Engineer
Dependable Skeleton
- Joined
- Feb 1, 2011
- Messages
- 625
- MBTI Type
- INTJ
- Enneagram
- 6w5
- Instinctual Variant
- sx/sp
That's a nice way put it.This is pretty good.
Although, I would say we tend to mix a high dose of seriousness with "trolling".
True selves uh...sounds like a good excuse to act like an emo.INTPs and INFJs are both soulless Fe users, which leaves INFPs and INTJs as the sole great minds (INs) of the world who also have true selves.
dull, uncreative ISTJesque picture response
True selves uh...sounds like a good excuse to act like an emo.
Nah, just trollin.
Sorta.
All INTJs are not identical, and identifying trolling is harder with some of us, easier with others. Alot depends on how "over the top" our standard presentation is, and how subtle our trolling is, though trolling almost by definition tends to be short on subtlety.And now we see that even other INTJs don't know when the other one is trolling or not.
Is it tweaking or is it a personal attack? Is it sarcasm or is it what s/he really thinks? Is it even both?!
Who knows what meanings lurks in the statements of INTJs...? ...The Shadow knows...
Ohhh! I think I understand. I may be connecting some dots now. The bolded especially helps me connect everything, because I remember talking to my INTJ former roommate about how almost everything she says is a test, to see how people will react.Well, it's really just not that simple.
See, from one perspective, you could say that we're always trolling.
But, from another, you could say that we're never trolling.
The truth lies somewhere in between.
And the truth lies in what I said.
You just have to learn to read those multiple perspectives that we're riffing.
We literally play them like an instrument.
You just have to learn to hear it.
What you're describing sounds like playing "Battleship". You're essentially saying that you should play the Ne game with them to understand their Ni game? Could you give an example?EJCC I think the usual ENFP tactic is just to pick some elements in the INTJ's communication and twist them around a bit and see how the INTJ responds, and that's how you can get a read on them. It's like Heisenberg uncertainty, they don't have any Si grounding, but at least you can figure out how they're moving at the moment. And then you get them to have to play your game too because then they have to figure out what your position is and because their Si sucks they find that tricky and intriguing too, and then while they're distracted, you pounce.
This is the technique that I had been using, with my INTJ friends. But with INTJs I don't know well, that's where it gets confusing to me. I sometimes get into situations like the one in MacGuffin's quote:I think the only way to tell is by knowing the person in question and whether what they said/did may seem reasonable to them. If not, they are 'trolling'.
I also think INTJs troll far less than INTPs do. Sometimes I'll see an NF laugh at what an INTJ posted, not realizing the INTJ was serious, the INTJ actually believes the crazy stance they are taking.
See INTJ Forum for further details. Whole lotta serious-crazy over there.
I dunno. I really don't think it's that complicated for Si users. I don't think I do what you're describing at all. I try to make a point of being as clear and concise as I can, and usually I do well at it. From my experience, if people read me wrong, it's because they're overanalyzing me. Sometimes a spade is just a spade, and an ESTJ saying "I like your scarf" is just an ESTJ who wants you to know that they like your scarf, without any ulterior motives or secret meanings.Although, now that you mention it, this applies to all social interactions of INTJs with other types, not just text-based ones. Which often leads to those moments where-- for example-- some people think you love them (because you were just polite, and left out the entire explanation as to why you were being nice), some people think that you hate them (because you are sarcastically bantering with them in a hyperbolic manner) and some people think you are an arrogant asshole (because of a few self-referential/sarcastically-deprecating comments that you made). It's a complicated game, showing your meanings... And it's definitely gotten me into trouble on a few occasions.
And I feel like all types do it to some extent, it's just that INTJs don't give a damn-- most of the time-- if the majority of their day-to-day interactions with people are confused as being significant of something else.
Why does it depend on whether you like the person or not? Is it that you don't want to waste the energy on people you don't care about?Getting to the bottom of it can be straightforward if we "like" you: just ask. We will either give you an honest answer, or an answer so blatantly sarcastic that you will know the opposite is true. Otherwise we can indeed lead most people down the proverbial garden path quite effectively.
EJCC used Te/Si Getting To The Goddamn Point!♜♞â™â™›â™šâ™â™žâ™œ
♟♟♟♟♟♟♟♟
♙♙♙♙♙♙♙♙
♖♘♗♕♔♗♘♖
Suddenly, a wild chess game appears.
That's why I'm so much better at reading you guys. I think I even posted a question on this thread a while ago, asking the INTJs if they enjoyed playing games with everyone, because I was getting really sick of having to deal with that style of conversation from my roommate. But it's easier to deal with once you get used to it. I got a LOT better at that style of sarcastic/sharp/brutal/deadpan banter over the course of my time rooming with her. And I got to a point in the middle of the year when I decided that, when in doubt, I would assume she wasn't serious.EJCC,
I think INTJs are trickier than INTPs because they tend to mix ''trolling'' with a high dose of seriousness. They are usually making a point indirectly. I call that semi trolling. When done right, it is beautiful. There's no easy way to tell - you need to understand the other person well.
