• 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?

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 know how with Pi sometimes things just slide into place at an unexpected time, and you feel like you just know something, have gained a direction or insight?

I think Ji is like that too, yet in a different purview. For me, all of the "judgey" work is internal so I can't articulate all of the reasons why I've decided on a course of action in the moment. Then suddenly, I will have a thought that is the perfect way to express myself in Je terms. But this is not predictable; in the moment, when pressed with your question, I sometimes can't come out with reasons, sometimes all I can say is that it just feels right or wrong to proceed on the present course. Which few people actually realize has a depth to it beyond something "emotional", irrational or self-absorbed.

(eta: sometimes when I have spent the time to unearth all of my own reasons or objections to a thing, there are dozens of reasons all contributing to the overall feeling of "wrong". So, that's a lot of stuff to present and prioritize.)

So, pressing with Te isn't going to help unearth Ji reservations. If anything, at least in my observational and personal experience, it's likely to shut people down. Certainly it's contingent on Ji to learn to speak Je and Ji doms and auxs have to or else Je people never take them seriously as presenting rational arguments. However, it would be wise for Je to realize this about other people, the ones that don't seem to have an argument at the ready. It's in there, just needs help to "get out".

My advice would be to give Ji time, patience and a safe space to open those insights into. Imagine what you need for Pi to slide into focus. What helps you?
I'm generally willing to be patient, unless the situation is urgent. I find it very hard to solve a problem that cannot be articulated, however. I know the feeling of waiting for Ni to kick in with the "real" answer, but on my end in the interim I can usually take inventory of what we know already, and get an idea of what the constraints and options are. That gives the other person at least something to work with.
 

Oaky

Travelling mind
Joined
Jan 15, 2009
Messages
6,180
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
sp/so
Why do people hate INTJs... rather fun question by the damned. The question is fairly offing though. Misled perception.

Yes, the multiple stereotypical formulations of an INTJ must indeed make life simpler to tell whether you would like one or not... the bunch of mentally lazy. We should have reasonable/unreasonable as an extra dichotomy. Maybe it'll remove more thought on these more general thought ideas on the matter. It can be told that two types with different levels of mental over or under-processing might not get along based on the values that enhances those processes. An INTJ who lacks arrogance over an INTJ who holds it high play different fields, and probably wouldn't get along on the basis that they process information similarly but change the meaningful value of them as well as the solutions. Humans expect the positive or contentment of situations but worry and focus on the things they perceive as negative. This is our common cycle and it formulates negative thoughts and focus on the stereotypical assumptions that leads to the creation of this such thread. It is entirely possible the INTJ you never noticed was an INTJ, but simply lacks those qualities you exaggerate upon based on negative confirmation bias and mass thought.
 

INTP

Active member
Joined
Jul 31, 2009
Messages
7,803
MBTI Type
intp
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
sx
Why do people hate INTJs... rather fun question by the damned. The question is fairly offing though. Misled perception.

Yes, the multiple stereotypical formulations of an INTJ must indeed make life simpler to tell whether you would like one or not... the bunch of mentally lazy. We should have reasonable/unreasonable as an extra dichotomy. Maybe it'll remove more thought on these more general thought ideas on the matter. It can be told that two types with different levels of mental over or under-processing might not get along based on the values that enhances those processes. An INTJ who lacks arrogance over an INTJ who holds it high play different fields, and probably wouldn't get along on the basis that they process information similarly but change the meaningful value of them as well as the solutions. Humans expect the positive or contentment of situations but worry and focus on the things they perceive as negative. This is our common cycle and it formulates negative thoughts and focus on the stereotypical assumptions that leads to the creation of this such thread. It is entirely possible the INTJ you never noticed was an INTJ, but simply lacks those qualities you exaggerate upon based on negative confirmation bias and mass thought.

