[INTJ] Why do people hate INTJs?

[grey_beard]

Mostly, I was addressing this quote...



Extremely passive people? None of them I know are. Coriolis is a 5, does she seem extremely passive to you? I place more emphasis on enneagram for the most part, because it helps polish and refine MBTI type. I just don't see any of them as extremely passive, regardless of enneagram.

(Rolls wine on tongue, oddly savoring the tannins, then nods.) You've got a point there.

 

[Felix5]

Extremely passive people? None of them I know are. Coriolis is a 5, does she seem extremely passive to you? I place more emphasis on enneagram for the most part, because it helps polish and refine MBTI type. I just don't see any of them as extremely passive, regardless of enneagram.

I don't know who this is, so I can't really answer your question. Still new here and I haven't had a great deal of time to interact with said poster.

What you're speaking of consists of human emotions. We all feel them. The point is whether or not we act on them. This is what turns a passive person into an active person. INTJs aren't particularly actively aggressive. What I'm trying to say is that we appear as very passive people. When you actually get to know us, we have a lot of pathos and passion hidden inside. I will not call it aggression because I don't believe that's what it is. Emotion and aggression are not the same thing.

Most people would say that ESTJs, ESFJs or ESFPs are aggressive, that is only because they act on their feelings more so than other types. That doesn't mean that they "feel" more emotions than anyone else.

I am one and I'm in no way passive.

Well I am for the most part.

Neither are any of the other INTJ's or ISTJ's that I've met.

Nice to meet you.

They may act uninterested or like they aren't paying attention. Likely because they're uninterested and no longer paying attention.

I am a fairly passive person regardless of whether or not I'm paying attention. I can't stand militant people. (Grew up in the northeast and I can't stand passive aggressive people.)

The only time I feel the need to become passionate about a subject is when I see people spreading a false truth. Such as the stereotypes people perpetuate about INTJs. Including the INTJs themselves. Maybe the get some sort of gratification or a sense of belonging out of it, but I am really sick and tired of hearing it.

We're not all alike. Some of us are aggressive, some of us are passive. In real life, we're fairly innocuous people and whether you want to agree with this or not, we come off as passive and calm to others.

When I was a child my teacher used to stick me next to the hyperactive kids because she said I had a calming effect on them. I've had many people tell me that I have a placid composure.

For the record, I've taken the Myers briggs test about 20 times and every time I take it it comes out INTJ.

I think unhealthy INTJs can be much more aggressive than usual because they don't know how to handle their emotions or articulate their thoughts. In many ways, INTJs have to re learn how to communicate with people again once they reach their young adult years.

 

[Felix5]

(I'd consider the INTJ type 5 to be something between a Dirac Delta function, and a Venus Flytrap. A mortal danger only to the unwary who come within their blast radius...)

Interesting point, I'm inclined to agree. I've taken the enneagram test several times and it always comes out as 5w4.

Perhaps the 8s are much more aggressive than the 5s and 6s.

 

[Felix5]

You are confusing being private with being passive. INTJs activeness is seen in our actions much moreso than in our words.

I'm not confused, this is my personal viewpoint. I don't see INTJs as more aggressive than anyone else in society, if anything they are one of the least aggressive types. I think only the FPs trail behind us. (Almost annoyingly passive).

What actions would this consist of?

A healthy INTJ would not see the point in arguing with aggression because it is off putting. Now I realize that there are probably more unhealthy INTJs out there than healthy INTJs...but that doesn't mean that this is an "INTJ trait."

 

[uumlau]

Interesting point, I'm inclined to agree. I've taken the enneagram test several times and it always comes out as 5w4.

Perhaps the 8s are much more aggressive than the 5s and 6s.

That's something of an understatement. 8s are the most aggressive type, almost by definition. Other types are almost completely passive, such as 4s and 9s, and the types 9, 4 and 5 comprise the "withdrawn" types. Type 5s, as grey_beard notes, are "aggressive" only within their area(s) of mastery, e.g., if you make a stupid comment about Britney Spears, a type 5 will at most yawn, but make a stupid comment about the Beatles and a type 5 who has mastered the entire Beatles catalog and history will harangue you with enough detail that you will never make such a comment around them again. Even type 9s will become abruptly aggressive if you push them too far and they have nowhere to retreat.

