Zarathustra
Let Go Of Your Team
- Joined
- Oct 31, 2009
- Messages
- 8,110
What a verbose rebuttal, lemme get out the thesaurus to come up with my rebut. :rolli:
Brevity is wit.
What a verbose rebuttal, lemme get out the thesaurus to come up with my rebut. :rolli:
It's a useful but entirely accidental side effect. My main point is that INTJs tend not to go "blah blah blah" unless you hit their "pontificate" button, at which point they go all Te and tell you everything you never wanted to know.But surely you appreciate the fact that remaining silent allows others to misjudge the extent of your knowledge, whether or not that is your primary goal? It's definitely a useful side effect.
Not in the sense you might think. We want to feel secure. Some can indeed overreact to their insecurity, and play "power games," but such power is entirely different from that which is based on Fe.You don't think most INTJs want the upper hand? Are you saying I'm incorrect in the belief that most NTJs enjoy feeling powerful and influential?
I believe you, but such is usually post-facto rationalization. We naturally tend to not speak much. That some INTJs "take advantage" of that is mostly posturing, in my opinion.I've had other INTJs, ones with whom I am close enough to trust, explain it to me that way explicitly before. I guess this varies from INTJ to INTJ.
...
I think my mistake here has been assuming that different INTJs think too similarly to each other.
I don't find this very convincing. The "strategy" - such as it is - is accidental. We really don't know what to "do" with our "secret information" in Fe terms.I suspect that you have far better developed and far more influential Fi than most INTJs. I think most of them are far more secretive, far more aware of the strategic value in withholding information, and far less emotionally intelligent than you are.
You'll enjoy it. It's right up your alley.2.) A very close INTJ friend of mine recently asked me if I read "Stranger in a Strange Land", no I haven't but the title intrigues me... a lot.
Of course.3.) NOT ALL INTJS ARE THE SAME.
3a.) As in, some are more healthy than others, some are SIGNIFICANTLY smarter than others, some are more INTROVERTED than others.
Your forgot the Se ...4.) You don't see yourself well, you're definitely a weirdo. , and I could imagine how an average person would perceive you, lol! But you are RIDICULOUSLY INTELLIGENT, and you exhibit a BUTTLOAD of Ni Te and Fi. Most INTJs on this site just don't compare to you, I know some who do, but they are still young.
He'll be better than me. These things take time.5.) I wish Zara was more like you sometimes...... oh well.
6.) I wonder how life experience, circumstance, AND GENETIC predispositions, i.e. intelligence, introvertedness, etc. affect the INTJ.
Careful: I might return the compliment, such as it is.uumlau has the advantage of age.
I -am- an introvert, after all.I too relish uumlau's posts, but it's wise not to place him or anyone on a pedestal. I doubt he would enjoy being there.
Et tu, Silly?BINGO!!!!!!!
Uumlau excluding, and some other INTJs, but you just hit the nail on the head muthafucka!!!!
I suggest you look at the situation again. Some INTJs actually are that truly loathsome, but in my experience, being stuck in their heads explains 90% of the assholey behavior.I've witnessed/observed this first hand with one INTJ in particular, and I find it pathetic, lacking of integrity and loathsome!
UGH!!!
But, seriously sim, bravo, someone with da Ne-Ti skillz needed to drop this TRUTH BOMB!
6.) I wonder how life experience, circumstance, AND GENETIC predispositions, i.e. intelligence, introvertedness, etc. affect the INTJ.
I too relish uumlau's posts, but it's wise not to place him or anyone on a pedestal. I doubt he would enjoy being there.
You're right; some NTJs really do consistently piss me off. It's not that they have a preset way of assigning value to things; everyone has that, it's that coupled with the way many of them assume that their value system is The Correct Value Systemâ„¢, end of story, because everyone else is too stupid to understand the REAL truth the way only NTJs do.
When you introduce typology to these types, their response tends to be not, "Oh, I see now that there are lots of different value systems and none is any better than any other", but rather, "Oh, now I get it--NTJs are the smart people! Now I can explain why everyone who doesn't think like me is a total ingrate moron!" (*cough* Lex Tali-tard *cough*)
Rather than use it as a way to recognize the subjectivity of their own perspectives, as it's intended, they just use it to bolster their own delusional arrogance and reinforce the idea that their value system is objectively better than everyone's. It's pretty sickening.
