[INTJ] The INTJ "Doorslam" aka INTJ Pigeonholing

[PeaceBaby]

Yes, but it runs counter to how an INTJ operates.

Yes, I agree - but, here's the thing, let's say being decisive is counter to my nature - or being conclusive, and appearing confident with that yet forging ahead. But, I still do it, even if it rubs against my nature, even kind of a "fake it 'til you make it" decisiveness sometimes! I know my face can portray a certain picture of confidence or lack thereof, so I try to put forward the most relevant and appealing portrait according to the situation.

So, perhaps a better rephrase of my question is:

Would an INTJ "fake" indecision if the situation so warranted that they should not appear so decided? Does an INTJ even have an awareness that a situation could benefit from that, or that they should sometimes let others take the reins of decision?

Do any INTJ's do that?

 

[Usehername]

What about people who don't ... operate ... that way, for lack of a better word. I don't believe I have a process that, upon starting a new role or receipt of new information, requires me to tear down a worldview and build it back up.

I feel I am adding utility all of the time to this giant web, and the web doesn't necessarily need to be started over again even with changes in subject or even major paradigm shifts in my understanding.

How does that reconcile with your thoughts?

Basically I look for an attitude of humility and openness, and even if someone's boldly representing themselves I think that attitude is visible.

 

[Coriolis]

Would an INTJ "fake" indecision if the situation so warranted that they should not appear so decided? Does an INTJ even have an awareness that a situation could benefit from that, or that they should sometimes let others take the reins of decision?

Do any INTJ's do that?

Faking anything goes against the grain for most of us, unless we are being deliberately manipulative because more direct approaches have failed. I cannot imagine a situation in which feigned indecisiveness is a benefit. The honest and respectful thing to do is to explain the limits of one's certainty, and to ask directly for alternative views and input. Other people, for their part, need to take us at face value when we ask for this input, and give it their best shot. There is no point in telling me I am wrong about something. If you can show me I am wrong, however, I will listen and make adjustments (and respect you for it).

Letting others take the reins in decision making is another matter entirely. I do this for many reasons: (1) the person has more expertise than I in the subject area; (2) the person has adequate expertise and a larger stake in the outcome, or just more time to deal with it; (3) the person is new/learning and needs the experience. Of course, there is also (4) in which I am giving someone the reins so they can publicly drive the wagon off the cliff (giving them enough rope to hang themselves), though I try to halt the wagon at the last minute, or at least minimize collateral damage when possible.

 

[Zarathustra]

So, perhaps a better rephrase of my question is:

Would an INTJ "fake" indecision if the situation so warranted that they should not appear so decided? Does an INTJ even have an awareness that a situation could benefit from that, or that they should sometimes let others take the reins of decision?

Do any INTJ's do that?

Yes, I attempt to do something like this, but, tbh, it's a little different than what you suggest.

It's hard for me to truly fake something, and I don't like lying, so what I try to do instead is keep my mind open to alternate possibilities, even if I believe the one I'm working with is actually better than the other one(s) proposed. By at least keeping my mind open to these other possibilities, even if they have no more than a 1% chance of actually being worthwhile, I can treat the holder of this perspective like I'm giving their idea/opinion/belief due credit (which, frankly, I am). I will try do this by explaining to the person, rather in depth (and preferably one-on-one), that we will remain open to the possibility that what they are saying is true, and allow future information to dictate our moves, but that, at the present moment, due to reasons x, y, and z, we will be moving forward with option 1, as opposed to their option. If their option is indeed better, though, then we'll just move forward with that one.

I think this has to do with incorporating usage of Ne and/or Se into our cognition (to counterbalance/"open up" our Ni).

 

[highlander]

So, perhaps a better rephrase of my question is:

Would an INTJ "fake" indecision if the situation so warranted that they should not appear so decided? Does an INTJ even have an awareness that a situation could benefit from that, or that they should sometimes let others take the reins of decision?

Do any INTJ's do that?