INTPs do that too, but we are usually more blatant. Among other reasons, I guess our tolerance for interpretive deviation is significantly smaller.
Interesting. I try to align my conversations with my goals. If I tell someone I like their scarf, it could have one of several meanings:I try to make a point of being as clear and concise as I can, and usually I do well at it. From my experience, if people read me wrong, it's because they're overanalyzing me. Sometimes a spade is just a spade, and an ESTJ saying "I like your scarf" is just an ESTJ who wants you to know that they like your scarf, without any ulterior motives or secret meanings.
It is more about openness and closeness/trust. If I like someone, or am close to someone, I am more inclined to be candid and share my real intentions with them. Others I am more likely to keep at a distance. The verbal parrying, sarcasm, banter, and other remarks of indeterminate intent keep my own motivations hidden while giving me more opportunities to observe (test) the other person.Why does it depend on whether you like the person or not? Is it that you don't want to waste the energy on people you don't care about?
Oh this is all very Si vs. Ni, I think.Interesting. I try to align my conversations with my goals. If I tell someone I like their scarf, it could have one of several meanings:
1. I really do just like their scarf and want them to know.
2. I don't actually "like" the scarf, but it reminds me of something (the curtains at my grandmother's house?) makes me think of something (Bravais lattices?) or is somehow striking to me, and I feel the urge to comment on it somehow but don't want to get into all the implications of what it means to me.
3. I want to appear friendly, put the scarf-wearer at ease, possibly even distract him/her.
That makes sense. I keep similar things close and away from strangers, and our motivations for that are probably similar. (Protecting our delicate Fi, right?)It is more about openness and closeness/trust. If I like someone, or am close to someone, I am more inclined to be candid and share my real intentions with them. Others I am more likely to keep at a distance. The verbal parrying, sarcasm, banter, and other remarks of indeterminate intent keep my own motivations hidden while giving me more opportunities to observe (test) the other person.
What you're describing sounds like playing "Battleship". You're essentially saying that you should play the Ne game with them to understand their Ni game? Could you give an example?
INTJ said:They just can't keep their panties out of a twist.INTP said:I guess that means female INTJs can't spot it either?
They just can't keep their panties out of a twist.I guess that means female INTJs can't spot it either?
But I digress. It's interesting that INTJs are drained by that, while Si types are drained by trying to be indirect and/or to manipulate. What's your theory on that? I still haven't figured it out.
I suppose I'm just goal-oriented enough to do this from time to time when I feel it necessary to accomplish something important. It is insincere, but probably not in the way you envision. If I really found nothing noteworthy about the person's scarf, I would not compliment it, but rather would find some other comment to make. The distraction aspect of such situations is often just to engage the person in smalltalk or idle conversation, to make our encounter seem entirely ordinary and predictable. This is what makes me feel insincere, though, since I hate these types of conversation, and in instigating one even for a good cause, I am pretending to be something I am not.I would (almost) never consider #3, and I would definitely not think of it as a distraction. The closest thing to that, that I sometimes do, would be complimenting their scarf because they complimented something I was wearing and so I felt like I should compliment the thing they're wearing that I like the most. But again, that's still sincere, and I still like the scarf. I try not to do that sort of thing if I don't mean it. Not that I'm calling you insincere. But it's a style of manipulation that I'm just starting to understand (via INTJs in my life), and that I would never consider using. (But keep in mind that the main reason that I don't bullshit/lie/manipulate is that it doesn't cross my mind. I might be less lawful good if my instinct wasn't finding a way to be honest and straightforward no matter what, because it uses less energy.)
It does come down to energy drain, that and distance again. If the connection takes some explaining, or involves revealing personal information, I may just not want to get into it, and will settle for the straightforward "I like your scarf" comment, or more likely, just say nothing at all. The kind of manipulation I describe above is draining to me, because it involves emulating behavior that does not come naturally and that requires much effort. By comparison, the indirectness of deflecting questions or providing "Schrodinger's cat" responses, as Skylights so aptly puts it, is almost effortless. I suppose it is because I readily see an overlay of many possible conversational pathways (conversational chess, almost), and can provide a response that keeps the largest possible number of them valid. This is probably just due to how Ni sees things.On that note, #2 is very interesting. I've found that to be one of the main differences between INTJs and ISTJs (and ESTJs too, I guess), i.e. that it uses a lot of energy for you guys to explain yourselves. Whereas it's very easy for us to explain ourselves; the data is right there in our filing cabinet, neatly labeled and easy to find, just waiting for us to grab a file and quote from it.