Honestly dude you are way smarter than most NTJs I've come across--it's just that no type group is ever as consistently arrogant about its intelligence and perceptive abilities as NTJs, which drives me up the fucking wall because so many of you are simultaneously mired in perceptual bias yet arrogantly obsessed with the fantasy that you're immune to it.
It's infuriating.
And... how exactly are you applying this knowledge other than lambasting Te users? Most of your posts in this thread are devoted to somehow expose Te users for "the greedy utilitarians" they are without actually understanding that perspective. And you want to know why? Because you're not those people, regardless of what type they are.
Please stop attaching hostility to my words when none exists. My point was quite obviously that in some situations Te is vastly preferable to Ti, because sometimes breadth is more important than depth. It's all context-dependent.
I don't know what the hell you're talking about, and you haven't done this bad a job interpreting my posts in the entire time I've been interacting with you.
My ongoing point throughout the whole thread has been that no function is fundamentally superior to any other, and that both introversion and extroversion are important aspects of a healthy individual. EACH PERSPECTIVE IS PREFERABLE IN DIFFERENT SITUATIONS. NEITHER IS FUNDAMENTALLY SUPERIOR.
NeTe is for play - just in isolation, it is like solving a puzzle. Sometimes however their is a very real Fi need to solve a puzzle...thus Fi determines the orientation of the ship-but then to be able to step away from certain aspects of Fi as they will prevent an objective evaluation of the problem. (Fe does the same thing...note Sim attacking the INTJs in the thread. They offend him morally and this offense introduces flaws in his logical analysis)
I've read somewhere that INTJs have a tendency to be very secretive, and to hold back, is this true? Why do you think that is?
No. They're secretive because they recognize the strategic value in withholding information. If they talk too much they give away how much they know or don't know; if they say nothing and simply let others assume from their silence that they know everything, they never have to reveal exactly how much they do or don't know, which leaves them with the upper hand. That way they know more about how much you know than you know about how much they know (phew!)
They've just very cognizant of not giving away more information than strategically necessary. They like to be one step ahead of everyone.
This, I think, is one of the biggest reasons INTJs dislike sharing their deepest feelings and ideas with extroverts, especially EPs. They don't want the whole world to hear about it!
The problem with Sim's stereotypes is that there are always grains of truth. It's the same with the Ni definition - much of it is right. It's just that the picture that's described is not always a balanced view IMO.
This thread is exhausting...
Not in the sense you might think. We want to feel secure. Some can indeed overreact to their insecurity, and play "power games," but such power is entirely different from that which is based on Fe.
I hate to develop a "my experience" statement, but it really is my experience that INTJs often feel some form of personal inadequacy at the relative unpredictability of the rest of the world. A lack of determinable form, maybe. Like a Kandinsky piece; an array of color and geometry outside the discernible reach of our intellectual fingertips - unless - adequately measured and cataloged. A psychological airbag.
The specific rationale for this "safety-netting" is relative to the user; it's tough enough to pinpoint a shared psychological characteristic without oversimplifying, so I hope you forgive me for waxing anecdotal at this point.
My security issues stem from a lack of financial stability when I was a kid. Moved around a lot and rarely had enough time to cultivate and maintain long-term relationships. As a result, I was forced into the social periphery. Spent a lot of time alone. Resolved to work hard enough to avoid exposing my children to the same kind of erratic behavior. Any pursuit of "power" serves this fundamental goal.
As such, my determination at work is often confused for a sense of misguided superiority. Or untoward ambition.
Truth is, I'm just focused. I want to work hard now to avoid what happened before.
I see what you're saying, but I see absolutely no value in it. What possible reason is there not to accept the basic premises of mathematics? It can be interesting and illuminating to consider discrete approaches, but rejecting "the rules of mathematics as defined by human culture" forces us to close ourselves off from vast areas of knowledge. Wouldn't outright denial of those standards constitute insanity? How could one who rejected them function on a day-to-day basis?The only things that are 100% certain are tautologies. In order to accept that 2+2=4, we first must accept a common definition of the terms "2", "+", "=", and "4" which defines 2+2 as 4 in the first place.
So yes, if we accept the rules of mathematics as defined by human culture, then it's objectively true that 2+2=4. But that's a meaningless tautology--"If we accept a system that necessitates two plus two being four, then it's absolutely true that two plus two is four." Do you see why this is a meaningless distinction?