In contrast, 3, 7 and 8 are the "aggressive" types, with type 8 the most obviously so. The other triad (in this set of triads) is 1, 2 and 6, which is "social" in its expression.

 

[Felix5]

That's something of an understatement. 8s are the most aggressive type, almost by definition. Other types are almost completely passive, such as 4s and 9s, and the types 9, 4 and 5 comprise the "withdrawn" types. Type 5s, as grey_beard notes, are "aggressive" only within their area(s) of mastery, e.g., if you make a stupid comment about Britney Spears, a type 5 will at most yawn, but make a stupid comment about the Beatles and a type 5 who has mastered the entire Beatles catalog and history will harangue you with enough detail that you will never make such a comment around them again. Even type 9s will become abruptly aggressive if you push them too far and they have nowhere to retreat.

Lol I can see this, especially with INTJs or INFPs.

When I was younger I could become very passionate about the arts, but I've learned to let go of some of that aggression. If you don't like the same things I do, then there's nothing I can do about it.

The Beatles for me is classical music. I find it extremely depressing when people criticize it because a lot of it is public domain and under appreciated.

In contrast, 3, 7 and 8 are the "aggressive" types, with type 8 the most obviously so. The other triad (in this set of triads) is 1, 2 and 6, which is "social" in its expression.

Interesting. I'm completely new to this whole enneagram thing, I tried to download a book on Amazon, but the software crashed in the middle. Maybe I'll check out the library. Any suggestions?

 

[uumlau]

Lol I can see this, especially with INTJs or INFPs.

When I was younger I could become very passionate about the arts, but I've learned to let go of some of that aggression. If you don't like the same things I do, then there's nothing I can do about it.

The Beatles for me is classical music. I find it extremely depressing when people criticize it because a lot of it is public domain and under appreciated.



Interesting. I'm completely new to this whole enneagram thing, I tried to download a book on Amazon, but the software crashed in the middle. Maybe I'll check out the library. Any suggestions?

The Riso-Hudson book is the classic: Personality Types: Using the Enneagram for Self-Discovery: Don Richard Riso, Russ Hudson: 0046442798679: Amazon.com: Books

It's interesting in part because the essentially map the types to the DSM - not explicitly, but if you look at the material, it covers many layers of psychological development and trauma.

Also very useful for me was Helen Palmer's book: The Enneagram: Understanding Yourself and the Others In Your Life: Helen Palmer: 9780062506832: Amazon.com: Books

The main thing I liked about this book is that its more anecdotal style helped me figure out the underlying core of Enneagram, namely that it is about weaknesses, about coping mechanisms. The "personalities" of the types are the coping mechanisms by which people of the type tend to deal with their key psychological weakness. If you figure out the weakness or coping mechanism, you know your Enneagram type, even if the personality doesn't match exactly. (The personality descriptions get a lot of "cruft" that combine MBTI personality types together and hide the fact that other MBTI types could have that Enneagram type. For instance, type 5 reads like a combination of INTJ and INTP, but hides the fact that INFP or ISTJ are also quite likely, and the type 9 descriptions read like INFP/ISFP/ISFJ emo crap that would seem to indicate that an INTJ could never possibly be a 9 - but 9 is the only type that makes sense to me.)

 

[AphroditeGoneAwry]

The Riso-Hudson book is the classic: Personality Types: Using the Enneagram for Self-Discovery: Don Richard Riso, Russ Hudson: 0046442798679: Amazon.com: Books

It's interesting in part because the essentially map the types to the DSM - not explicitly, but if you look at the material, it covers many layers of psychological development and trauma.