Oh yea i forgot the blaming others and all the fascinating rationalizations that go with it :D
 

Oaky

Travelling mind
Joined
Jan 15, 2009
Messages
6,180
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
sp/so
Oh yea i forgot the blaming others and all the fascinating rationalizations that go with it :D
Ah, this response is what you got out of my comment? Like I was defending INTJs? Like INTJs don't make those same generalising presumptions? Is this some sort of punch-line generalising voodoo you're showing up INTP because you were trying to find some sort of underlying motive for the things I'm saying? Like I wouldn't say these thoughts in a similar fashion for other types too? INTP, I have almost no self-indulgent egotistical connection to this thread, but it's presumptuous comments like these that seems to aim to put me on the debatable grounding of an immature preteen.
 

INTP

Active member
Joined
Jul 31, 2009
Messages
7,803
MBTI Type
intp
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
sx
Ah, this response is what you got out of my comment? Like I was defending INTJs? Like INTJs don't make those same generalising presumptions? Is this some sort of punch-line generalising voodoo you're showing up INTP because you were trying to find some sort of underlying motive for the things I'm saying? Like I wouldn't say these thoughts in a similar fashion for other types too? INTP, I have almost no self-indulgent egotistical connection to this thread, but it's presumptuous comments like these that seems to aim to put me on the debatable grounding of an immature preteen.

You basically said that people hate INTJs because they misperceive INTJs(they are to blame) as something to be hated, even tho its really just stereotypes or whatever. Then started with some quite entertaining rationalizations :D

Ps. If you dont want people to stereotype you, stop acting according to the stereotypes
 

Oaky

Travelling mind
Joined
Jan 15, 2009
Messages
6,180
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
sp/so
You basically said that people hate INTJs because they misperceive INTJs(they are to blame) as something to be hated, even tho its really just stereotypes or whatever. Then started with some quite entertaining rationalizations :D

Ps. If you dont want people to stereotype you, stop acting according to the stereotypes
Actually I didn't. Seems you misunderstood. If you properly read what I wrote I said the misconception is more on OP's part with his understanding of a reaction to a stereotype. INTJs are usually hated on in an individual by individual basis with total disregard to the notion of MBTI. And they are also loved on an individual by individual basis with disregard to MBTI too. They are usually dealt with in the real world as human because they commonly function as an average human... just like every other average human of every type. People will like them and people will dislike them.
 

INTP

Active member
Joined
Jul 31, 2009
Messages
7,803
MBTI Type
intp
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
sx
Actually I didn't. Seems you misunderstood. If you properly read what I wrote I said the misconception is more on OP's part with his understanding of a reaction to a stereotype. INTJs are usually hated on in an individual by individual basis with total disregard to the notion of MBTI. And they are also loved on an individual by individual basis with disregard to MBTI too. They are usually dealt with in the real world as human because they commonly function as an average human... just like every other average human of every type. People will like them and people will dislike them.

You said it, whether or not you meant it.

"Why do people hate INTJs... rather fun question by the damned.(you are stating the questions here) The question is fairly offing though.(You are stating your opinion about the question here) Misled perception.(You are stating the answer to the question here)". Then there is some rationale behind the answer and some extra stuff. Was ez ty men
 

Oaky

Travelling mind
Joined
Jan 15, 2009
Messages
6,180
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
sp/so
You said it, whether or not you meant it.

"Why do people hate INTJs... rather fun question by the damned.(you are stating the questions here)
The damned is raptorwizard who is banned. Does, "The Banned and the Damned" thread have any recollection?
The question is fairly offing though.(You are stating your opinion about the question here)
Yes, my opinion on the question based on it being grounded on what I imagine are false premises.
Misled perception.(You are stating the answer to the question here)".
This is not the answer to the question. This is my thought on the perception of the OP from such false premises. As in he perceived wrongly.
 

Nicodemus

New member
Joined
Aug 2, 2010
Messages
9,756
You said it, whether or not you meant it.

"Why do people hate INTJs... rather fun question by the damned.(you are stating the questions here) The question is fairly offing though.(You are stating your opinion about the question here) Misled perception.(You are stating the answer to the question here)". Then there is some rationale behind the answer and some extra stuff. Was ez ty men
Are you telling him that you know what he meant better than he does? From Wikipedia's INTJ profile:

They are often acutely aware of their own knowledge and abilities—as well as their limitations and what they don't know (a quality that tends to distinguish them from INTPs).
 

