Gods truth may not come out as fluently as someone else lie.

btw check out socionics site on relations it may be of help.

 

[Blank]

I think Robert Jordan's Wheel of Time series really fucked with how I looked at truth, due to a certain group of people who were unable to tell a lie.

They just spoke so vaguely and "lied" by omission (read: misled) that very few people trusted them. What was even more awesome was how gracefully they'd dodge direct questions.

I don't like to tell lies (unless if I'm joking, which I don't really count as lies because they aren't malicious,) but if I have to lie, I'll try to lie with an omission of the truth. If that's not possible, it'll be a white lie. If it can be neither, I'll just make up a believable one.

 

[MacGuffin]

I think Robert Jordan's Wheel of Time series really fucked with how I looked at truth, due to a certain group of people who were unable to tell a lie.

They just spoke so vaguely and "lied" by omission (read: misled) that very few people trusted them. What was even more awesome was how gracefully they'd dodge direct questions.

I don't like to tell lies (unless if I'm joking, which I don't really count as lies because they aren't malicious,) but if I have to lie, I'll try to lie with an omission of the truth. If that's not possible, it'll be a white lie. If it can be neither, I'll just make up a believable one.

Lying by omission is still lying.

 

[Spamtar]

Lying by omission is still lying.

Grammatically correct, if not redundant.

Lying, "by any means", is still technically lying unless there is such a thing as "lying by telling the truth".

"Omissions of the truth" however is not always lying. For example, a person could not get another person to shut up if the truth required full disclosure.

i.e.
Question: what do you like to do
Answer: I like to read books

EDIT: Conclusion the fact that this person likes to do a lot of other things, perhaps including skydiving naked, does not make this answer false as long as they also like to read.

A more precise term for the "lying by omission" that INTP may tend to engage in, if necessary or very convenient, is being "over literal" in telling the truth. In other words knowing what truth the questioner wants to hear yet limiting the scope of the answer/truth to parameters of the question.

 

[Totenkindly]

Omission of the truth however is not always lying. For example, a person could not get another person to shut up if the truth required full disclosure.

i.e.
Question: what do you like to do
Answer: I like to read books

True.

The issue here, though, is when you know what information the other person is expecting from you or the sort of answer they desire and you specifically choose to provide an answer that is misleading in its brevity or that avoids the area you wish to not discuss, so that they think they've gotten the answer they want but haven't.

"I don't think you really love me"
"Are you sure you aren't like this with every guy you date"

eg while not so good times
"are you sure you miss me or do you miss the idea of us?"

He sounds like he didn't trust the emotional aspects of the relationship.

For some reason, he was also feeling interchangeable... like you wanted him as a placeholder rather than as himself.

Can't tell you why he felt this or whether it was even close to true.

It was really strange... he went off one night when we went on vacation. He knew he was going to get called away for training soon. and he went off about how much he loved me and wanted to marry me and I was perfect and it scared him, (he was a bit drunk)

then about a week later when we got back, we were at dinner and he just threw out there "will you marry me?" I could tell he wasn't "really" proposing for reasons other than he had no ring. I just looked at him, and very earnestly said "don't do that unless you are serious, it toys with my heart."

He went on to sa it was just a test. Well, I had obviously not passed the test. Then things spiraled down the next week rapidly... I don't know, that is when the weirdness started, If I keep going it will be way too long and too much detail

Some people have ripped on the guy and maybe he deserves it. But there's also the possibility he's relationally inept and sucks at expressing his emotions. I mean, think about INTPs and what they're good and bad at and what this situation is:

