Honestly, Fidelia, I'm glad you asked.
This is how I used to communicate on this forum, and I haven't done it much for quite some time (other than that one thread, I haven't posted much in a long time).
I know it can seem like I'm just being an asshole, but there are answers to all of the questions you had.
I actually thank you for asking so that I could publicly clarify my intentions.
Do you really, really care about accuracy this much and it drives you nuts when people generalize too much[?]
Yes.
To be more accurate, it bothers me when people pass something off for truth that is not truth.
It would be rather easy (and accurate) to ascribe this to Te.
...do you do this for entertainment[?]
Eh...
sorta?
I dunno, I'd say "entertainment", if it is a reason, ranks reasonably low down on the scale...
That's not to say that I can't derive pleasure from doing so, but there are bigger reasons than merely entertainment.
...are you looking to provoke a response by poking those around you[?]
That would depend on what you mean by "response"...
I would say I intend to provoke many different kinds of responses.
It always depends on the context...
...or do you feel this kind of exchange is what sharpens real discussion?
Yes.
Iron sharpens iron.
But I don't go around swinging my sword just to provoke conflict.
I genuinely swing my sword depending on the truth value of what I read.
If there is something blatantly untrue, I take a hack at it.
If the creator disagrees, they can choose to defend and hack back.
Perhaps I will learn something new or realize something about what they said that I had not before.
Or perhaps I will show their position to be as untruthful as I originally suspected it to be.
This leads me closer to the truth.
It also leads the other person closer to the truth.
They might be butt hurt about it, but I try to frame my language in such a way that it gives the person what I believe they deserve (and can take). If they're still butt hurt about it, then they should consider realigning themselves to be more closely in line with the truth.
I
am working on putting less insults into my messaging, but sometimes it is completely deserved (people actually thank me in reps for it).
I'm trying to calibrate how best to eviscerate the argument without getting personal, if getting personal is undeserved.
In some cases, I think it weakens the effect of my argument; in some cases, I think it does not.
In the end, for me, it's all about which most effectively presents my position.
And I try to make my position as consistent with the truth as possible.
(I'm not heckling, really!)
I believe you.
What I take away from an exchange like this is "You are of low intelligence" "You cannot even construct an initial argument properly", "You know nothing compared to me", "I have all the answers". It frustrates me, because I expect you have some interesting thoughts to consider, and I would like to be open to them, but the overwhelming waft of arrogance and superiority that that communication style conveys to me (and I'm not saying others would perceive it in the same way), makes it hard for me to listen open-mindedly.
There's a lot to say about this.
See, for me, the truth of the argument is what matters.
If you let your emotions get in the way of evaluating the truth-content of my message, then that's your problem, not mine.
My argument's relationship to the truth does not change based on your emotional response.
I find it a weakness to let such things get in the way.
Perhaps I know the effect my language can have, but I use it intentionally to say, "Your emotional response does not matter! Only the truth matters!"
Kind of a way of jarring people a bit psychologically so they must ask themselves, "I am being bothered by this message, but it seems somewhat true as well... I don't know, my emotions seem to be clouding my ability to properly evaluate it... Why is this happening? What should I make of it? What should I do?"
*
I think it should also be noted that
I don't just go around berating people, nor do I only cast negative opinions.
I evaluate truth content of utterances.
As such, I correct when appropriate, I eviscerate when appropriate, I agree when appropriate, and I give praise when appropriate.
Look at what I originally wrote: 3/6 evaluations were some form of positive response, and 3/6 were some form of negative response.
And by "positive" and "negative", I'm not so much referring to the tone of my response as I'm referring to my evaluation of their truth content.
The tone will go along with the evaluation of truth content, but it comes only secondarily.
*
From another angle, you might want to consider this a performance piece.
It would be dishonest of me to say that I didn't somewhat craft my response to demonstrate the stark difference between what I come here for and what, for example, you come here for, or, perhaps, better put, what types of communication are perfectly acceptable, in my opinion, but, obviously, not too acceptable, in yours.
Why do you think the INTJs in that other thread are more-or-less on my side?
We feel that our method of communication is not considered acceptable here, but that yours is.
Imagine that, coming to a typology forum "for all types", but finding that your method of communication is not considered acceptable.
We have to pare back on
our natural inclinations in order to be accepted here, but
you do not.
*cue the "yeah, but my method is acceptable, and yours is not" instinctual response*
Please give me some context for why that is your initial reaction and conversations response to most discussions, or what your intent is so that I can perceive it differently.
I think I've described it pretty well above.
If not, I am willing to further clarify.
I would be the first to say that I have a real disconnect with the thought process/communication style of many INTJs and I would like to understand it better. I would think that both being Ni doms would make it easier to understanding each other. Seems to be method of communicating, as well as maybe Te/Fi thrown in there.
I would say, and I know you know this, the difference in method of communicating is caused by the Te/Fi-Fe/Ti divide.
I think INJs are actually one of the best windows into perceiving and understanding that divide, since we are Jungian cousins whose functional order starts with the same function, and then goes straight into the dividing difference.
Frankly, you
do get a lot of what I'm doing, cuz whenever you offer up possible interpretations of why I do what I do, you list a bunch of good ones, but, the fact of the matter is, you just don't like how it tastes.
Truly, and I don't mean this offensively, the same holds true for how yours tastes to me...