Personæ_088

New member
Joined
Jan 24, 2015
Messages
4
MBTI Type
xNTJ
As you already know, some people hate or fear what they fail to comprehend by readily applying all sorts of irrelevant labels on others with totally different viewpoint from theirs. Some of us could care less about it, because we have better things to do.

Other than that, I absolutely agree with the comments about level of consciousness and maturity. Every underdeveloped type can be a nuisance in the eye of the beholder, but we do have the luxury of making careful choices by selecting whoever we deem worthy of our time.

Hatred is a huge waste of time and inner resources, so many of us prefer to channel our energy in more productive and rewarding activities.
 

Nicodemus

New member
Joined
Aug 2, 2010
Messages
9,756
similar is arbitrary to the degree that subtle variations lead to extreme differences. I Guess it's a matter of definining and what not but is it really worth argueing?
I would never argue that similar things are not similar...

The idea that there is a collective unconscious doesn't necessarily rely on a premise of a null space anyways...it could be the product of environment as you said, but that begs the question...

IF things are products or causality based in nature could causality not also have a symmetrical instance of synchronicity whereby events are acausal but do not necessarily violate causality?
I always thought you were an ENTP, by the way. If you can show me evidence to support your view that events can be acausal without violating causality, we can talk. But I doubt you will get to the point where you can, as you have, say with confidence that ideas existing 'outside of our thought space' is a 'fact' and much less that it is 'verifiable by the very fact that any invention before conception is invented in at least half a dozen other places on the planet', because verification outside of logics and mathematics kind of relies on the premise of causality, and what you claimed is not a matter of either.

That's all I'm saying about it g.
I understand. I am only criticizing it.

BTW you sound like you work in the sciences...or study them...do you?
The German word for it has the German word for 'science' in it, but, apart from the posturing, it actually has very little to do with science.
 

GarrotTheThief

The Green Jolly Robin H.
Joined
Oct 22, 2014
Messages
1,648
MBTI Type
ENTJ
I would never argue that similar things are not similar...


I always thought you were an ENTP, by the way. If you can show me evidence to support your view that events can be acausal without violating causality, we can talk. But I doubt you will get to the point where you can, as you have, say with confidence that ideas existing 'outside of our thought space' is a 'fact' and much less that it is 'verifiable by the very fact that any invention before conception is invented in at least half a dozen other places on the planet', because verification outside of logics and mathematics kind of relies on the premise of causality, and what you claimed is not a matter of either.


I understand. I am only criticizing it.


The German word for it has the German word for 'science' in it, but, apart from the posturing, it actually has very little to do with science.


Gotta be quick but...to adress some of the above...

We already know that photons coexist with themselves in the past without violating causality. That was discovered this year. As for its implications beyond the threshold of quantum who is to say. Part of the issue is displavement, based on a scientists view point, that is the displacement caused on that which is measured by the measured.


As for ideas existing outside of thought...rather what I mean is that ideas are non temporal in nature and existence in a thought space. Consider this...no scientific discovery in itself was isolated. Even einsteins idea of relativity was not his own. There are always a slew of thinkers who come to a breakthrough and it is always a face that gets the recognition but science is not just a dialogue among contemporary scientists but lives and breathes on its own as a separate beast.

For example, the idea of a circle does not rely on a thinker. That idea exists even with no thinkers. In fact it is the other thing that must be proved. To not assume this a priori is illogical based on the principles of linearity. Even in out language we know this to be true.

We say that we discovered relativity and not that we invented it but we do not mean there is this thing called relativity outside of us as much as the idea of it since I truth even the idea of relativity is a map of the terain and not the actual land.

So the foundation of all of science relies on thougt forms being real in themselves and even a reductionist view point confirms this.
 

Nicodemus

New member
Joined
Aug 2, 2010
Messages
9,756
Gotta be quick but...to adress some of the above...

We already know that photons coexist with themselves in the past without violating causality. That was discovered this year. As for its implications beyond the threshold of quantum who is to say. Part of the issue is displavement, based on a scientists view point, that is the displacement caused on that which is measured by the measured.