Also very useful for me was Helen Palmer's book: The Enneagram: Understanding Yourself and the Others In Your Life: Helen Palmer: 9780062506832: Amazon.com: Books

The main thing I liked about this book is that its more anecdotal style helped me figure out the underlying core of Enneagram, namely that it is about weaknesses, about coping mechanisms. The "personalities" of the types are the coping mechanisms by which people of the type tend to deal with their key psychological weakness. If you figure out the weakness or coping mechanism, you know your Enneagram type, even if the personality doesn't match exactly. (The personality descriptions get a lot of "cruft" that combine MBTI personality types together and hide the fact that other MBTI types could have that Enneagram type. For instance, type 5 reads like a combination of INTJ and INTP, but hides the fact that INFP or ISTJ are also quite likely, and the type 9 descriptions read like INFP/ISFP/ISFJ emo crap that would seem to indicate that an INTJ could never possibly be a 9 - but 9 is the only type that makes sense to me.)

Sounds interesting. Except i'm too lazy to read book. I just want someone to analyze my weaknesses and tell me what I am.

 

[uumlau]

Sounds interesting. Except i'm too lazy to read book. I just want someone to analyze my weaknesses and tell me what I am.

No one can. Enneagram is much tougher than MBTI, that way.

If you don't figure it out yourself, and get the "Oh, shit! I do that over and over without thinking about it," reaction, it isn't your type. Only you can realize that insight about yourself.

I've studiously avoided conflict all my life, ever since I was a kid. I've never been in a fight. (Well, roughhousing with my brother doesn't count!) I obey stupid rules just so people don't bother me about obeying them. I look for the least confrontational solutions to my problems.

Those kinds of insights aren't obvious to an INTJ who has mastered many topics and looks to all the world like some sort of 5w6. The thing is, I don't master things out of fear or to compensate for a weakness, but because it's what I do. It was a huge source of confusion until I realized that being an INTJ is what I consciously do, how I think, while the Enneagram is what I unconsciously do - how I react. I react like a type 9, without thinking hard about it at all. It's automatic.

 

[Kullervo]

The Riso-Hudson book is the classic: Personality Types: Using the Enneagram for Self-Discovery: Don Richard Riso, Russ Hudson: 0046442798679: Amazon.com: Books

It's interesting in part because the essentially map the types to the DSM - not explicitly, but if you look at the material, it covers many layers of psychological development and trauma.

Also very useful for me was Helen Palmer's book: The Enneagram: Understanding Yourself and the Others In Your Life: Helen Palmer: 9780062506832: Amazon.com: Books

The main thing I liked about this book is that its more anecdotal style helped me figure out the underlying core of Enneagram, namely that it is about weaknesses, about coping mechanisms. The "personalities" of the types are the coping mechanisms by which people of the type tend to deal with their key psychological weakness. If you figure out the weakness or coping mechanism, you know your Enneagram type, even if the personality doesn't match exactly. (The personality descriptions get a lot of "cruft" that combine MBTI personality types together and hide the fact that other MBTI types could have that Enneagram type. For instance, type 5 reads like a combination of INTJ and INTP, but hides the fact that INFP or ISTJ are also quite likely, and the type 9 descriptions read like INFP/ISFP/ISFJ emo crap that would seem to indicate that an INTJ could never possibly be a 9 - but 9 is the only type that makes sense to me.)

I found Claudio Naranjo's offering - Character and Neurosis - very helpful. Reading through it helped me finally settle questions around my Enneatype. For a time, I was never very sure. Of all the Enneagram sites, I rate 9types as the best because they cut through the mountain of crap you'll find in type descriptions. I believe these are responsible for most of the mistypes we see (because of our social and cultural values/pressure, some types are superficially a lot more attractive than others). But if you look at the fundamental neuroses of each type, all of the gloss falls away.

I read somewhere - I can't remember where - that your true Enneatype is likely to be the one you find most uncomfortable, even have the most contempt for. You shouldn't be flattered by what you see. It is because the system delves into such confronting aspects of our psyche that I feel it's very difficult to Enneatype somebody you don't know well...and that it's next to impossible to do online, where people for the most part show you an idealised version of themselves.

 

[Coriolis]

I don't know who this is, so I can't really answer your question. Still new here and I haven't had a great deal of time to interact with said poster.

I am the member who wrote this:

You are confusing being private with being passive. INTJs activeness is seen in our actions much moreso than in our words.

