• You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

[INTJ] Why do people hate INTJs?

anticlimatic

Permabanned
Joined
Oct 17, 2013
Messages
3,299
MBTI Type
INTP
^knee-jerk "Fi"

I like your words, but they don't make much sense to me, which could be a failing on my part. The last post here I get; something I've always dubbed 'special snowflake' syndrome; a common individualistic approach to psychology that is primarily rooted in Fi; though I tend to subscribe to more of a Fe universalist/collectivist approach of collating psychological tendencies, at least in the realm of recreational speculation. Your direct response to me, however...the meaning eludes me-- which is not wholly uncommon for me when talking to INTJs; something about the Ni prevents them from being effective communicators, I think...though with adequate Te, it can be overcome.
 

Nicodemus

New member
Joined
Aug 2, 2010
Messages
9,756
The thread originally when I just checked in here 2 minutes ago say that there were 37 guests, which was absolutely mind-blowing; :shock: of course, now it's down to 33. :(
schroedingers_katze.jpeg
 

anticlimatic

Permabanned
Joined
Oct 17, 2013
Messages
3,299
MBTI Type
INTP
Oh ho, the develop your functions gambit. Does it relate to recapitulating the facts, I wonder? Recapitulating the facts is always so pleasant.

This doesn't really clarify your earlier post...and I'm not really sure where this is going, or why.

Are we arguing? If so, what?
 
W

WALMART

Guest
The truth? The truth is Ni can never be a priori reasoning. Aside from not being reasoning, Ni is personalised - from wherever the power to identify patterns arises, no pattern rises up just because. There is always instead somewhere in the chain of presentation some straightforward seed datum that was taken up by the person and found to be evocative. It was suggestive, and content was abstracted from it, even grown over it. Whatever exists in a given person's "Ni" may have elements that are formally prior to experience, but the Ni itself is formally a posteriori.

You can't have Ni without experience. You can have Ni without direct experience. If you do want to have direct experience, possibly Ni will summon a mystical ball of lightning to prevent it, but you know, maybe not too.

You're right, it is personalized - I am this, and I am Ni - therefore, Ni is this. It creates a feedback loop that can never be severed, which is why my propensity to discuss things such as this is growing incredibly weak.

The bolded is my initial assertion as to why my preference coexists with a state of being farrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr removed from introverted intuition. Human intuition is shown to be laughably weak at determining a true state of affairs, and Ni does not equate to good intuition, it equates to a higher propensity to employ intuition (and worse, stick by its guns).

And trust me - they will try to prevent experience.
 

RaptorWizard

Permabanned
Joined
Mar 19, 2012
Messages
5,895
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
I guess this may be something I don't know the whole story behind....I don't know Zara's and superunknown's history...?

It's been my experience that Zara doesn't like ISTPs, or people that he thinks are ISTPs.

This may have something to do with them not being opposite enough to be interesting, yet also not similar enough to be relatable.

He also has a clear dislike for Ti analysis. But at least with TiNe, there's a stronger intuition and exploration of ideas backing it up, so he can work with that, albeit with effort.

But try to back up the Ti with the opposite function of Zara's Ni, which is Se, then there's going to be a big clash between experiential perception versus what I've seen him cal Ni "meta-perspectives".

I'm just guessing a meta-perspective is a funny way of saying that you can see things across a contingency spectrum of angles, from different possible meanings or vantage points and through the eyes of other people at many levels, come to integrate them together into a multi-faceted prism of sorts.

Of course, superunknown is also fond of the crystalization metaphor, so maybe there's a bigger bridge than we think.
 

Zarathustra

Let Go Of Your Team
Joined
Oct 31, 2009
Messages
8,110
[MENTION=15886]superunknown[/MENTION]

To try to equate Creationists with Ni users, if that's what you just did, is a dumb and false conflation, so that's your error in reasoning.

Also, it is not simply a feedback loop if the NJ has removed themself from the infantile states of being and 1) started balancing their introversion and extroversion (for INJs, developing their aux Je function), and 2) recognized and severed their problematic relationship with their shadow, and learned the importance of assimilating/merging these functions into their consciousness (i.e., develop their tertiary and inferior Ji and Se functions). The better a job the NJ has done at these two things, the less the issues that you complain of will be present in them.