I'm not sure I follow you here. What's arbitrary about the laws of mathematics?simulatedworld said:Any "absolute truth" requires some sort of arbitrary assumption to build from.
Moreover, isn't there a possibility that imprecision or expediency in a description could lead the audience to misunderstand that subject, regardless of whether the topic is objective or subjective?
I guess it raises the question of what one's goal is in making that description public. It's the principle of "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing" -- if a poorly expressed idea reaches a large audience, mightn't its effect actually be the opposite of what the author intended? Don't you risk spreading the wrong idea if its expression reaches an extreme of imprecision? And if so, isn't that counter-productive?simulatedworld said:Sure. What's your point?
burymecloser said:Isn't "sacrific[ing] precision in order to make the ideas more easily accessible to others" the same as sacrificing the quality of an idea for the quantity of its dissemination?
Well, I'm not sure it is. I think ideally there's some sort of balance. Hypothetically, I'd expect there to be a point of diminishing returns beyond which depth > breadth becomes counterproductive -- and vice versa: if an idea is too poorly expressed or over-simplified, reaching a large audience is useless (or even outright counterproductive) because the intended message is not conveyed in a comprehensible manner.simulatedworld said:Yes, it's precisely the same. Introversion chooses quality; extroversion chooses quantity. Now I want you to ask yourself why quality is inherently better than quantity.
This is what intrigues me. I've always thought of E/I primarily in social terms, and your description reads to me like one of the differences between Te and Ti; it would really change my view of things if this were more generally applicable to intro/extraversion. Could you expand on this a little?simulatedworld said:From the extroverted perspective, quantity is preferable to quality because if we focus too much on quality we never actually apply our ideas to anything. We become obsessed with making them perfect and lose any and all realistic application in the process.
burymecloser said:And isn't there a danger, by emphasising quantity over quality, that a lot of people would learn bad ideas, rather than a few people learning good ones?
I think you're reading between the lines. I meant my question literally, not trying to pass a particular judgment. Doesn't that risk exist, that at a certain point in the spectrum the quality of the idea expressed can be so far diluted as to be either useless or outright harmful?simulatedworld said:What you've just asked effectively reduces to: "But isn't introversion clearly better than extroversion?"
It's good you know your motivations.
I've always been driven by a strong need for financial independence. I recall having this drive from a very young age and don't even remember where it came from or why. It is absolutely a "security" thing. I don't want to have to worry about money. So, looking at Sim's original list of "value" items, wealth has always been high on my list, though never at the top. I started with nothing.
Really, we should probably think these things through more. Focus is great but we need to make sure that we have the right goals in mind. Money, influence, power - none of these things brings true happiness. It is easier to be happy if you have money than to be happy without it but once you hit a certain threshold, I'm not sure it matters.
highlander said:It is easier to be happy if you have money than to be happy without it but once you hit a certain threshold, I'm not sure it matters.
I just wanted to take a second and magnify this particular sentiment, uumlau, because I think you're spot-on here.
I hate to develop a "my experience" statement, but it really is my experience that INTJs often feel some form of personal inadequacy at the relative unpredictability of the rest of the world. A lack of determinable form, maybe. Like a Kandinsky piece; an array of color and geometry outside the discernible reach of our intellectual fingertips - unless - adequately measured and cataloged. A psychological airbag.
The specific rationale for this "safety-netting" is relative to the user.
My security issues stem from a lack of financial stability when I was a kid. Moved around a lot and rarely had enough time to cultivate and maintain long-term relationships. As a result, I was forced into the social periphery. Spent a lot of time alone. Resolved to work hard enough to avoid exposing my children to the same kind of erratic behavior. Any pursuit of "power" serves this fundamental goal.
As such, my determination at work is often confused for a sense of misguided superiority. Or untoward ambition.
Truth is, I'm just focused. I want to work hard now to avoid what happened before.
It's good you know your motivations.
I've always been driven by a strong need for financial independence. I recall having this drive from a very young age and don't even remember where it came from or why. It is absolutely a "security" thing. I don't want to have to worry about money. So, looking at Sim's original list of "value" items, wealth has always been high on my list, though never at the top. I started with nothing.
Really, we should probably think these things through more. Focus is great but we need to make sure that we have the right goals in mind. Money, influence, power - none of these things brings true happiness. It is easier to be happy if you have money than to be happy without it but once you hit a certain threshold, I'm not sure it matters.
we dont ni'd no new definition...
ouh wrong thread