- He's feeling strong emotions and doesn't know how to process them, and so he's scared to death.
- He's going away for basic training, if he doesn't make a decision now he might never get another chance, either you might find someone else while he's gone or he might never come back.
- He keeps testing you, asking you if you love him, etc. That's actually for an introverted type a sign of SOME investment... an INTP who doesn't care wouldn't even think to ask, but obviously he's invested in your answer and it's throwing him off to want something he thinks he could lose. If he didn't want it, he wouldn't care at all.
- He sucks at relational stuff. He sucks at relational stuff. He sucks at relational stuff. Do you imagine he might have been sincere about the ring but just screwed up the delivery big-time...? Acting impulsively? Because he didn't know what to do? It sounds just like what a dumb-ass-impulsive INTP might do if he didn't know what to do. Your answer was honest and as a mature adult he should have been able to parse it correctly... but it didn't mesh with where he was potentially coming from and chances are he took it wrongly... as you see his stupid stupid excuse of "it was only a test." That's just the sort of stupid cover-up remark a relational neophyte would make, to hide his embarrassment and feelings of rejection. I wouldn't be surprised if THAT comment by him was the lie...

Yeah. He would definitely be the kind of person to not realize the emotional aspect of it, but we had discussions before in which I admitted to wanting to marry him.

That sort of thing is why I can't give you an answer, only possibilities. I would have to understand the context of the whole situation (with knowledge of those past discussions) to have a better grasp as to what his frame of mind most likely was.

Anyway... who knows? I think at the least we can agree he was relationally immature; I guess we are more discussing intent here.

 

[Spamtar]

True.

The issue here, though, is when you know what information the other person is expecting from you or the sort of answer they desire and you specifically choose to provide an answer that is misleading in its brevity or that avoids the area you wish to not discuss, so that they think they've gotten the answer they want but haven't.

(Sorry Jen I was kinda editing after I posted so I would like to disclose this in all fairness but I think our responses are still on point.)

Is that the issue? I would say the scope of the issue is debatable.

If the interogator fails to ask the right question than that is their problem unless the law or higher authority demands a duty of a greater degree of disclosure.

What you describe appears to me to be more about "full reasonable disclosure" than truth.

 

[Totenkindly]

(Sorry Jen I was kinda editing after I posted so I would like to disclose this in all fairness but I think our responses are still on point.)

cheater!

Is that the issue? I would say the scope of the issue is debatable.

If the interogator fails to ask the right question than that is their problem unless the law or higher authority demands a duty of a greater degree of disclosure.

What you describe appears to me to be more about "full reasonable disclosure" than truth.

It's not actually an interrogation (or isn't supposed to be).
Maybe that's the problem -- INTPs tend to view questioners as interrogators?

When you're in a relationship, there has to be more disclosure of information in order to build and maintain the connection.

It might the job of the interrogator or the lawyer or the judge to ask the right questions in a trial, but in a relationship that's not the job of the partner, both people invest and work together to build something. If you view it differently, the relationship will suffer.

What you describe appears to me to be more about "full reasonable disclosure" than truth.

yes, that's exactly it, and the fact we can delineate easily between them shows that -- regardless of how someone can feel about it -- we still know what the other person is expecting and instead make a conscious choice to be misleading, whether we think we are justified or not.

 

[Spamtar]

^^ as a corollary when it comes to emotions and emotional relationships with INTPs its almost all bets are off as opposed to their general tendency to be truthful. I tend to agree with what Jen has said in this aspect.

 

[Totenkindly]

^^ as a corollary when it comes to emotions and emotional relationships with INTPs its almost all bets are off as opposed to their general tendency to be truthful. I tend to agree with what Jen has said in this aspect.

I abandoned one reply a few minutes ago because I couldn't get the wording exact enough for my satisfaction, but that's basically it: You see INTPs being very truthful in impersonal matters and framing situations, even it has indirect social ramifications (unless the resulting conflict would drain too much energy), but in relationships you often see them avoiding locking themselves into specific answers and decisions.

Bottom line, everything is contextual and there is a strong drive to preserve autonomy.

 

[Spamtar]

cheater!

It's not actually an interrogation (or isn't supposed to be).
Maybe that's the problem -- INTPs tend to view questioners as interrogators?
.

It was an oversight not a tactic. When I cheat I leave no clues (perhaps) ...nor make any materially detrimental admissions.

"Maybe that's the problem -- INTPs tend to view questioners as interrogators?"