There are two things that I do. First, as an Enneagram 6, I do tend to ask for and take into account others' opinions naturally because I'm looking for validation or invalidation of things that I'm thinking. Also, after years of having difficulties convincing others that my point of view was right (and sometimes realizing I was wrong), I've adopted a less definitive or "absolute" way of communicating. This quote from Benjamin Franklin captures some bit of what I'm talking about:

“When another asserted something that I thought [an] error, I deny'd myself the pleasure of contradicting him abruptly, and of showing immediately some absurdity in his proposition: and in answering I began observing that in certain cases or circumstances his opinion would be right, but in the present case there appear'd or seem'd to me some difference, etc. I soon found the advantage of this change in my manner; the conversations I engag'd in went on more pleasantly. The modest way in which I propos'd my opinions procur'd them a readier reception and less contradiction; I had less mortification when I was found to be in the wrong, and I more easily prevail'd with others to give up their mistakes and join with me when I happened to be in the right.”

It's a balance. I believe I've gone too far in this direction in an effort to build consensus while in leadership roles. It's something that I continue to work on refining.

 

[Kalach]

Would an INTJ "fake" indecision if the situation so warranted that they should not appear so decided?

Such a ploy amounts in the terms of my operation to denying information or opportunity to another person. It happens mostly when I don't care to have them be part of what I'm doing.

Interim decision-making done well creates space for independent conceptualization and pragmatic action. It's not delaying a decision that helps an INTJ move forward, it's the making of some decision, taking the action it entails, and seeing what happens. This provides new information and changes our points of view.

So... what's a good time to pretend you don't function as you do? Seems like pretty much only the times you don't care or the times some circumstantially influential person requires some other process and will lose their tiny minds and threaten your position if you demur.



Let's cease this madness, shall we.

 

[WhoCares]

I'm late to this conversation but will add my 2 cents worth anyway. I have only two pidgeon holes...

Person who's behaviour I can reasonably predict
Person who's behaviour I can't reasonably predict

The latter. I will go through the motions of social conventions but I will divulge nothing of any consequence to them since I do not know what they will do with it. These people find me somewhat hollow and aloof beause I keep my interactions with them to a minimum and at a banal level.

With the former I may divulge either truthful or bogus information about myself depending on whether I think that person is either good or bad news for me. Someone who dislikes you is not necessarily a bAd thing, they can prove useful if you are reasonably sure of what they will do with what you tell them. Its also fun on a level to rile those people up by being their constant source of irritation.

 

[Thalassa]

Oh fuck yes, it's the stupidest thing I've ever possibly witnessed from an intelligent individual. I have had someone personally, at close range, as an INTJ pigeon-hole me like this.

It turned me against them, for the most part, combined with random stupid arguments on the Internet with immature INTJs on forums, despite the magnificent presence of my INTJ math professor from college.

It's really sad, because IRL they're few and far between, but you give one a chance and they categorize you far too quickly, it's absurd.

I'm not a fan. STJs do nothing like this, I don't know why anyone complains about them in comparison, I actually prefer them.

ENTJs are still okay, though. Maybe it's the tertiary access to Se impulses.

 

[WhoCares]

Would an INTJ "fake" indecision if the situation so warranted that they should not appear so decided? Does an INTJ even have an awareness that a situation could benefit from that, or that they should sometimes let others take the reins of decision?

Do any INTJ's do that?

Not for me. I have learnt (from my life experience) that indecisveness is a sign of weakness that others will take advantage of immediately and to my detriment. It is better for me to make a decision and revise it later on than to appear indecisive in the moment and allow another to step into the resultant void. So saying that if the issue is one that is less important to me or one where I do not care to shoulder the burden of decision-making then sure I'll just keep quiet and wait for the decision-maker to emerge. Mostly things that directly affect my personal life experience aren't decisions I'm likely to abdicate from. If it's a work thing and I'm not directly accountable for the decision that results I'll defer to the best talent. But I would never do so by pretending to be indecisive. I wouldn't want anyone to get the impression that's who I am. No matter what I am doing things on purpose and as a result of a process, not because I can't come to a conclusion on my own.

Leaving things open-ended or even appearing open ended is like anathema to me. To the point where I broke off an engagement merely because I could not handle the P-ness of my partner. Loved him dearly but felt like I was on eggshells due to his whimsical and changable nature. The certainty of it being over
was like sweet surrender compared to the horror of things hanging in the balance. Yes I am highly J.

 

[Thalassa]

Not for me. I have learnt (from my life experience) that indecisveness is a sign of weakness that others will take advantage of immediately and to my detriment. It is better for me to make a decision and revise it later on than to appear indecisive in the moment and allow another to step into the resultant void.

Leaving things open-ended or even appearing open ended is like anathema to me. To the point where I broke off an engagement merely because I could not handle the P-ness of my partner. Loved him dearly but felt like I was on eggshells due to his whimsical and changable nature. The certainty of it being over
was like sweet surrender compared to the horror of things hanging in the balance. Yes I am highly J.

I do think it's a perception. As an (E?I?) SFP I feel that the ultimate wrong is to be too decisive about anyone, even if you fight with them, even if they do naughty things; in fact I've made dear friends of people who pissed me off at one point.

So to an INTJ this probably looks stupid; but to me the opposite looks stupid: writing off people before you properly give them a chance. It's like a putting a book down when you only read 20 pages and it has 250.

 

[WhoCares]

Oh fuck yes, it's the stupidest thing I've ever possibly witnessed from an intelligent individual. I have had someone personally, at close range, as an INTJ pigeon-hole me like this.

If I may. It's not a personal affront. From my perspective deciding where someone fits into the scheme of things is just another task on my to do list. The faster I can tick that box as 'done' the less anxiety I feel. I am highly driven to get stuff done, so I might make a hasty decision and put someone on this list, but that's always open to change when I receive new data to the contrary. It's just my way of reducing the stress I feel in life. Nothing makes me more antsy than having an undone thing.

I'm not apt to spend large amounts of time collecting data if I can leap-frog into a conclusion I'm reasonably certain will serve me well. Notice how I said will serve me well and didn't say is necessarily correct. It's a kind of efficiency to not have to take absolutely every single person at face value and spend large amounts of time getting to know them as individuals with all their quirks and foibles in order to know whether to put them on my predictable or upredictable list. I'll make a quick assessment and let time take care of the revision when new and interesting data presents itself. Filtering the outer world is how I protect myself from information overload. I simply can't give each person a lot of my attention [in the name of data collection] because it becomes too much for me and I get quite scattered and lose my focus as a result. So unless someone presents to me as being of high personal value (whether that be emotional, intellectual or whatever), then I won't spend a lot of time taking in the details of that person. I'll slot them into my worldview quickly so I can get back to whatever it is going on in my head.

 

[Thalassa]

If I may. It's not a personal affront. From my perspective deciding where someone fits into the scheme of things is just another task on my to do list. The faster I can tick that box as 'done' the less anxiety I feel. I am highly driven to get stuff done, so I might make a hasty decision and put someone on this list, but that's always open to change when I receive new data to the contrary. It's just my way of reducing the stress I feel in life. Nothing makes me more antsy than having an undone thing.

I'm not apt to spend large amounts of time collecting data if I can leap-frog into a conclusion I'm reasonably certain will serve me well. Notice how I said will serve me well and didn't say is necessarily correct. It's a kind of efficiency to not have to take absolutely every single person at face value and spend large amounts of time getting to know them as individuals with all their quirks and foibles in order to know whether to put them on my predictable or upredictable list. I'll make a quick assessment and let time take care of the revision when new and interesting data presents itself. Filtering the outer world is how I protect myself from information overload. I simply can't give each person a lot of my attention [in the name of data collection] because it becomes too much for me and I get quite scattered and lose my focus as a result. So unless someone presents to me as being of high personal value (whether that be emotional, intellectual or whatever), then I won't spend a lot of time taking in the details of that person. I'll slot them into my worldview quickly so I can get back to whatever it is going on in my head.

Maybe that's what's so disconcerting to me: not the harsh judgement, but the lack of detail. It seems crazy to me, like if you hate someone, tell me why, and exactly how it applies to your contextual morality. I want to know why you think that person is a douchebag, and I want details.

I don't know how INFJs operate so differently, because they do; on the other hand, they actually seem fairly accepting (though not as personally accepting as ISFJs, they seem more universally accepting) unless you cross them, and once you cross them, THAT IS IT.

At least with INFJ's there's a path leading to the slammed gate. An INTJ may decide the slam the gate for various sundry reasons, that may or may not be deserved.

 

[WhoCares]

I won't argue with you there. Yes we do make snap decisions and they are not always correct ones. Closure is what I am highly driven towards and I will even prefer closure of the 'wrong' variety in preference to lack of closure. I guess what we are seeing here is the difference between S and N. Mostly I don't want too much detail because I can't see the forrest for the tree's if I immerse myself in it.

It's interesting because the one personality I find very difficult to get along with is the ISFJ, I know two, one male and the other female. Both of them have what appears to be some seething and instant hatred towards me even though neither of them know me at all beyond pleasantries. If you ask me why I dislike or rather have an aversion to them, it's the way they always make some snide remark directed at me. I may obstensibly be a rational by type, but I'm extremely sensitive to others disapproval and dislike of me. Life has taught me that approx 90% of all people I encounter will be hostile towards me so I have learned to shut out 90% of people on this basis. It's not easy to be in the presence of another person's dislike of you, hence the reason why I take in as few details of the outside world as possible. I'm constantly scanning the outside world for the 10% who will accept me and I put my focus there. To do otherwise would be to constantly feel like I want to commit suicide.

 

[Amargith]

Honestly, Ill take INTJ pigeonholing any day. Most of it is usually based on personal preference, not intense dislike. Almost an objective type of 'I have no use for the person for the moment' kind of thing. It is honest, to the point and a lot less hateful than some other types do. Granted, it also makes them occasionally short-sighted and seem arrogant as they judge that quickly, but at least the judgement isn't a personal insult usually.

Then again, I also love tormenting them by being too unpredictable to classify quickly or making them redo the work over and over again by showing different sides

 

[Thalassa]

Honestly, Ill take INTJ pigeonholing any day. Most of it is usually based on personal preference, not intense dislike. Almost an objective type of 'I have no use for the person for the moment' kind of thing. It is honest, to the point and a lot less hateful than some other types do. Granted, it also makes them occasionally short-sighted and seem arrogant as they judge that quickly, but at least the judgement isn't a personal insult usually.

I prefer the ISTJ harsh personal dislike, in full detail about their obnoxious children or funny story about their foul personal behavior.

 

[Amargith]

I prefer the ISTJ harsh personal dislike, in full detail about their obnoxious children or funny story about their foul personal behavior.

My grandfather was like that. The stories are awesome, but I rather not be the target, lol.

 

[Thalassa]

My grandfather was like that. The stories are awesome, but I rather not be the target, lol.

I love the feeling of being included within the audience and not the target, "in the know" so to speak. Storytelling is something I understand. I feel more human about it, like at least I know why they dislike, why they hate, I see into their psychology, I relate (or I don't, but at least I see into why they do feel that way) ... and when it's about me, it's easier to take, somehow.

I think impersonality of INTJs really bugs me.

 

[Amargith]

I love the feeling of being included within the audience and not the target, "in the know" so to speak. Storytelling is something I understand. I feel more human about it, like at least I know why they dislike, why they hate, I see into their psychology, I relate (or I don't, but at least I see into why they do feel that way) ... and when it's about me, it's easier to take, somehow.

I think impersonality of INTJs really bugs me.

But once an ISTJ dislikes you, I find it is usually set in stone. Granted, I don't have too much experience with the type and my grandfather doted on me so he doesn't count.

I find that if you cause INTJs to reclassify you enough times, they take the actual time to check out what you are in fact all about....and thats when you become part of their story. They have to reveal something themselves to get the info they want at that particular time, so you do get a glimpse into their make up

 

[Thalassa]

But once an ISTJ dislikes you, I find it is usually set in stone. Granted, I don't have too much experience with the type and my grandfather doted on me so he doesn't count.

I find that if you cause INTJs to reclassify you enough times, they take the actual time to check out what you are in fact all about....and thats when you become part of their story. They have to reveal something themselves to get the info they want at that particular time, so you do get a glimpse into their make up

I don't know, I've never been fully disliked by an ISTJ who actually mattered to me; and I've never had an INTJ re-classify me.

 

[Amargith]

I don't know, I've never been fully disliked by an ISTJ who actually mattered to me; and I've never had an INTJ re-classify me.

Ive had the 'you are weird' stamp on my forehead before. And it is really hard to remove. Takes a lot of one on one time with the ISTJ. And even then. They remember their first impression well. INTJs usually have a lousy memory and I love using that against them

As for reclassification..you are a complex human being. Even if the INTJ believes they can trust their Ni to grasp the essence and reduce you to two sentences (which, admittedly, they rule at with just about everything else). Two sentences, as handy as it is to file away and use as a recap, do not do a person justice imo. So..show them what they have missed in their first cataloguing attempt. And make sure you hold some back, so you can do it over..and over..and over again