I'm not confused, this is my personal viewpoint. I don't see INTJs as more aggressive than anyone else in society, if anything they are one of the least aggressive types. I think only the FPs trail behind us. (Almost annoyingly passive).

Now you are taking aggression as the opposite of passivity. The expression "passive-aggressive" notwithstanding, the opposite of passive is active. INTJs are active, though that activity is often not readily apparent for (at least) 3 reasons. (1) Our actions are focused, meaning that if you don't see us engaged in one of our ongoing projects or something we consider important, we certainly will look tuned out or idle. (2) Our actions are efficient, meaning you won't see us running around in a flurry of activity, like the proverbial chicken with its head cut off. Our actions often serve to set things in motion that can proceed without our own direct intervention. We then relax until it is necessary to take the next step. (3) We are often stealthy about what we are doing, so even when it is important and ongoing, it might not look like we are doing much at all.

The only time I feel the need to become passionate about a subject is when I see people spreading a false truth. Such as the stereotypes people perpetuate about INTJs. Including the INTJs themselves. Maybe the get some sort of gratification or a sense of belonging out of it, but I am really sick and tired of hearing it.

We're not all alike. Some of us are aggressive, some of us are passive. In real life, we're fairly innocuous people and whether you want to agree with this or not, we come off as passive and calm to others.

When I was a child my teacher used to stick me next to the hyperactive kids because she said I had a calming effect on them. I've had many people tell me that I have a placid composure.

Correcting someone on Beatles trivia, as [MENTION=9310]uumlau[/MENTION] mentioned as an example, seems more INTP-like. Sure, I enjoy a good discussion and will take someone to task if I think they are being factually or logically incorrect. My real passion, however, is focused on getting things done, on accomplishing things that are important to me. Yes, you might see me arguing with someone over the best way to do something, but often I simply step in and do it. Again, action: not passivity, or aggression, or even an argument over trivia. When observing INTJs, perception is quite often NOT reality.

 

[Kullervo]

For example, today we live in a type 9 INFJ society. The values of the mainstream, that are trendy and most accepted, desired, valued...are those you'd expect somebody with that typing to have. So, there isn't anything original about being an NF; we run the joint. The irony.

Of course, you don't have to look far into the past to find a time where it was different.

I feel we're near the end of a cycle where E9 values control our culture, and that they'll soon be replaced by those of a more confronting type, probably E6 (or E8 if we get President Trump ).

 

[ceecee]

No one can. Enneagram is much tougher than MBTI, that way.

If you don't figure it out yourself, and get the "Oh, shit! I do that over and over without thinking about it," reaction, it isn't your type. Only you can realize that insight about yourself.

I've studiously avoided conflict all my life, ever since I was a kid. I've never been in a fight. (Well, roughhousing with my brother doesn't count!) I obey stupid rules just so people don't bother me about obeying them. I look for the least confrontational solutions to my problems.

Those kinds of insights aren't obvious to an INTJ who has mastered many topics and looks to all the world like some sort of 5w6. The thing is, I don't master things out of fear or to compensate for a weakness, but because it's what I do. It was a huge source of confusion until I realized that being an INTJ is what I consciously do, how I think, while the Enneagram is what I unconsciously do - how I react. I react like a type 9, without thinking hard about it at all. It's automatic.

In the beginning, I just went with an enneagram 5 because....that's what seemed most logical and that's what a lot of INTJ's are. I also think enneagram tends to show personality in the worst light and 8's sound horrible. When I figured out more about 8's I knew that's what I was because that is what I react like and that is what I think like and I'm not afraid of it. Maybe that in itself is part of being an 8.

 

[uumlau]

Correcting someone on Beatles trivia, as uumlau mentioned as an example, seems more INTP-like.

I was actually thinking of a more ISTJ-ish type 5. INTJ 5 mastery tends to focus on more abstract pursuits.