As for ideas existing outside of thought...rather what I mean is that ideas are non temporal in nature and existence in a thought space. Consider this...no scientific discovery in itself was isolated. Even einsteins idea of relativity was not his own. There are always a slew of thinkers who come to a breakthrough and it is always a face that gets the recognition but science is not just a dialogue among contemporary scientists but lives and breathes on its own as a separate beast.

For example, the idea of a circle does not rely on a thinker. That idea exists even with no thinkers. In fact it is the other thing that must be proved. To not assume this a priori is illogical based on the principles of linearity. Even in out language we know this to be true.

We say that we discovered relativity and not that we invented it but we do not mean there is this thing called relativity outside of us as much as the idea of it since I truth even the idea of relativity is a map of the terain and not the actual land.

So the foundation of all of science relies on thougt forms being real in themselves and even a reductionist view point confirms this.
Ah, language. It seems that is the crux. Yes, our languages - and indeed all human languages I am aware of - suggest that ideas are real in the Platonic sense (what you describe pretty much amounts to Platonic realism), which is why for most of modern history numbers, ideas, theories, compositions, memes, even literary characters and entire novels have been thought and often treated as existing in a special realm of ideas, as abstract entities. But language is a human thing and reality another. I agree with your observations, but I do not draw the same conclusions. The history of philosophy is rife with this object-based thinking, and I have never found it convincing.
 

GarrotTheThief

The Green Jolly Robin H.
Joined
Oct 22, 2014
Messages
1,648
MBTI Type
ENTJ
Ah, language. It seems that is the crux. Yes, our languages - and indeed all human languages I am aware of - suggest that ideas are real in the Platonic sense (what you describe pretty much amounts to Platonic realism), which is why for most of modern history numbers, ideas, theories, compositions, memes, even literary characters and entire novels have been thought and often treated as existing in a special realm of ideas, as abstract entities. But language is a human thing and reality another. I agree with your observations, but I do not draw the same conclusions. The history of philosophy is rife with this object-based thinking, and I have never found it convincing.

My thinking is not really object based. It's in the middle of process and object based, or relational and object.

For example, depending on the scale we could consider things as objects for a truer map of the reality, or we could consider a relational ideology like string theory.

As for language, I see how you can come to that conclusion. I see language, stories, myths though as productions of dna and I see dna as something central to the universe, and i also see a sort of Irish cross where story, such as the story of the atom or string theory, effect dna, indirectly, or since we now know that, directly, by changing the environment.

For example we could say that without the story of Jason or Perseus, the Greek minds would not have been in a culture where it was a heroic act to be willy and we would not have computers today - aristotilian logic being the foundation of all digital architecture.

Someone would say that it is a leap to connect a mythology to the pathos of a people. That is not intuition that does that. It is logic. A myth has a biological function, as we have measure among indigenous people, and serves as much a role as breathing oxygen in the survival of a species.

Even the idea of someone believing in god at some point is required for science. There has never been a scientific experience which wasn't laid on a foundation of Newtonian phsyics, and as we know newton drew his inspirations and ideas from astrology. Without astrology, there would be no science. Astrology was the required step for the evolution of science to emerge as a child of astrology speaking in terms of sequence.

We can be atheist scientists but forever our work will lie on the back of gnostic greek philosophers. There is no way to dodge this fact.

As for being an ENTP...that may or may not be.

The way I live my life is more ENTJ based. The way I write is also more ENTJ based. I State my belief and then I give an example and I go on like that in a very linear way.

Most people who think I am random think so because their scope of intelligence is very, very narrow and to them anything other than a strict constellation around the subject matter is random.
 

Nicodemus

New member
Joined
Aug 2, 2010
Messages
9,756
My thinking is not really object based. It's in the middle of process and object based, or relational and object.

For example, depending on the scale we could consider things as objects for a truer map of the reality, or we could consider a relational ideology like string theory.

As for language, I see how you can come to that conclusion. I see language, stories, myths though as productions of dna and I see dna as something central to the universe, and i also see a sort of Irish cross where story, such as the story of the atom or string theory, effect dna, indirectly, or since we now know that, directly, by changing the environment.

For example we could say that without the story of Jason or Perseus, the Greek minds would not have been in a culture where it was a heroic act to be willy and we would not have computers today - aristotilian logic being the foundation of all digital architecture.