...but sometimes they are right that relationship questions are posed in a manner similar to interrogations. They are probably more often less right than not in this area (or under the totality of the circumstances on what distinguishes a healthy question in a relationship and an interrogation) but not much is needed to get their back up again.

 

[Spamtar]

I abandoned one reply a few minutes ago because I couldn't get the wording exact enough for my satisfaction, but that's basically it: You see INTPs being very truthful in impersonal matters and framing situations, even it has indirect social ramifications (unless the resulting conflict would drain too much energy), but in relationships you often see them avoiding locking themselves into specific answers and decisions.

Bottom line, everything is contextual and there is a strong drive to preserve autonomy.

 

[MacGuffin]

INTPs love the truth, but hate dispensing with it when they know it'll cause trouble.

This creates a conundrum. They can't love truth and then disparage it by outright lying, so they go with only telling the partial truth: lying by omission. Some of them don't think they are lying at all, but that the "interrogator" simply failed to ask the right questions (as explained above).

 

[Totenkindly]

...but sometimes they are right that relationship questions are posed in a manner similar to interrogations. They are probably more often less right than not in this area (or under the totality of the circumstances on what distinguishes a healthy question in a relationship and an interrogation) but not much is needed to get their back up again.

Lol... I was too lazy to explain that angle, but yes, you got it.

I dealt with an ISFJ spouse for a number of years.
I know what an interrogation feels like.

I think most of it again comes to not wanting to get pinned down or hemmed in, especially if one is unsure of things at the moment. Unfortunately, SJs in particular want things clear and explicit, so their manner can feel very much like an interrogation (and maybe it even IS, if the SJ feels the INTP has been dodging commitments/answers for too long).

At that point, bad dynamics kick in. The non-INTP spouse is pushing for "real answers," which usually makes the INTP dodge them even more.

 

[Spamtar]

so their manner can feel very much like an interrogation (and maybe it even IS, if the SJ feels the INTP has been dodging commitments/answers for too long).

At that point, bad dynamics kick in. The non-INTP spouse is pushing for "real answers," which usually makes the INTP dodge them even more.

This is what make us INTPs so seductively adorable* especially for the conqueror types like ESJs. Although not often (consciously) intended it works like a cat chasing a string.

*probably just plain frustrating for most other types.

 

[avolkiteshvara]

If it hasn't been said already, anything that requires them to overuse or just use their Fe might require them to lie.

 

[Rachelinpa]

the intp i know lies sometimes, but only with people he doesn't care about... and i really think it is a result of taking drugs.

he has told me outright before "i don't want to lie to you" and would choose to withhold information over not telling the truth. but, i don't think he would do that with everyone.

also, he definitely colors things up a bit just for entertainment value (with people he doesn't care about -- which is most people)... kind of just to see how they react.

 

[Spamtar]

If it hasn't been said already, anything that requires them to overuse or just use their Fe might require them to lie.

often this would be the case*...or...using their Fe to confess ultimate abstractions of love (albeit rare)...which at least in the time they are saying it/thinking it. Are as far as the INTP know...are true.

*even then we prefer to dodge the question, qualify/limit the scope of the question/answer or "lying by ommission". i.e. love spelled luv.

 

[Totenkindly]

*even then we prefer to dodge the question, qualify/limit the scope of the question/answer or "lying by ommission". i.e. love spelled luv.

It feels less binding and squeamish if you trivialize it by spelling it "luv," don't it?

 

[avolkiteshvara]

ahahahahahaha

 

[Martin997]

INTPs love the truth, but hate dispensing with it when they know it'll cause trouble.

This creates a conundrum. They can't love truth and then disparage it by outright lying, so they go with only telling the partial truth: lying by omission. Some of them don't think they are lying at all, but that the "interrogator" simply failed to ask the right questions (as explained above).

this.

lies=bad, truth=good...

except when the question and answer to that question would involve private things, inner machinations or emotional matters. in that case I panic, since even I dont know how my inner machinations and emotions work excactly, those questions usually end in a lie, and that lie will be left in the back of the head forever scratching wanting to get out, such an uncomfortable feeling.