As to intuition being "laughably weak at determining a true state of affairs", that is a very weak claim at best, and, juju ust as I said in my previous post, consider this (which is the truth): you are criticizing not all intuition, but your own laughably weak intuition, which resides in a an undeveloped infantile state. My intuition is likely to be vastly superior to yours (not the least reason of which would be because I have done precisely those things that I have said one ought to do above [which actually improve one's ability to effectively utilize one's dominant function by presenting other relevant information/considerations that ought be taken into account, so that the dominant isn't just following some solely self-contained, and thus potentially peril-fraught, course of action {the proverbial "echo chamber"}], but also because I have been using it extensively my whole life, and thus have far more experience with it, its subtleties, its nuances, and how to properly wield it).
 
W

WALMART

Guest
Creationists are like textbook Ni. Particularly the doomspeakers. If you don't see the correlation you've never read Jung or anything he based the S/N dichotomy off of.

I'm almost surprised you aren't aware of how notoriously bad intuition is documented as being. Check out "Thinking Fast and Slow".
 

Zarathustra

Let Go Of Your Team
Joined
Oct 31, 2009
Messages
8,110
It's been my experience that Zara doesn't like ISTPs, or people that he thinks are ISTPs.

This may have something to do with them not being opposite enough to be interesting, yet also not similar enough to be relatable.

He also has a clear dislike for Ti analysis. But at least with TiNe, there's a stronger intuition and exploration of ideas backing it up, so he can work with that, albeit with effort.

But try to back up the Ti with the opposite function of Zara's Ni, which is Se, then there's going to be a big clash between experiential perception versus what I've seen him cal Ni "meta-perspectives".

This isn't entirely true.

I have no problem with Jon, aside from this current spate of dumb thinking.

I also have no inherent problem with TPs or Ti, only with Ti reets (lowly developed TPs who have poor utilization/development of their non-ego functions to balance out their ego functions [TiPe]). Some TPs here are actually some of my favorite posters. They are remarkably balanced, objective and insightful. I wish all TPs could be like them.

I'm just guessing a meta-perspective is a funny way of saying that you can see things across a contingency spectrum of angles, from different possible meanings or vantage points and through the eyes of other people at many levels, come to integrate them together into a multi-faceted prism of sorts.

That's not a bad definition.

Not sure how it's any less funny than "metaperspectivize", tho. :p

Of course, superunknown is also fond of the crystalization metaphor, so maybe there's a bigger bridge than we think.

:shrug:
 

RaptorWizard

Permabanned
Joined
Mar 19, 2012
Messages
5,895
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
Creationists are like textbook Ni. Particularly the doomspeakers. If you don't see the correlation you've never read Jung or anything he based the S/N dichotomy off of.

I'm almost surprised you aren't aware of how notoriously bad intuition is documented as being. Check out "Thinking Fast and Slow".

I'm taking your side on this one; it's not that considering the various possibilities intuition can present us with is bad, but what is bad is when we act on it or assume things without question. I used to have a bigger problem with this, although I've found over time with experience that our intuitions are often off, or at least incomplete. The truth quite often actually seems to be counter-intuitive - that is, it goes against our initial expectations.

I read a quote once that went comething like: it's dangerour to jump to conclusions in regards to conspiracy theories; never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by Occam's Razor.
 

Zarathustra

Let Go Of Your Team
Joined
Oct 31, 2009
Messages
8,110
Creationists are like textbook Ni. Particularly the doomspeakers. If you don't see the correlation you've never read Jung or anything he based the S/N dichotomy off of.

I am familiar with Jung, and this is still a stupid conflation on your part.

If your reasoning weren't based so much on simple-minded Se "analysis", which is notoriously bad at seeing things from multiple perspectives, maybe the blinders could come off and you would see your erroneous reasoning for what it is.

I'm almost surprised you aren't aware of how notoriously bad intuition is documented as being. Check out "Thinking Fast and Slow".

Oh, I understand how bad it can be.

I'm also familiar with how amazingly accurate and insightful it can be on a pretty consistent basis.
 
