not quite - the accumulation of dots happens through the mental registration of those dots (Se).
Not the way I see them. They are all there whether someone chooses to take note of them or not. Sort of like "one man's trash is another man's treasure".
use in a way it's kind of true but not quite but also it actually is[/I]" half-sarcasm?
that's.. interesting.
1. you interpret other functions as failed attempts at Ni?
2. you attribute Ni failures to those functions?
No. If you think of the functions as processes, each process produces different output from those same starting materials. Some of the processes don't make very constructive use of the dots, much as some organisms cannot digest certain foods very well. It's not so much a failed attempt, as a mismatch or simply another way to do something (not as interesting or useful) with the same raw materials.
btw - in regards to the OP - i have known far more INTJs that have earned my respect a dozen times over then INTJs i disliked... actually probably only one or two of the later.
From the INTJ side, I must admit I get very few negative reactions. Of course I circulate primarily among people likely to appreciate my type. On the other hand, it is possible that lot of people hate me, too, but are too polite to say anything, or just cannot be bothered.
Ok.... I had not considered this... that being said, there is something that does not compute for me.
In another thread, you stated that you dislike people reading things into your words at not taking them at face value. I am sorry, but I cannot reconcile that with this. We're supposed to take your words at face value, except for when you're not?
Since INTJs tend to be blunt and not beat around the bush, this means I actually do take their words at face value, unlike with some other types. This means that when they argue for something that is harmful or false, I also take this at face value. I have no way to separate the wheat from the chaff, at least in a text-only environement. Perhaps, in person, their would be things I could use.
I see your confusion. I made the statement about taking my words at face value in the context of an earlier part of the discussion focused on emotional content, without explicitly stating what limits that imposed. (See - you seem to want an explanation, and I don't mind providing it. I realize what I said not just seems but is contradictory without this qualifier.) What I meant is that one should never let the dubious input of nonverbal cues override what I say. If I tell you "I don't mind if you borrow my car", I mean it and will stand by it, however unhappy or irked I might seem. Odds are, what you are perceiving as unhappiness or irritation has nothing to do with you and your request. If I really do mind, I will tell you so.
As for arguing a point I don't actually espouse, on one level this might be considered an extended version of sarcasm. As you say, INTJs are known for being blunt and saying what we mean, but we also are known for sarcasm, in which we are saying often the opposite. On another level, you can STILL take what I say at face value in this situation, because if you listen closely, you will never hear me say I actually believe it. It is just a debate at that point, weighing your facts and reasoning against mine. When I do this, it isn't always to teach someone a lesson. Sometimes it is to help me learn by playing devil's advocate. If someone is making a reasonable case for something I do agree with, I will do my best to poke holes in their argument to see how they defend it; to see whether they do it the way I would, or have other perspectives that help me understand (and perhaps defend) it later. At that point, though, it is not at all about emotions, and not much about values either.
This is also the issue I have with being told to "trust" their Ni statements when they are not backed up by anything more than pieces of evidence with no connective tissue. No, I don't see it. And I'm not going to accept any of it just because you said so. I cannot separate the wheat from the chaff and determine which things are off the wall crazy (especially if they're thrown in alongside Holocaust denial) and which things are of value and are worth intellectual consideration. People say dumb shit all the time... I don't say any reason to act as though it as worth of consideration as something insightful.
Again, you are mixing two different circumstances. I don't expect people to trust me/my Ni when we are just having a discussion. That request only comes into play when a decision needs to be made, and we don't have the time or resources to gather the evidence it would take to provide an ironclad justification. I feel comfortable asking for this trust, and people usually give it to me, because I have a good track record. I won't ask people to trust my Ni in areas where I assign it an inadequate confidence level.
to be fair, i've never actually seen @
Coriolis do that... each and every time i've conversed with her or was in the same thread as her she has given very clear explanations and reasoning.
(also if i remember correctly i think she's married to an INTP, so i am guessing she is comfortable side by side with Ti reasoning).
You don't see me do it here for the reason I explained above: we aren't making pressing or important decisions here, just chatting, kicking around ideas. My INTP, my friends, and my colleagues, however, have all experienced my saying "just trust me on this". They usually go along, and are pleased with the results.