Most people concentrate on their actual strengths, and at worst simply ignore or avoid their weaknesses. Spinning them into strengths is predominantly done by INTJs, in my experience.
Ah, so it's what "most people" do that matters - wouldn't that imply that the real problem you have with INTJs is that they aren't like "most people"? Now, as for INTJs, why would they be spinning their weaknesses into strengths around you, hmm? Perhaps because you're doing to them what you're doing here, making broad accusations about their behavior?
Te when it suits you, Fi when it doesn't. The ol' battle between "there is only one way" and "we are all special snowflakes," Another INTJ staple.
You ignore those points for which you have no counter, and say things like this, and yet you accuse INTJs of "spinning"? Your angular momentum seems rather high at the moment. Hang on to your glasses: when I spin that fast my glasses often fly off of my face!
Carpe Adhominem! Bombs away!! (actually it was a 'for instance,' I have about a dozen INTJs whose behavior I've collated into my expressed opinion)
Ah, so because you have
12 datapoints, and not merely one, we're supposed to take your analysis seriously? Never mind trust your overall synthesis of 12
different individuals, taking the negative traits of each, and plopping all those traits under the classification of "INTJ"? Really?!
You'd be much better off just quoting traits from here:
http://www.xeromag.com/fun/personality.html
While not the most adept at validating their Ni hunches, they can validate
the shit out of their desire to keep their heads in the sand, I'll give y'all that.
You didn't read a word I wrote, did you? Now whose head is in the sand? I take the time out of my day to explain what makes INTJs tick, and you want to characterize it as a massive defense mechanism?
I've spent the last several years explaining to other INTJs (mostly online, especially younger ones) what makes them tick, to make all that is confusing about the world to them (us) make more sense. There is a huge disconnect between what INTJs see and most non-INTJs see, and there's hardly anyone that bothers to bridge the gap. The xNFPs try, but in the end they keep on trying to connect with the Fi and ignore the Ni. The INFJs get the Ni, but then judge INTJs in terms of Fe. And the other INTJs are often just as lost as oneself.
Bridging that gap is useful, because it fosters the corrections to all of those personality flaws that people describe in this thread. A young INTJ doesn't respond very well to all the various Si and Fe lessons that most other people want to teach, any more than most non-INTJs would respond well to the Ni/Te lessons that INTJs would provide. "The Four Agreements", which I linked to, is essentially an Fi manual. Step 1 in getting an INTJ out of his shell is providing a level of self-understanding in Fi terms.
No, not really. You're saying that INTJs claim that heads and tails are the same thing, I'm saying they're opposite sides of the
same coin.
Depends on whether or not it's Te or Fi that's disagreeing. I was speaking to the Fi variety.
This is the kind of statement that makes it fairly clear that you don't understand INTJs as much as you think you do.
Ni is disagreeing with you. Te and Fi are more responsible for the articulation of the disagreement. I know it's kind of odd, describing a perceiving function as doing something that one would normally ascribe to judging, but really, it's usually Ni synthesizing information, while Te expresses the logistical/practical aspects of the information and Fi expresses the values aspects of the information. Granted, the expression of the Fi side is often awkward, especially for young INTJs, but the
understanding is based in Ni, not Fi.
In a similar vein, the stubbornness of INTJs is more due to Ni than Fi. It isn't the egotistical, butt-hurt Fi that is digging in its heels and refusing to budge. Rather, it's Ni, it's perceiving. If you see an apple, and you say it's an apple, and someone else disagrees and says it's an orange, are you going to think that you're being "stubborn" to say that it isn't an orange? No, you'll think the other person is blind, or just f-cking with you. Now, when dealing with more intangible things, Ni sees certain truths. Now, let's admit that they aren't necessarily true and correct truths in all contexts for all people, but they're
seen, they're
perceived. If someone comes along and simply asserts that the truths that Ni sees are not true, without offering any sort of credible explanation, it isn't Fi ego-butthurt that is disagreeing with the assertion, it's Ni
perception.
Do you REALLY want to get an INTJ to acknowledge your point, especially when he's being "stubborn" about it? Rather than saying that his judgment is faulty, instead say that he's looking at a different problem than you are looking at. In other words, his judgment of what he
sees with his Ni is perfectly fine, but his Ni observations may be way off base, or, more likely, just aimed at a similar-but-different problem.
Wouldn't hurt, but those attributes were primarily drawn from other INTJs, not him.
Oh, yeah, those eleven other data points.
One thing for you to double-check on is how much of these attributes are attributes of the INTJs themselves, vs attributes of
your interactions with INTJs. E.g., if you have any INFJs in your life, with INTJ friends/acquaintances in common, compare how INFJs and INTJs are similar and dissimilar, and to what degree the INFJs perceive the same issues with INTJs that you do, and so on.