W

WALMART

Guest
I'm taking your side on this one; it's not that considering the various possibilities intuition can present us with is bad, but what is bad is when we act on it or assume things without question. I used to have a bigger problem with this, although I've found over time with experience that our intuitions are often off, or at least incomplete. The truth quite often actually seems to be counter-intuitive - that is, it goes against our initial expectations.

I read a quote once that went comething like: it's dangerour to jump to conclusions in regards to conspiracy theories; never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by Occam's Razor.

Yes. This is something I feel people get wrong with Ne as well, that it generates "many" possibilities, when it is far closer to it generating one possibility and attaching itself to it with great propensity - "As long as a possibility exists, the intuitive is bound to it with thongs of fate." It's closer to a chain than a web, as you would intuitively expect from a term like 'extraverted intuition'.

I think this is the lynchpin of all misunderstanding regarding the dichotomy between sensing an intuiting. From here, the misinterpretation of Ne and multiple possibilities took on an internal form, that an Ni type has meta-cognitive abilties in line with the parallel sort of processing an Ne type falsely contains. Throw in the fact that Jung used the word "mystical" in the type description and the whole situation is just about primed for anyone with an intellectual ego (a large portion of humanity) to fall into the pit of thinking.

Mystical thinking, maybe, but not thinking mystically. That is reserved for the attribute of intelligence, not for a dichotomy between sensing and intuiting.
 
W

WALMART

Guest
I am familiar with Jung, and this is still a stupid conflation on your part.

If your reasoning weren't based so much on simple-minded Se "analysis", which is notoriously bad at seeing things from multiple perspectives, maybe the blinders could come off and you would see your erroneous reasoning for what it is.

Oh, I understand how bad it can be.

I'm also familiar with how amazingly accurate and insightful it can be on a pretty consistent basis.

I read a little quip the other day, "If you give a dog water, food, and shelter, it will think you are God. If you give a cat water, food, and shelter, it will think it's God."

Power. Power is somewhere in this mess.

Also, you never addressed the poll.
 

RaptorWizard

Permabanned
Joined
Mar 19, 2012
Messages
5,895
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt. -- Bertrand Russell
 

Amargith

Hotel California
Joined
Nov 5, 2008
Messages
14,717
MBTI Type
ENFP
Enneagram
4dw
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
Because at first glance, INTJs tend to be stand-offish and give off a sense of superiority behind their Te-walls. Ime, what really is going on is observation of the situation and keeping people at an arms length to keep themselves safe as they evaluate that situation.

Once they get past that phase, there is the condescension danger. Some INTJs will determine on their very personal Fi-values whether or not others are worthy of their admittedly limited energy and time - as we all do, btw, they 're just more...visceral about it. Which in itself can rightfully be experienced as condescension.

After this, some people have their own values, prejudice and jump-to-conclusions problems which leads to dislike of said INTJ :coffee:
 

Coriolis

Si vis pacem, para bellum
Staff member
Joined
Apr 18, 2010
Messages
27,230
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
You haven't felt like your intelligence was being undermined? I don't know, it just seems so clear to me at the times I've felt this way. And there are a lot of situations which might trigger it, so I can't really say what constitutes it, because there are many ways it could manifest. But that's interesting that it's not an issue for you. Maybe I have less faith in my knowledge than you do, and so I seek external validation?
Perhaps. No amount of telling me I'm wrong or even insulting me will make me question my intelligence. Generally, only two things can make me do that: (1) recognizing I have made a serious mistake or error in judgment; and (2) meeting someone who really is much more intelligent than I am.

The lack of explanation is really lack of clarification. That's a better way to put it. If someone doesn't understand what you're talking about when you tell them they're wrong, it's only proper to explain why. I can understand, if you have some grand Ni theory which you have just divulged and a Ti person comes along and says it's rubbish why you'd feel an Fi reaction to just say you believe it and that's that- but it's not usually done out of hostility, it's just wanting to learn. See, this would be an example I think the other way around, which would be an XNTJ feeling their intelligence is being undermined.
If someone doesn't understand my Ni theories, my natural reaction is to question their intelligence, not my own. I don't act on this, however, because I have learned that the fault often does lie with me, not with my intelligence but with my explanation. Unless they are being a jerk about it, I will make the effort to clarify to their satisfaction.