Someone would say that it is a leap to connect a mythology to the pathos of a people. That is not intuition that does that. It is logic. A myth has a biological function, as we have measure among indigenous people, and serves as much a role as breathing oxygen in the survival of a species.

Even the idea of someone believing in god at some point is required for science. There has never been a scientific experience which wasn't laid on a foundation of Newtonian phsyics, and as we know newton drew his inspirations and ideas from astrology. Without astrology, there would be no science. Astrology was the required step for the evolution of science to emerge as a child of astrology speaking in terms of sequence.

We can be atheist scientists but forever our work will lie on the back of gnostic greek philosophers. There is no way to dodge this fact.
3367966+_9b56d87422a767e0cbe53c1846c24336.jpg
 

Bnova

New member
Joined
Feb 8, 2015
Messages
65
MBTI Type
IXTX
Enneagram
4
Instinctual Variant
sp
I don't get why people dislike me...my inner circle of friends like me...others are nice to me because I'm nice back,easy to approach(if I planned it before hand,but if someone just randomly came up to me who wasn't in my calculations I tend to respond immediately or walk away considering the situation first,like boy/girl, if girl,sexy/ugly?,if boy what is he wearing? What shoes? How does it look for his overall look, back to girl,teeth/smile, eyes(always holds the truth) body language(slightly turned/ straight forward pointing at me suggesting real,usually I'd just pay attention to the eyes because girls let there emotion /true intention slip,a cool idea would be to check there pulse but I hate touching ,its just eww...etc etc etc) well I am a bit narcissistic I'm guessing,people around my parts just accept me,they don't think I'm narcissistic they just believe I'm always right and that nothing can change how "smart" I am personally I just think I'm an idea person/:
 

BadOctopus

Suave y Fuerte
Joined
Oct 9, 2014
Messages
3,232
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
if someone just randomly came up to me who wasn't in my calculations I tend to respond immediately or walk away considering the situation first,like boy/girl, if girl,sexy/ugly?,if boy what is he wearing? What shoes? How does it look for his overall look, back to girl,teeth/smile, eyes(always holds the truth
You would refuse to engage in conversation with someone based on their looks, smile, eyes, or type of shoes? Yeah. Boy, I don't know why anyone wouldn't like you. That's a real head-scratcher.
 

Bnova

New member
Joined
Feb 8, 2015
Messages
65
MBTI Type
IXTX
Enneagram
4
Instinctual Variant
sp
You would refuse to engage in conversation with someone based on their looks, smile, eyes, or type of shoes? Yeah. Boy, I don't know why anyone wouldn't like you. That's a real head-scratcher.

Looks,first impressions, based on all information received I will evaluate who this person is,what her/his intentions are and proceed with the correct response,in my part of the world enemies are everywhere ,people want to see your downfall especially us who are put on high for the world to see there's a lot of enemies who wants to see us fall, I don't trust anyone
 

Coriolis

Si vis pacem, para bellum
Staff member
Joined
Apr 18, 2010
Messages
27,230
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
I don't get why people dislike me...my inner circle of friends like me...others are nice to me because I'm nice back,easy to approach(if I planned it before hand,but if someone just randomly came up to me who wasn't in my calculations I tend to respond immediately or walk away considering the situation first,like boy/girl, if girl,sexy/ugly?,if boy what is he wearing? What shoes? How does it look for his overall look, back to girl,teeth/smile, eyes(always holds the truth) body language(slightly turned/ straight forward pointing at me suggesting real,usually I'd just pay attention to the eyes because girls let there emotion /true intention slip,a cool idea would be to check there pulse but I hate touching ,its just eww...etc etc etc) well I am a bit narcissistic I'm guessing,people around my parts just accept me,they don't think I'm narcissistic they just believe I'm always right and that nothing can change how "smart" I am personally I just think I'm an idea person/:
Which people dislike you? You mentioned your circle of friends like you and others are nice because you are nice and approachable to them. Like BadOctopus, though, I find the things you look at/for to be rather superficial. What makes you look favorably on someone, after first acquaintance?
 
Top