But I digress. It's interesting that INTJs are drained by that, while Si types are drained by trying to be indirect and/or to manipulate. What's your theory on that? I still haven't figured it out.
The ideal outcome is for the other person to demonstrate that he/she is able and willing to carry on a civil, rational discussion with some basis in facts/reality, and some personal value added. Subtle, thoughtful, or sophisticated humor is a plus. Sincere questions are welcome. Insults, tantrums/whining, wilfull ignorance, and empty assertions are serious minuses, and will quickly cause me to lose respect for the other person, and to see toying with them as more worthwhile than attempting to carry on a serious discussion.What would you consider to be succeeding at the test? Do you have an ideal outcome in mind while you test them?
Thanks for this, skylights; it's a really good post, and makes a lot of sense. I would love to see more INTJ elaboration on it. (Which might be a silly thing to ask for, considering what we're talking about. ) What you said about Si probably applies even more with STJs than, say, SFJs, because STJs have the Fi desire for authenticity, reinforcing their communication.I hope you don't mind me bumping in again on conversation, but it's late and I'm bored , and this is an interesting point. I would assume this stems from the diametrically opposed functions (literally!) of Si and Ni, which are, respectively, to keep track of concrete meanings over time and to keep track of abstract meanings over time.
For an N dominant, the easiest cognitive task is to seek meaning beyond what is at hand. I shy from using the word "manipulation" with Ni users because even though it is often manipulation, I don't think it's fair to place the negative stigma on that activity, because I suspect they are doing what seems most reasonable to them, which is to utilize the abstract patterns they keep track of to envision a big-picture endgoal, and to be actively seeking that endgoal - thus Coriolis trying to put the scarf-wearer at ease, because if he does it will make it easier for him to accomplish [task], which benefits everyone in the long run. Because the Ni user is not focused on concrete meaning over time, however, it is a more draining task to be required to recall that file-cabinet-style data - their files aren't organized in the same way - they're organized by telos, essentially. Final purpose.
Whereas, as far as I understand it, Si files are arranged more like Aristotle's material and formal causes, or what they are made up of and how it is arranged. They're statics, instead of dynamics. It wouldn't make any sense for you to try to put the scarf-wearer at ease by saying you liked his scarf, because that would obscure the fact that you, in fact, dislike his scarf, which would cause inconsistencies in all other facts relating to your personal tastes, the scarf in question, the scarf-wearer, the situation at hand, and so on.
So essentially, acting on telos bends all the Si facts, which makes it a relatively distasteful option to the Si user. Whereas, in turn, acting on Si statics disrupts all the Ni teloi, which makes it a relatively distasteful option to the Ni user. In both cases, the user would have to alter a major line of truths through their paradigms, accounting for the major source of mental energy drain.
This was an overall decent post on the subject. As a Ni-dom, though, I don't feel as though I am keeping track of abstract meanings over time. I am more seeing or generating them as they are right now. Of course they are influenced by everything I have ever seen or experienced, but those influences are not obvious or readily traceable.I hope you don't mind me bumping in again on conversation, but it's late and I'm bored , and this is an interesting point. I would assume this stems from the diametrically opposed functions (literally!) of Si and Ni, which are, respectively, to keep track of concrete meanings over time and to keep track of abstract meanings over time.
I understand that; I feel similarly when I'm forced to make small talk that I don't actually put any personal meaning behind. (Fe vs. Fi, anyone?) But the way I would see complimenting their scarf, I guess, wouldn't be small talk, unless the motivation was a need to reply to the scarf-wearer's complimenting of my clothing -- otherwise I'd just want to see their happy face when I told them I liked it. I'm not often impressed enough with people to compliment them like that, so when I am impressed, I want them to know it, because 1) I want to see their smiling face afterwards, because those sorts of compliments sometimes make people's day, and 2) because I like rewarding good behavior, because that will encourage the good behavior in the future. But yes -- I've always hated situations like the one in #3, because they always seemed fake to me, for similar reasons to what you described.I suppose I'm just goal-oriented enough to do this from time to time when I feel it necessary to accomplish something important. It is insincere, but probably not in the way you envision. If I really found nothing noteworthy about the person's scarf, I would not compliment it, but rather would find some other comment to make. The distraction aspect of such situations is often just to engage the person in smalltalk or idle conversation, to make our encounter seem entirely ordinary and predictable. This is what makes me feel insincere, though, since I hate these types of conversation, and in instigating one even for a good cause, I am pretending to be something I am not.