Live with one, have worked with two, have dated three, and have one as a sibling. I know my way around the INTJ circuit, including the knee-jerk Fi reaction on display here anytime you try telling them that one of their systemic inabilities is (gasp!) anything less than just another sign of their superiority and awesomeness in every tangible and intangible field of everything. Maybe INTJs can squeak out a few practical tasks when they absolutely have to, but nowhere near as good as SPs...and in my experience dealing with them, they much prefer to delegate such tasks as much as possible. The bulk of the 'work' they do involves endless research into a project, and finding people to help them with it. Attempting to dive in themselves and complete something in a timely fashion typically results in unexpected problems along the way, which infuriates them, and more often than not causes them to give up on the task completely (until they can find someone to do it for them), or just get it to a half-ass 'workable' level of completion. INTJs have remarkable patience in areas of no resistance, but in the presence of a sabotaging reality they just can't deal with it, and shut down-- forever avoiding such tasks in the future, which stunts their ability to problem solve mechanical reality.
There is something to the Fi reaction you describe, and the tendency to see our weaknesses as strengths, or at least as not a problem. The rest, however, is unlike the INTJs in my acquaintance. I would say it sounds more like INTPs, but the INTPs are less likely even to try to implement their ideas. That is why we often make a good team. INTJ exterrnal judging drives us to realize our ideas and plans (or help an INTP realize theirs), not just think about them, and we will go to amazing lengths to make that happen. We teach ourselves whole new skills just to accomplish something, partly because we don't have (or don't think we have) the people skills or trust to delegate and engage a team. An INTJ with the failure rate you describe would be in dire straits indeed. Yes, SPs are the true masters at anything hands on and responding successfully in the moment. NTJ responses are slower, less reflexive, and based on doing our homework. The SP responds in the moment out of instinct; the NTJ responds out of planning and preparation. Another good team.

AA has it right below:
I think quite a lot of INJ's and especially INTJ's like to shore up weaknesses as part of their contingency planning. Usually something involving an improvement in physical prowess, although this is by no means a rule. Although it's worth mentioning that this isn't necessarily anything to do with dealing with inferior influences.

The bolded is my initial assertion as to why my preference coexists with a state of being farrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr removed from introverted intuition. Human intuition is shown to be laughably weak at determining a true state of affairs, and Ni does not equate to good intuition, it equates to a higher propensity to employ intuition (and worse, stick by its guns).
On average, this is likely correct, but then Ni-doms are a small minority of the population. If practice makes perfect, or at least improvement, types who prefer Ni and use it more will become better at it than others. That tendency to stand by our intuitions comes from a track record of their being correct, especially in certain areas or circumstances. I can almost assign a confidence level to my Ni ideas, and usually come fairly close.

I'm taking your side on this one; it's not that considering the various possibilities intuition can present us with is bad, but what is bad is when we act on it or assume things without question. I used to have a bigger problem with this, although I've found over time with experience that our intuitions are often off, or at least incomplete. The truth quite often actually seems to be counter-intuitive - that is, it goes against our initial expectations.
As [MENTION=8413]Zarathustra[/MENTION] said, you might be wise to doubt your intuition, but not ours. Moreover, I at least never trust it without question. If I don't have the means to answer those questions, though, and it is an area where my intuition has been right on in the past, I will trust it when a decision needs to be made. This is Ni and Te working together, with obvious influences of Fi and Se as well (considering available facts, and understanding the need/value of acting to support a goal).

The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt. -- Bertrand Russell
Combine all this, and you have INTJs in a nutshell.
 
R

Riva

Guest
People - especially members of mbti forums - absolutely love intjs. If you doubt this ask enfps. In rl at first due to their know it all, Te blunt, stuck up vibes people might 'correctly' assume they are arrogant and dislike them but once they get to know them they usually get to like them probably due to their helpful honest attitudes. If there is any type people dislike and should not bother trying to maintain long term relationship with are intps. They have the opposite affect on people in rl. Like them at first and get disappointed with them later.
 

Stigmata

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Feb 16, 2011
Messages
8,779
If there is any type people dislike and should not bother trying to maintain long term relationship with are intps. They have the opposite affect on people in rl. Like them at first and get disappointed with them later.

You've just summarized every failed attempt at friendship I've ever had. :boohoo:
 
Top