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.