I'm a little bit confused by the first bolding, but besides that, this makes a lot of sense. I understand the second bolding, because, the way that you phrased it, I can see the Te in there. It seems like you're using Te to find the best possible solution to your problem in the quickest way possible. The way that we both have our broad internal writing on the world -- you with a flow chart that is constantly moving in different directions, and me with a tessellation that is constantly gaining pieces and rearranging tiles -- but the way we enact our decisions regarding that internal writing is still based on Te/Fi values.It does come down to energy drain, that and distance again. If the connection takes some explaining, or involves revealing personal information, I may just not want to get into it, and will settle for the straightforward "I like your scarf" comment, or more likely, just say nothing at all. The kind of manipulation I describe above is draining to me, because it involves emulating behavior that does not come naturally and that requires much effort. By comparison, the indirectness of deflecting questions or providing "Schrodinger's cat" responses, as Skylights so aptly puts it, is almost effortless. I suppose it is because I readily see an overlay of many possible conversational pathways (conversational chess, almost), and can provide a response that keeps the largest possible number of them valid. This is probably just due to how Ni sees things.
I relate to a lot of this, and see a lot of it in the INTJs I know. It's interesting that they'll start enacting the vision begun in the bolded quote, when they lose respect for someone, whereas STJs (myself included) are likely to start being extremely curt, cold, and laser-focused in their brutal honesty. I think both methods involved getting a little fun out of seeing the person squirm; you guys toy with them, we engage in beautiful catharsis at their expense.The ideal outcome is for the other person to demonstrate that he/she is able and willing to carry on a civil, rational discussion with some basis in facts/reality, and some personal value added. Subtle, thoughtful, or sophisticated humor is a plus. Sincere questions are welcome. Insults, tantrums/whining, wilfull ignorance, and empty assertions are serious minuses, and will quickly cause me to lose respect for the other person, and to see toying with them as more worthwhile than attempting to carry on a serious discussion.
I sometimes do a version of your (2) here. For instance, if I have a student who has needed guidance on appropriate dress for formal presentations, I might compliment his attire when he appears suitably dressed. I consider it important to see that happy face only if I care about the person, or it gives me confirmation that some strategy is succeeding.I understand that; I feel similarly when I'm forced to make small talk that I don't actually put any personal meaning behind. (Fe vs. Fi, anyone?) But the way I would see complimenting their scarf, I guess, wouldn't be small talk, unless the motivation was a need to reply to the scarf-wearer's complimenting of my clothing -- otherwise I'd just want to see their happy face when I told them I liked it. I'm not often impressed enough with people to compliment them like that, so when I am impressed, I want them to know it, because 1) I want to see their smiling face afterwards, because those sorts of compliments sometimes make people's day, and 2) because I like rewarding good behavior, because that will encourage the good behavior in the future.
The first highlighted part referred to my case (3). I will do this if I feel the need, but find it draining for the reason stated. I thought you might consider my statement in case (3) insincere because I in fact did not like the person's scarf, thus it would be almost a lie. I actually find it very difficult to tell a real lie, meaning to say something I know to be untrue. For this reason, I will confine my pseudo-smalltalk to things I actually mean. If I dislike the person's scarf, I will compliment something else, or chat about the weather, last night's game, or some other banal but commonplace topic. For me, the insincerity lies not in the falsehood of my comments but in my making them at all.But yes -- I've always hated situations like the one in #3, because they always seemed fake to me, for similar reasons to what you described.
Also, what is "the way that (I) think", versus the way that you might actually call it insincere? Part of the reason why I'm asking so many questions on this thread is because I find myself becoming increasingly biased against Ni as used by NTJs, and I want that bias to go away, via increased understanding.
I'm a little bit confused by the first bolding, but besides that, this makes a lot of sense.
Interesting that you use the analogy of a tessellation. This is an ordered geometric structure, that lends itself readily to interpretation as a repeated pattern, rather than each individual piece and its place in the strucure, much as a chemist might write the formula for a polymer. The role of Te/Fi is certainly true, as these are our judgment functions. I find Fi tells me why I am doing something and to some degree what I should be doing (goal identification), while Te shows me how best to do it.The way that we both have our broad internal writing on the world -- you with a flow chart that is constantly moving in different directions, and me with a tessellation that is constantly gaining pieces and rearranging tiles -- but the way we enact our decisions regarding that internal writing is still based on Te/Fi values.
Does that sound about right? I hope it does, because it feels good to gain understanding on something so foreign to me. Maybe someday I'll be fluent in it!
Your average INTJ is quite capable of the highlighted as well. I suppose which approach I take depends on the topic, my current mood, how much time I have, and the exact nature of the other person's behavior. I think as long as I am toying with someone, I am leaving them room to redeem themselves (or perhaps just more rope to hang themselves). I am more likely to resort to the cold, cutting assessment when they are beyond hope, as a parting salvo.I relate to a lot of this, and see a lot of it in the INTJs I know. It's interesting that they'll start enacting the vision begun in the bolded quote, when they lose respect for someone, whereas STJs (myself included) are likely to start being extremely curt, cold, and laser-focused in their brutal honesty. I think both methods involved getting a little fun out of seeing the person squirm; you guys toy with them, we engage in beautiful catharsis at their expense.