 

[Felix5]

The main thing I liked about this book is that its more anecdotal style helped me figure out the underlying core of Enneagram, namely that it is about weaknesses, about coping mechanisms. The "personalities" of the types are the coping mechanisms by which people of the type tend to deal with their key psychological weakness. If you figure out the weakness or coping mechanism, you know your Enneagram type, even if the personality doesn't match exactly. (The personality descriptions get a lot of "cruft" that combine MBTI personality types together and hide the fact that other MBTI types could have that Enneagram type. For instance, type 5 reads like a combination of INTJ and INTP, but hides the fact that INFP or ISTJ are also quite likely, and the type 9 descriptions read like INFP/ISFP/ISFJ emo crap that would seem to indicate that an INTJ could never possibly be a 9 - but 9 is the only type that makes sense to me.)

Thanks for the suggestions, I'll check them out in my spare time.

 

[Felix5]

I read somewhere - I can't remember where - that your true Enneatype is likely to be the one you find most uncomfortable, even have the most contempt for. You shouldn't be flattered by what you see. It is because the system delves into such confronting aspects of our psyche that I feel it's very difficult to Enneatype somebody you don't know well...and that it's next to impossible to do online, where people for the most part show you an idealised version of themselves.

Interesting. That's how I felt when I read the Myers Briggs description for INTJ. The 5w4 one certainly made me uncomfortable. I'll have to look more into this to really understand how this whole thing works. Sometimes I think these online tests are just too vague and one dimensional to really type anyone.

 

[Felix5]

Now you are taking aggression as the opposite of passivity.

They are antonyms.

(1) Our actions are focused, meaning that if you don't see us engaged in one of our ongoing projects or something we consider important, we certainly will look tuned out or idle.

My point is that we appear passive to the outside world, therefore innocuous. Which leads me to become confused as to why anyone would dislike us instinctively. It would take someone time to get to know us and to develop some type of feeling either way. My personal thought is that we have a neutral expression and most people perceive this as a negative thing rather than a neutral thing. Someone who appears perky and upbeat is more likely to be perceived as friendly and warm.

 

[Felix5]

Correcting someone on Beatles trivia, as @uumlau mentioned as an example, seems more INTP-like. Sure, I enjoy a good discussion and will take someone to task if I think they are being factually or logically incorrect. My real passion, however, is focused on getting things done, on accomplishing things that are important to me. Yes, you might see me arguing with someone over the best way to do something, but often I simply step in and do it. Again, action: not passivity, or aggression, or even an argument over trivia. When observing INTJs, perception is quite often NOT reality.

I don't really understand this at all.

I never "accomplish tasks" because I have very little to accomplish. I work in retail. When I'm not in retail I am exploring avenues of interest to myself and relaxing. My job takes a lot of energy out of me, so by the time I actually get home I literally need to lie down and veg out.

Maybe it would be different if I had energy...but I sincerely doubt it. As a child, I was a lazy daydreamer and spent most of my time "hanging out." My mom had to strike the fear of god into me, figuratively speaking, to get me to do anything. I was lazy, although I could focus is I had a task that needed to be done. It doesn't change the fact that my main state of mind was a very passive existence. I'm assertive in other ways though, never let anyone push me around growing up. At work, if I see a customer leave a basket or a product in the middle of the store I'll ask them to put it back (politely of course).

Maybe it's a 5 thing..I don't know. I've never felt an incentive to do anything, let alone accomplish anything. Now...I do have goals in my life, I want to move to NYC and that means I need to save up money. I made a goal for myself to purchase a cruise, I planned this entire thing out. Is it really an accomplishment though?

Other than that I don't really know what else to do with myself or my life. I suppose I want to go back and get my master's and Phd, I want to explore avenues of interest. (History, archaeology, music archiving, history, vocal performance.).

Perhaps you could argue that what I do everyday is a goal. I spend large amounts of time researching music, history, and all sorts of subjects that intrigue me, but other than that...there's not really much else.

 

[Coriolis]

They are antonyms.

I'm not sure which dictionary gave you that misconception. I just checked half a dozen, in print and online, and all list "active" as an antonym of passive, usually first in the list; and none list "aggressive". Your entire line of reasoning thus relies on the misuse of a word.

My point is that we appear passive to the outside world, therefore innocuous. Which leads me to become confused as to why anyone would dislike us instinctively. It would take someone time to get to know us and to develop some type of feeling either way. My personal thought is that we have a neutral expression and most people perceive this as a negative thing rather than a neutral thing. Someone who appears perky and upbeat is more likely to be perceived as friendly and warm.

