Please note I changed my username because it was a bit too easily recognisable. New one is also linkable to me but at least not at first glance. A person would have to know me very well in first place to be able to link me now .
Called ENTJ for some advise on something at work. Refered me to her company's website and said she had to dash. I guess the axe swinged.
But this is my view:
Some (e.g. ENTJs)are so convinced their view is the only right view that they will turn on you if you don't support their views. You are better off without such people! Blind allegiance has never been my forte
Don't blame you. I don't waste my time chasing after people. I support loyalty, not blind allegiance - I don't believe anyone can just treat me any way he or she likes. Oh well, sorry about your loss but there are billions of other people out there. Good luck.
But this is my view:
Some (e.g. ENTJs)are so convinced their view is the only right view that they will turn on you if you don't support their views. You are better off without such people! Blind allegiance has never been my forte
Some (e.g. ENTJs)are so convinced their view is the only right view that they will turn on you if you don't support their views. You are better off without such people! Blind allegiance has never been my forte
Just a few thoughts. Also, your accusation that she doesn't listen to "logic" despite being an ENTJ is ridiculous. Of course people aren't logical, even if they're NTs. In my experience, logic is only useful when it supplements what you want to hear and/or your self-image. i.e. you are only "logical" in this case because it "supports" your view. You'd be just as stubborn and find other "logical reasons" to support the opposite if you felt that way.
I think neither should have to apologise for responding as they did, but I do think that better communication would've been a lot more helpful instead of claims of "she was being illogical and therefore it's her fault!"People use logic and rationality is it pertains to what is useful/beneficial to themselves, even if that is merely for underlying psychological purposes (such as supporting a confirmation bias or one's own ego/self image). However, human beings make perfectly rational and logical decisions according to the situation. The two of them had an altogether different rationale, so neither is really right or wrong.
The only place they can be wrong is in assuming things about the other person, in which case their beliefs can be illogical, and their actions/judgments irrational.
It's a case of poor heuristics. She was not acting effectively to perceive the situation for its true form in the present, and was making poor attributions likely based on past personal judgments and experiences that have nothing to do with him, and led her to inaccurate conclusions. It seems to be an Fi thing.
From her actions, it's quite obvious to me that she tried, systematically and reasonably, to address the problem directly:
1) She got the other guy whom she didn't date to confirm to the OP that she was telling the truth.
2) She spoke directly to the other person who was lying.
3) She spoke to the OP several times about this.
What she didn't get, however, was feedback from the OP that yes, he was convinced that she was telling the truth and that the liar was a sleaze. ... I'm not surprised that she cut him off, to be honest.