User Tag List

Page 75 of 104 FirstFirst ... 2565737475767785 ... LastLast
Results 741 to 750 of 1035

Thread: Why do people hate INTJs?

  1. #741
    Member Array Belle of Kilronan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5w4 so/sp
    Socionics
    ILI Ni
    Posts
    34

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Poki View Post
    Actually the later 2, self questioning the most. INTJs from what I see is very much human, they are far from robots, even when it comes to emotions. The mature and older ones I know can adapt to situations easily. Younger immature ones more fight situations and thats how they adapt, they adapt in negative ways.
    All very true.

  2. #742
    Senior Member Array evilrubberduckie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    7w8 sx/so
    Socionics
    N/A None
    Posts
    780

    Default

    My best Friend is actually an INTJ. At first she did come off as narcissistic, I'm not going to lie she really is. For good reason though. She actually IS badass. But it didn't faze me too much, just like my endless bouts of enthusiastic energy didn't faze her. We both spoke our minds, and the both of us had COMPLETELY different ideas and ideals. But I respected her, she stood her ground. She knows herself, and she knows people. She just hates them, and like a true introvert, had me practically dragging her out of the house to do things. Likewise, she had to do the same, except the opposite.

    If a INTJ's knows what they are doing, and they do it. I guess people feel threatened about that type of confidence.

    This is my opinion from what I experienced from an INTJ. Im no expert and I might be wrong.
    Likes uumlau liked this post

  3. #743
    Alchemist of life Array Coriolis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5w6 sp/sx
    Posts
    14,789

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Vulcan View Post
    Some people regard feelings as truth. Some people regard facts as truth. Some people regard logic as truth. Which one of these is correct?
    (1) and (2). (3) - logic - is a process.
    A cry of defiance, and not of fear,
    A voice in the darkness, a knock at the door, and a word that shall echo for evermore!
    For, borne on the night-wind of the Past, through all our history, to the last,
    In the hour of darkness and peril and need, the people will waken and listen to hear

    -- Henry Wadsworth Longfellow
    Likes uumlau liked this post

  4. #744
    HopelessSituationWarrior Array Osprey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w6 sp/sx
    Posts
    7,921

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Coriolis View Post
    (1) and (2). (3) - logic - is a process.
    So, if facts are truth, how does someone discern if an authoritative-sounding statement is a truth or a lie? Say for instance, "we have reason to believe Iraq has WMDs." Certainly there were enough facts on the table to determine that, purely going by the facts, this would be a reasonable conclusion. To many people, it also felt like the right thing to do, based on a variety of emotions. Nothing else about that made sense to me, though; nothing else added up.

    I vacillated a little at first because I was young, and so many other people seemed so certain it was the right thing to do. In the end, it became clear that my doubt was correct. I've learned to trust my doubt more and more, as I've gotten older, and it's only helped me, as far as I can tell.

    In cases like that, doubt based on the fact that statements and behavior were illogical proved more truthful than the facts that were available.
    Forget the dead you've left; they will not follow you.
    The vagabond who is rapping at your door, is standing in the clothes you once wore.

  5. #745
    Happy Dancer Array uumlau's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    953 sp/so
    Posts
    5,680

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Vulcan View Post
    So, if facts are truth, how does someone discern if an authoritative-sounding statement is a truth or a lie? Say for instance, "we have reason to believe Iraq has WMDs." Certainly there were enough facts on the table to determine that, purely going by the facts, this would be a reasonable conclusion. To many people, it also felt like the right thing to do, based on a variety of emotions. Nothing else about that made sense to me, though; nothing else added up.

    I vacillated a little at first because I was young, and so many other people seemed so certain it was the right thing to do. In the end, it became clear that my doubt was correct. I've learned to trust my doubt more and more, as I've gotten older, and it's only helped me, as far as I can tell.

    In cases like that, doubt based on the fact that statements and behavior were illogical proved more truthful than the facts that were available.
    The reason doubt appears to help you (when you have no real information at all), is that every statement of truth tends to have flaws. In politics the flaws are usually huge and glaring, but because both sides have their interests in the political outcome, both engage in half-truths, thus each leaving themselves open to arguments proving them wrong. Here's an example analysis along these lines: https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2...d-story-right/ (I don't particularly agree or disagree with the opinion presented, but it's a good example of trying to figure out what the real truth is.)

    That said, "doubt", per se, is NOT helping you, especially if you take "doubt' as meaning likely 100% false. What you are looking for is called "discernment", not "doubt". Discernment requires actually researching something (much easier now with the internet) on your own, allowing yourself to develop an informed opinion that isn't based on what people say, but on the overall patterns of what they're talking about.