That's not what you wrote initially, though. You wrote that we in fact were passive. I don't argue that we often appear so, but as I specified earlier, reality is often quite distinct from appearance. If anything, people probably dislike us on first encounter because we do not immediately jump into the circle jerk that is common idle chatter and smalltalk.

I don't really understand this at all.

I never "accomplish tasks" because I have very little to accomplish. I work in retail. When I'm not in retail I am exploring avenues of interest to myself and relaxing. My job takes a lot of energy out of me, so by the time I actually get home I literally need to lie down and veg out.

Maybe it would be different if I had energy...but I sincerely doubt it. As a child, I was a lazy daydreamer and spent most of my time "hanging out." My mom had to strike the fear of god into me, figuratively speaking, to get me to do anything. I was lazy, although I could focus is I had a task that needed to be done. It doesn't change the fact that my main state of mind was a very passive existence. I'm assertive in other ways though, never let anyone push me around growing up. At work, if I see a customer leave a basket or a product in the middle of the store I'll ask them to put it back (politely of course).

Maybe it's a 5 thing..I don't know. I've never felt an incentive to do anything, let alone accomplish anything. Now...I do have goals in my life, I want to move to NYC and that means I need to save up money. I made a goal for myself to purchase a cruise, I planned this entire thing out. Is it really an accomplishment though?

We seem to be very different then in this respect, even though I see we both list ourselves as 5. My parents only had to get after me to do dumb little chores around the house, like hang my coat in the closet after school, or put out a new box of tissues if I used the last one. Oh, and go to bed at what they thought was a "reasonable time". As far back as I can remember, I have been driven to reach goals - often goals for myself, like doing well on a school project, or learning a new piece of music, or learning a new skill. As I got older, goals expanded to include others. Anything from making a series of handmade Christmas gifts, to organizing a surprise anniversary party for my parents, to getting a student machine shop funded and set up when I was in grad school. Now my goals involve primarily professional and career activities and volunteer activities, as well as personal learning. Seeing my plans and ideas become reality provides a thrill and sense of satisfaction like little else.

 

[Felix5]

I'm not sure which dictionary gave you that misconception. I just checked half a dozen, in print and online, and all list "active" as an antonym of passive, usually first in the list; and none list "aggressive". Your entire line of reasoning thus relies on the misuse of a word.

Why are we arguing over this? Kind of dumb thing to argue about...Don't you think? I feel like we're bickering just for the sake of bickering. Who cares??

That's not what you wrote initially, though. You wrote that we in fact were passive. I don't argue that we often appear so, but as I specified earlier, reality is often quite distinct from appearance. If anything, people probably dislike us on first encounter because we do not immediately jump into the circle jerk that is common idle chatter and smalltalk.

Again, who cares? I'm not arguing about this anymore because we've clearly lost sight of the argument and we're falling into pointless bickering. This argument could literally go on forever.

We seem to be very different then in this respect, even though I see we both list ourselves as 5. My parents only had to get after me to do dumb little chores around the house, like hang my coat in the closet after school, or put out a new box of tissues if I used the last one. Oh, and go to bed at what they thought was a "reasonable time".

I never really did chores as a kid, the only chore I had was do my homework and don' fail school.

As far back as I can remember, I have been driven to reach goals - often goals for myself, like doing well on a school project, or learning a new piece of music, or learning a new skill.

I certainly did my best on school projects, but only because I was interested in the subject or because I enjoyed the project. I played music growing up, so to me this wasn't even work. it was just recreation. Didn't really consider it a "goal."

As I got older, goals expanded to include others. Anything from making a series of handmade Christmas gifts, to organizing a surprise anniversary party for my parents, to getting a student machine shop funded and set up when I was in grad school. Now my goals involve primarily professional and career activities and volunteer activities, as well as personal learning. Seeing my plans and ideas become reality provides a thrill and sense of satisfaction like little else.

Interesting, I don't really relate to this at all. Maybe it's a nature v nurture thing. I do have goals for myself, but I don't think this is the same thing.