Positively relating to me. Although I find the workings of an INTJ equally fascinating.
OK, because there is no type inherently better than other. Indeed, value evaluation is relative to philosophical assumptions and hence cannot be defined with an absolute value of truth.
Well, I asked myself the same question originally. I don't feel the need to justify. However, I also thought it might be useful if I gave a clear and precise idea of how I saw it.
You definitely shouldn't, or else you are put in an affectively defensive stance if you are not completely confident about it. From a logical standpoint, you are right, because E and I are merely preferences, and you can do both if you want. Furthermore, there is no scientific backing behind the idea that people have a preference in personality traits. It is theoretical, but that does not make it less interesting. However, I was not going to say this until your affective/relational stance was adequate to say so.
Also, the degree of E in ENTJ's may come across as less than usual in their life due to the NTJ dimensions. You may be in a situation where you have become less E than usual. If this is the case, remember that if extraversion is your preference, you should go for it. Take chances, take risks, be bold, assert yourself - these are all things that will make you feel positive as an ENTJ.
Idealistic? yes, possible? Yes. All the time? No.
Conflict is bound to happen with people, thats a matter of life. Harmony in a sense is about having things run smoothing, with minimal error. It's not really about understanding someones emotional stance, but understanding their behavior, observing the way they react to things, their beliefs, etc; if you have collected enough information in your mental database, you'll be prepared to react for whatever might happen; having a step up on someone reduces the damage they might inflict on the environment around you.
In a work environmental, you're not looking to make friends, you want people to get their job done and do it right. Workers are bound to have a crappy day, being in a negative disposition is bound to effect their work performance. Knowing how they prefer to be communicated with, might limit any negative outbursts, and might even improve their disposition; thus creating a harmony/ or a calm.
remember it's not about sympathy. You don't feel for these people, but you understand why, and how they came about to feeling a certain way. It's not about agreeing with their reactions, or w.e they're feeling. It's about putting yourself in their shoes, being objective, and not only seeing your " I don't want emotional bullshit" view. To be a great leader, you must understand the needs and wants of your people.
I agree wholly with the first part, and to a certain extent with the second. I have thought similar things due to internalization of idealistic definitions of social competence and leadership that were not grounded in empirical evidence or my own experiences. What you say is what we can hear many people say about leadership, and especially more idealistic folks who would like to say that to be a great leader you have to understand the needs and wants of your people. It's true, but I don't like the way it is framed. It is a question of paradigm.
I would put it this way: there is no such thing as "leadership": it's an idealistic concept. There is only competence. "Leadership" is a value judgment which comes from an affective stance. The problem with the word "leadership" is that there is the idea that some people are leaders, others are not. This is incorrect. Then you have this idea of the "needs" and "wants" of followers, as if these were idiosyncratic and specific to their personalities. "Leader" is just a social role, and is a personality attribution made by people who see somebody who is, in fact, just being reasonable and having his feet on the ground.
I would prefer to say that there are different levels of skill, and that it makes sense to attribute tasks and roles to people depending on their skills. It is also logical that the most knowledgeable and competent person gets to coordinate role and task attribution. There is no value in this: it's just a job. Once other people develop their skills and becoming competent also, they can also get to coordinate tasks and roles for other people.
Seen this way, there is no such thing as "leaders" and "followers". There are only people who work and learn at the same time.
"Leader" or "Followers" are adjectives that hinder competence because they get associated with the self-concept or identity of a person, biasing their perception and judgments.
I agree with you, it is useful for a learning environment. Emotions should not be involved in debate of any sort. Sadly, people always misinterpret my enthusiasm with aggressiveness. Talking out and facing a problem is the best thing people can do. It's priority. You should not walk on egg shells if there is a conflict at hand, But also consider, if you want to be understood, and get your point a cross properly, you have to know who you are speaking to, and how they like to take their coffee.
I also thought that it was unfortunate. But if you really get at their feelings, you see that it is quite funny and absurd. If somebody says that you are being aggressive when you know you're just enthusiastic, trust your own feeling (I know that NT's can second guess themselves in this area) and dismiss them: "you're just being too sensitive" with a big smile.
Absolutely not, like I mentioned earlier, it can be a positive learning experience for both people involved. . But unnecessary conflict, like drama, etc, is antagonistic in a sense, making others feel uncomfortable for no viable reason--also unnecessary.
Since this is about if me. I love conflict, I thrive under pressure, and seek to be challenged. In a sense I don't like harmony, but I wasn't speaking about myself earlier, I was speaking about what people commonly want. People think and view the world around them differently.
Definitely, drama is not necessary, but that's what you think as an ENTJ. You can also think it this way: your role in drama is to remind others how stupid drama is!
People commonly say they want harmony. But if you look at all the drama they create, it seems like they like "mental" harmony but like "emotional" conflict. In other words, they don't like to be challenge intellectually but they like to complain about people on and on, and linger on past issues, playing blame games and doing guilt trips. It's everywhere in society. People always say they like harmony and do everything to present a nice front.
Some people are expert at claiming they like harmony, avoiding any kind of discussion, yet their actions show emotional/relational conflict. In truth, these people are simply scared of looking bad and would prefer to be secretly, rather than overtly, competitive.
This question made me laugh. Because I come off as rude quite often, without intending to. I try to be tactful, but sometimes I say things that I personally wouldn't find rude, while others might.
Rude in a sense is being ill-mannered, which I am not. However, I am blunt and honest; which others see as rude, instead of direct.
I never feel guilty about being rude. I rarely feel guilty for anything.
OK, that's what I meant. Not really rude, but blunt/honest which some people can see as rude.
I'm sure you do feel guilty for some things: but it's better to feel guilty according to your own terms than because somebody is trying to make you feel guilty for no logical reason.
Both. I like learning, so if someone shares a different point of view, I can obviously widen my scope of knowledge in that particular subject. We can share common interests and discuss WHY we see things the way we do.
Yes, but it sounds a bit too "nice".
It's also not fun to always have someone that dis/agrees with you.
It should not be a question of fun or not: logic is fun for its own sake, it does not matter if you are wrong or right.
To be honest, the impression I have of you, reading between the lines, is that you are an ENTJ who has been facing various life circumstances making you second guess some of your behaviors. It also seems like you have internalized too much idealistic talk about people and relationships, which could be detrimental to your well-being as an ENTJ and lower your mood. This idealistic talk could bring you to take things "too seriously" concerning relationships and emotions, something NT's are prone to do if they're too logical. I think that the paradox is that you need to engage more in your preferences, E, and NTJ, to start taking feelings and relationships less seriously and more as some form of playful exchange. It may also make you start to like people by, strangely, getting used to telling them off for things or asserting yourself to them.