    Here's an example of my personal opinion/discernment w/r to the 2nd invasion of Iraq. The problem in my mind is not whether Saddam deserved to be invaded and toppled. There are lots of reasons beyond WMDs that he "deserved" it, especially multiple violations of the no-fly zone and firing on US aircraft, any of which could be considered an act of war. Or if you want the moral argument, he was an evil dictator who, along with his sons, abused his people. But that's all irrelevant to the question of whether the war was a good idea in the first place. The problem is that the goal was to essentially turn Iraq into a client state. They called it "freeing Iraq" and probably had visions of Iraq existing as a free state completely independent of the US, but there was no way that could happen without a huge ongoing US military presence, and there was no way a huge military presence could be guaranteed for the decades necessary to stabilize things. Keeping troops in Germany, where no fighting has occurred since WW2, is politically easy. Keeping troops in Iraq, with ongoing incursions especially from Iran and various terrorist groups, is extremely politically difficult. That puts the US in a lose/lose situation: either stay and put up with soldiers getting killed but otherwise keeping the peace and protecting the Iraqi people, or leave and let the country devolve back into another autocratic state of some kind.

    So whether you buy my argument on this point or not, my big-picture point is that the "truth" of whether WMDs were really at stake is a non-issue. It could be true, and the invasion would still be a bad idea, or it could be false, in which case it was one out of 19-or-so cited reasons for the invasion that happened to be false. It's the matador's red cape, the reason that had political legs, and nothing more.
    An argument is two people sharing their ignorance.

    A discussion is two people sharing their understanding, even when they disagree.

  6. #746
    darkened dreams Array labyrinthine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    ixfp
    Enneagram
    4 sx/sp
    Socionics
    INFp None
    Posts
    7,119

    Default

    I don't see how the negative qualities associated with INTJs are different from any other Ts. Actually, of all the T's the INTJs and ISTJs can be the most polite because they have tertiary Fi. They and the E-TPs are the closest to Feelers, so most likely to have more awareness and sensitivity to others.

    Edit: Just go the the various T forums and you will see that the INTJ forum is not more hostile or negative than the others. Although I would say the INTJ forum I remember seemed equally divided between INTJs and ISTJs.
    The first man to raise a fist is the man who's run out of ideas. H.G. WELLS
    The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool. FEYNMAN

    If this is monkey pee, you're on your own.SCULLY

  7. #747
    HopelessSituationWarrior Array Osprey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w6 sp/sx
    Posts
    7,921

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by uumlau View Post
    The reason doubt appears to help you (when you have no real information at all), is that every statement of truth tends to have flaws. In politics the flaws are usually huge and glaring, but because both sides have their interests in the political outcome, both engage in half-truths, thus each leaving themselves open to arguments proving them wrong. Here's an example analysis along these lines: https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2...d-story-right/ (I don't particularly agree or disagree with the opinion presented, but it's a good example of trying to figure out what the real truth is.)

    That said, "doubt", per se, is NOT helping you, especially if you take "doubt' as meaning likely 100% false. What you are looking for is called "discernment", not "doubt". Discernment requires actually researching something (much easier now with the internet) on your own, allowing yourself to develop an informed opinion that isn't based on what people say, but on the overall patterns of what they're talking about.

    Here's an example of my personal opinion/discernment w/r to the 2nd invasion of Iraq. The problem in my mind is not whether Saddam deserved to be invaded and toppled. There are lots of reasons beyond WMDs that he "deserved" it, especially multiple violations of the no-fly zone and firing on US aircraft, any of which could be considered an act of war. Or if you want the moral argument, he was an evil dictator who, along with his sons, abused his people. But that's all irrelevant to the question of whether the war was a good idea in the first place. The problem is that the goal was to essentially turn Iraq into a client state. They called it "freeing Iraq" and probably had visions of Iraq existing as a free state completely independent of the US, but there was no way that could happen without a huge ongoing US military presence, and there was no way a huge military presence could be guaranteed for the decades necessary to stabilize things. Keeping troops in Germany, where no fighting has occurred since WW2, is politically easy. Keeping troops in Iraq, with ongoing incursions especially from Iran and various terrorist groups, is extremely politically difficult. That puts the US in a lose/lose situation: either stay and put up with soldiers getting killed but otherwise keeping the peace and protecting the Iraqi people, or leave and let the country devolve back into another autocratic state of some kind.

    So whether you buy my argument on this point or not, my big-picture point is that the "truth" of whether WMDs were really at stake is a non-issue. It could be true, and the invasion would still be a bad idea, or it could be false, in which case it was one out of 19-or-so cited reasons for the invasion that happened to be false. It's the matador's red cape, the reason that had political legs, and nothing more.
    Well, the administration seemed dishonest because they started out saying they were doing it because of WMDs and "Al Qaeda connections" (that really didn't exist in Iraq until we invaded it), and then they turned it into being about freeing Iraq. The evidence for WMDs also wasn't convincing, and many of the claims seemed based on flimsy logic.

    The intentions behind it really didn't matter to me, and they still don't. The fact that they seemed dishonest was proof enough that it was not a good idea, even if they were primarily lying to themselves via willful ignorance. They assumed that we would be greeted as liberators, and that didn't happen. This was also something I strongly doubted, but most people, especially older people, seemed to treat it as a given. People weren't comfortable with me asking questions like "how", and "why are we really doing this?"

