[INTJ] You know you are INTJ when...

[Misty_Mountain_Rose]

*Frustration sets in because of the only unpredictable variable called the human factor impinging on the system from aquiring optimal efficiency.

*When you're an ass, and the only reason is because others don't have a backbone.

QFT. I only say what everyone else wants said but is afraid to.

 

[Matthew_Z]

QFT. I only say what everyone else wants said but is afraid to.

Stop saying things that make me think I need to change my type again.

 

[Usehername]

When you (a) feel like many conversations with others are wasting your life because they could be accomplished more efficiently, then (b) you spend 5 hours surfing the 'net.

Then, you acknowledge that this is irrational and make yourself sit through someone rambling for the sake of growth.

 

[EffEmDoubleyou]

When you attend a family funeral and feel like you're at a stranger's funeral because you're the only one that's not distraught.

 

[Matthew_Z]

When you attend a family funeral and feel like you're at a stranger's funeral because you're the only one that's not distraught.

Ugh.

*goes to confirm his J/P preference*

 

[Provoker]

I have read the comments from pages 1 through 6, and found that none of them say much about INTJness. To save time, I'll assume the other 5 pages are similar and not read them. The reason most of them are inconsequential is that people have addressed one-liners that can also be applied to other types. For example, ENTJs are also capable of being arrogant. Thus, if we're only looking at arrogance as indicative of personality then we are bound to be mislead since this is not merely particular to INTJs. Instead, we must search for features that are highly particular to INTJs. To wit, what is INTJness in its entirety? Or, what are features that are particular only to INTJs such that if a person exhibits these features they are bound to be an INTJ? As I've established, arrogance alone isn't telling since other types can also be arrogant. Come to think of it, I'm not sure that it is at all possible to decide if someone is an INTJ based on one characteristic. There will be certain characteristics that overlap with ENTJs (such as arrogance and/or organizational skills), others with INTPs (such as their cool intellectualism), others with ENTPs (such as their twisted sense of humor). It is some combination of all of these things. I don't think it is possible to characterize a person by a one-liner. At best, the one-liner "you know you're an INTJ if....x" will just be one piece of a jigsaw puzzle. However, I suppose to be a little more open-minded the coming together of all these pieces of the INTJ puzzle form something greater and more holistic. Thus, while on an individual basis most of the contributions in this thread can be easily debunked, I suppose the whole discussion in its pluralistic entirety can enrich our understanding of INTJness. To further the discussion, given that the pieces that make up the INTJ puzzle can and do overlap with other types, what can we say about the INTJ puzzle as a whole? That is, at the highest level of abstraction what is the single most salient feature(s) that constitute INTJness? Unless we can address this question, we are merely expounding on trivial drivel in vain. Anyhow, carry on.

 

[Kalach]

^^ You know you're INTJ if you could and did read and follow that without query or qualm from first word to last without pause for mental breath.


We have a special rhythm in our words.

 

[ed111]

I have read the comments from pages 1 through 6, and found that none of them say much about INTJness. To save time, I'll assume the other 5 pages are similar and not read them. The reason most of them are inconsequential is that people have addressed one-liners that can also be applied to other types. For example, ENTJs are also capable of being arrogant. Thus, if we're only looking at arrogance as indicative of personality then we are bound to be mislead since this is not merely particular to INTJs. Instead, we must search for features that are highly particular to INTJs. To wit, what is INTJness in its entirety? Or, what are features that are particular only to INTJs such that if a person exhibits these features they are bound to be an INTJ? As I've established, arrogance alone isn't telling since other types can also be arrogant. Come to think of it, I'm not sure that it is at all possible to decide if someone is an INTJ based on one characteristic. There will be certain characteristics that overlap with ENTJs (such as arrogance and/or organizational skills), others with INTPs (such as their cool intellectualism), others with ENTPs (such as their twisted sense of humor). It is some combination of all of these things. I don't think it is possible to characterize a person by a one-liner. At best, the one-liner "you know you're an INTJ if....x" will just be one piece of a jigsaw puzzle. However, I suppose to be a little more open-minded the coming together of all these pieces of the INTJ puzzle form something greater and more holistic. Thus, while on an individual basis most of the contributions in this thread can be easily debunked, I suppose the whole discussion in its pluralistic entirety can enrich our understanding of INTJness. To further the discussion, given that the pieces that make up the INTJ puzzle can and do overlap with other types, what can we say about the INTJ puzzle as a whole? That is, at the highest level of abstraction what is the single most salient feature(s) that constitute INTJness? Unless we can address this question, we are merely expounding on trivial drivel in vain. Anyhow, carry on.

Yeah, that about sums it up for me.

 

[poppy]

To further the discussion, given that the pieces that make up the INTJ puzzle can and do overlap with other types, what can we say about the INTJ puzzle as a whole? That is, at the highest level of abstraction what is the single most salient feature(s) that constitute INTJness? Unless we can address this question, we are merely expounding on trivial drivel in vain. Anyhow, carry on.

You know you're INTJ when you write like this : P
But that's a very valid point. I don't think the nature of someone who is INTJ (or any type) can be distilled into any specific characteristic, even the name (acronym I guess) is made up of 4 adjectives. So is it possible to be more succinct? Probably not, unless you get into really abstract descriptions like "systems builder".

 

[Qre:us]

I don't get it....

Instead, we must search for features that are highly particular to INTJs. To wit, what is INTJness in its entirety? Or, what are features that are particular only to INTJs such that if a person exhibits these features they are bound to be an INTJ?

Ok

However, I suppose to be a little more open-minded the coming together of all these pieces of the INTJ puzzle form something greater and more holistic. Thus, while on an individual basis most of the contributions in this thread can be easily debunked, I suppose the whole discussion in its pluralistic entirety can enrich our understanding of INTJness.

Yet, you recognize the 'merit' of this type of thread.

To further the discussion, given that the pieces that make up the INTJ puzzle can and do overlap with other types, what can we say about the INTJ puzzle as a whole? That is, at the highest level of abstraction what is the single most salient feature(s) that constitute INTJness? Unless we can address this question, we are merely expounding on trivial drivel in vain. Anyhow, carry on.

But, then, dismiss it once again?

Are you trying to debate whether the whole (thread) is made up the sum of its parts (individual INTJ remarks) or whether the whole is greater than the sum of its parts?

....the only conclusion I could reach is that if what you're proposing is doable (bolded, underlined), then, all it takes may be summing up of the thread thus far (given your second quote)? Can you do it? If not, why not?

 

[EffEmDoubleyou]

I think it's clear from way the thread title is written that this is meant to be a lighthearted thread about anecdotal incidences of INTJness. Detailed arguments that INTJness can't be confirmed by one incident or trait seem to miss the point. It feels like trying to enforce the Queensbury rules for a schoolyard scuffle.

 

[Night]

Off-topic ballyhoo moved here.

 

[Jeffster]

I have read the comments from pages 1 through 6, and found that none of them say much about INTJness. To save time, I'll assume the other 5 pages are similar and not read them.

I'm just amazed that an INTJ would leave the posts-per-page set to default.

 

[sunset5678]

Lol, I'm an ENTJ but I have enough ditz moments to come off as some kind of
estp/esfp subtype sometimes, I'll go from lip gloss this, colored mascara that
to talking about how many regions they speak some language in and all the ot
her languages it's similar to, making references to classic books and referring to stupid people as having the I.Q of socks or something like that, I could be
about as easily amused as I wanted and still be told I'm 'too normal' by people that have known me forever because people remember how wound up
my brother always was. I've been compared to having Elle Wood's personality
with Brain's intellect before.

 

[Athena]

... when everyone is mad at you, but you only vaguely care.

 

[InfiniteIntrigue]

When you (a) feel like many conversations with others are wasting your life because they could be accomplished more efficiently, then (b) you spend 5 hours surfing the 'net.

Yes.

 

[Ghost of the dead horse]

..when you define "truth" as "I think so", and spend all your time in a debate rephrasing that basic axiom in the most logically-sounding words possible.

 

[Ghost of the dead horse]

..when you learn and accept corrections to your ideas only from communication that wasn't meant for you, so officially, nobody has won you in anything, and nobody has been better than you in anything.

 

[Hendo Barbarosa]

...when you are apparently the only person you know who can explain what makes google wave different from anything that came before it.

 

[Virtual ghost]

When you were running from home as a child simply because your parents were fairly emotional people.