    If more people had asked questions and attempted to search for logical coherence, rather than a notion that "we gotta help those people out because helping people out is always the right thing to do, because the biggest problem is that nobody helps each other" would we have had to negotiate this nuclear deal with Iran? Would ISIS exist?

    Let's not forget that British colonialism had good intentions, and that the turmoil in the Middle East as it exists now is a byproduct of that legacy. I suppose we should just go and do the same thing because the British were right since they had good intentions.
    Forget the dead you've left; they will not follow you.
    The vagabond who is rapping at your door, is standing in the clothes you once wore.

  8. #748
    Happy Dancer Array uumlau's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    953 sp/so
    Posts
    5,680

    Default

    You're trying to argue about Iraq/WMD. You're not even disagreeing with me about the topic, what little I wrote about it.

    If you read what I wrote VERY CAREFULLY, that isn't the point of what I wrote at all. I'm using the topic as a stepping stone to a larger topic about what "doubt" means (kind of useless, because proving people "wrong" is easy, whether using formal logic or political arguments), and what actually trying to figure out what the truth looks like.

    You were asking other people things like "how" and "why". All you get from that is opinion. For facts, you need to look into things yourself, where the only lies you have to watch out for are those you tell yourself (which is a different skill and a different topic).
    An argument is two people sharing their ignorance.

    A discussion is two people sharing their understanding, even when they disagree.

  9. #749
    HopelessSituationWarrior Array Osprey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w6 sp/sx
    Posts
    7,921

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by uumlau View Post
    You're trying to argue about Iraq/WMD. You're not even disagreeing with me about the topic, what little I wrote about it.

    If you read what I wrote VERY CAREFULLY, that isn't the point of what I wrote at all. I'm using the topic as a stepping stone to a larger topic about what "doubt" means (kind of useless, because proving people "wrong" is easy, whether using formal logic or political arguments), and what actually trying to figure out what the truth looks like.

    You were asking other people things like "how" and "why". All you get from that is opinion. For facts, you need to look into things yourself, where the only lies you have to watch out for are those you tell yourself (which is a different skill and a different topic).
    The point is, all the facts "eveyone knew" and all the emotions of "trying to help others out" led people into disaster. A more logical approach would have been better. Maybe I'd be less pissed about all the deaths that happened and all the chaos and destruction that caused if I wasn't the one getting blamed for it.

    You're assuming that your INTJ perspective on truth is superior to an INTP perspective on truth. I'm arguing differently.

    Anyway, who gives a shit that Dubya resulted in a lot of chaos and destruction? He was a heckuva nice fella who meant well.
    Forget the dead you've left; they will not follow you.
    The vagabond who is rapping at your door, is standing in the clothes you once wore.

  10. #750
    Active Member Array Poki's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    MBTI
    xSTP
    Posts
    8,916

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by fia View Post
    I don't see how the negative qualities associated with INTJs are different from any other Ts. Actually, of all the T's the INTJs and ISTJs can be the most polite because they have tertiary Fi. They and the E-TPs are the closest to Feelers, so most likely to have more awareness and sensitivity to others.

    Edit: Just go the the various T forums and you will see that the INTJ forum is not more hostile or negative than the others. Although I would say the INTJ forum I remember seemed equally divided between INTJs and ISTJs.
    But how well do they deal with non-intjs? You can't say a person is a certain way just because that's how they act around certain people. It's all encompassing around everyone. You can't not pick certain actions around certain groups to find the person as a whole. One big issue I see with ITJs is they can point fingers at other person and not internally so when there is something that causes a problem it's not their issue so they sit in the crap environment always thinking its not my fault, when it takes 2 to tango. They are a type to stick around unhappy and negative because it's not their problem. This is irregardless of who's problem it is or if it's just differing personalities and not really a problem.

    They can be the most polite, but they can also be the biggest asshole due to being blind
    Take what I say with a grain of salt, because that's all it is compared to the ocean of complexity when it comes to actions and real life.

Page 75 of 104 FirstFirst ... 2565737475767785 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Why do people hate tradional thoughts and practices?
    By prplchknz in forum General Psychology
    Replies: 77
    Last Post: 05-08-2014, 08:01 PM
  2. Why do people love to hate Kristen Stewart?
    By gromit in forum Arts & Entertainment
    Replies: 27
    Last Post: 09-21-2012, 07:20 PM
  3. [INFP] Why do people Hate the idea of being INFP?
    By CrystalViolet in forum The NF Idyllic (ENFP, INFP, ENFJ, INFJ)
    Replies: 95
    Last Post: 05-23-2011, 10:39 PM
  4. [INTJ] Why do people seem to dislike INTJs?
    By RenaiReborn in forum The NT Rationale (ENTP, INTP, ENTJ, INTJ)
    Replies: 201
    Last Post: 06-03-2009, 08:36 AM
  5. [INTJ] Why do people Pretend to be INTJ's?
    By Dominicus Griswold in forum The NT Rationale (ENTP, INTP, ENTJ, INTJ)
    Replies: 50
    Last Post: 08-26-2008, 10:58 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •