Signs of Ni

[Zarathustra]

I did not "miss" that part, I just decided not to focus in it.

Excuse me for expecting you to more robustly deal with the topic.

Regardless, the reason why I wrote what I did still stands, as it had to do with your "conclusion".

What made you assume that I missed that part?

Because your conclusion was off-base.

I decided to focus on something else because it seemed more interesting and more relevant to me and because I have doubts whether these points are true. Not because I didn't listen or shut myself off to the possibility that they might be true.

Ok, that's fine, it was your conclusion that was the problem.

Perhaps it's because you drew a conclusion, and, as a P, you're just not good at that kinda thing.

As a good P I take in all the information I can, even if I decide to focus on something else instead.

Simplistic stereotype.

Maybe situations like this creates that assumption that INTPs don't listen.

Going off on their own thought-path, and not actually dealing with what their interlocutor said?

Yes, that is probably one of the reasons INTPs are not generally considered good listeners.

But if you insist:

I would have much preferred you actually got my point.

But if we must go over these once more so that INTPs can accurately see their warts in the mirror, so be it.

1) I think I did covered that one (zon ing in on what needs to be done, more focused on relevence/efficiency)

The point is that in certain situations it is objectively wrong/stupid to commit this error (i.e., at work, or any situation in which time/resource constraints are a real and major issue). Yes, Te imperatives are being given precedence in these situations, but it's for objective reasons (i.e., the project needs to get done by tomorrow morning, the company needs to be profitable and pay its creditors, the giant boulder is heading right for us!, there's a murderer who's gunna kill us if we can't agree that this fucking light switch turns the goddam, fucking light on!, we're trying to get somewhere on time, or a million other perfectly reasonable situations.)

And no, there is no acceptable nitpicking allowed here. If you're fucking up these situations due to needless nitpicking, you are a problem, a nuisance, not worthy of breathing the air that should be going to someone else who knows how to cooperate in a productive manner when need be.

2) It looks like misinterpreting to the INTJ who is so focused on hios one solution, but for us it is merely bringing in the wider context which to us is just as relevent

Once again, I get that that's how it seems to you, and that in some cases what you want to bring up may be worthwhile, but, in many other cases, you are actually objectively wrong and doing nothing but being an annoying nitpicker, because, aside from reasons of efficiency, which were covered in #1 above, perhaps your issues/questions really aren't valuable, either because: a) you don't really know what you're talking about, but, due to your ignorance, these questions seem relevant to you; or b) your interlocutor actually has already considered these issues, and has plenty of accurate and tacit reasons that cover the issues that you're raising (and by raising them, you're just impeding everyone from moving on (yes, efficiency snuck in there, but it was warranted); or c) a placeholder for now, because perhaps there are reasons other than your ignorance of the matter or your questions already having been dealt with that could cause your nitpicking to be pointless. This was the purpose of uumlau's light switch example, and the absurd position of the INTP in it.

Note (and how ironic that I have to preempt you about this on this specific example, because this is what this example is all about): no, I am not saying that your concerns are never not warranted. I am saying that there are times when they are not warranted and you do them anyway.

3) I have not observed that behavior in myself or other INTPs IRL or here, not more than in other types, and as I said, a good P takes in information like a sponge

Ok, well, it was obvious and prevalent enough that Dario Nardi was able to see it using his EEG, and I and others have said that we've seen it plenty, so that's fine that that's your opinion, but I'm saying, objectively, you're wrong.

*cue you either nitpicking or doing #4, even though you deny you do it*

4) I never observed that Fe shaming method. What does happen is that sometimes an NTJ is so abrasive and overconfident...

(or, seen differently, the NTJ is saying an objective truth in a Te manner that rubs your subjective Ti the wrong way, and, as such, you don't want to accept what he's saying as objectively true, so you reject it as merely being his Fi, and thus start using what's been dubbed as Fe "shaming methods"...) (and, once again, because you make this necessary due to #2: no, I'm not saying all TJs are always right, and that this is thus always the case.)

...that inferior Fe shales its head and assumes that this must be Fi at play, or Ni + Fi which seems to translate as "I am right, I just know it, just trust me on this one and screw the rest of you" - we can not imagine how somebody could be so overconfident because improvisation and remaining doubts are parts of the Ti-Ne version of intellectual integrity. At least that's how I perceive it and how I have heard other NTPs describe it.

Oh, so you mean, exactly what uumlau described?

Except that you tried to emphasize that your Fe judgment is correct because it happens when a TJ, declaring objective truths in a Te manner, is abrasive and overconfident?

Interesting how it works out that way...

What makes you think that I do not see the INTPs weaknesses just because I did not immediately adress all of these points directly?

My issue with what you said was that you made a very wishy-washy, flabbily relativistic conclusion that basically said -- well, actually, you specifically said this -- "the weakness is in the eye of the beholder".

My point was that, no, the weakness is not simply in the eye of the beholder, it's actually an objective weakness.

And then each of the four points I made pointed to why these were objective, not simply subjective, criticisms.

1. Not realizing what the situation itself calls for (for which I used your examples of work an engineering).
2. Misinterpreting what an INTJ is saying, by bringing in unrelated information that had nothing to do with what they were intending to say, and thus botching the communication (uumlau's lightbulb example, or what is generally just known as "INTP nitpicking").
3. For being bad listeners (so much so that it has been empirically verified by Dario Nardi in his lab).
4. For attempting to use Fe shaming methods when Te rubs them the wrong way.

Those are not simply subjective "oh, it's in the eye of the beholder" criticisms.

I'm not saying that similar such criticisms can arise for which subjectivity can enter into the picture, or that subjectivity never plays any role in any of these things (the fact that I even have to mention this, of course, has to do with your guys problem with #2), nor am I saying no other type has problems, and even problems similar to these (they do -- note: once again needing to preempt your #2). But these are problems that others, here, mostly INTJs, are specifically saying about INTPs, that are not simply subjective, but objective, and you might as well try to consider them as such (which, once again, needing to shut down your #2 problem before it starts: I'm not saying you haven't necessarily done this at all).

We have loads of weaknesses like any other type. But with your premature assumptions you just illustrated that much of what you accuse NTPs of applies to you guys as well if not more

Actually, this is you just doing #2 again.

You just can't help from #2ing all over the place, can you?

(and yes, I realize that you qualified your conclusion with "you might say", my point is that, no, with those four criticisms, you would be wrong if you were to say that. they are objective criticisms. not subjective. and, as such, they're not subject to wishy-washy, flabbily relativistic bullshit, either.)

 

[Mad Hatter]

Once again, I get that that's how it seems to you, but, in some cases, you are objectively wrong and creating a problem by doing so (that was the purpose of uumlau's example, and the absurd position of the INTP in it).

tl;dr

You didn't get uumlau's example btw

 

[uumlau]

I noticed you didn't say anything about my ISTJ story. Is that because ISTJ bashing is acceptable practice, as is nitpicking about INTP nitpicking, but INTJ bashing is not acceptable?

You have it backwards. The ISTJ was cracking a joke at your expense.

 

[uumlau]

tl;dr

You didn't get uumlau's example btw

Yeah, the INTP isn't wrong in my example, just coming at things from a very different angle.

FWIW, INTJs are totally capable of playing the same game. I'm using a roommate I had for several years as source material. The light bulb example comes up in several forms, but mostly it was more humorous and playful. E.g., I'd say the switch turns the light on, he'd say, no it turns it on and off, and I'd in turn reply, "Ah, but you're wrong, it turns it on, if and only if the light is off, and turns it off if and only if the light is off. If it only turns it on when it's on, or off when it's off, then it's a null op, and the switch likely isn't connected."

Where it becomes an issue/aggravation for the INTJ is when there is work to be done, a task to be completed, and only so much time to dally upon the technical intricacies and humor.

 

[Red Herring]

Yeah, the INTP isn't wrong in my example, just coming at things from a very different angle.

FWIW, INTJs are totally capable of playing the same game. I'm using a roommate I had for several years as source material. The light bulb example comes up in several forms, but mostly it was more humorous and playful. E.g., I'd say the switch turns the light on, he'd say, no it turns it on and off, and I'd in turn reply, "Ah, but you're wrong, it turns it on, if and only if the light is off, and turns it off if and only if the light is off. If it only turns it on when it's on, or off when it's off, then it's a null op, and the switch likely isn't connected."

Where it becomes an issue/aggravation for the INTJ is when there is work to be done, a task to be completed, and only so much time to dally upon the technical intricacies and humor.

Agreed. That is why I said that in situations like that I would ask an NTJ for help.

 

[Zarathustra]

tl;dr

You didn't get uumlau's example btw

Actually, I did, I just take it one step further than he does.

Yeah, the INTP isn't wrong in my example, just coming at things from a very different angle.

See, I'm willing to call it objectively wrong/problematic behavior.

One circumstance in which it is wrong/problematic is when, as you say later...

...there is work to be done, a task to be completed, and only so much time to dally upon the technical intricacies and humor.

...and that happens to comprise a lot of the situations we find ourselves in while living on this planet.

It also, though, as others pointed out before (Coriolis, I think), is just stupid on the part of the INTP.

It's assuming that the INTJ is wrong, and this only makes sense in a context in which the INTJ is actually intending to give some full and complete statement of everything the light switch does (in this case, it's not even everything, really, though, as there are plenty of other things one could say about that stupid light switch as well), and, since that's not what the INTJ was ever intending to do, to evaluate his statement based on that rubric is dumb. It is actually important to understand another person in their own words, with the intents and purposes they had in mind, and to not just overlay your concerns onto theirs, and then judge them based on it. In that example, that's what the INTP is doing. The INTJ, on the other hand, is not. Once the INTP piped up and said, "It turns it on and off", the INTJ wouldn't have said, "Nu-uh! You can only talk about it in the way that I'm talking about it!" But that is precisely the behavior that the INTP was engaging in the whole time. And it's why nitpicking is so stupid. An INTP's interlocutor isn't necessarily trying to have a discussion that exhausts every single aspect of the matter being discussed, nor, as I said earlier, one that requires a formal proof, with every definition explicitly delineated, and every logical deduction explicitly drawn out. And to nitpick is essentially to force such a discussion on your interlocutor, which, along with evaluating your interlocutor's statements based on a rubric upon which they never intended their statements to be evaluated, would be another reason why such behavior is objectively wrong/problematic.

 

[Mad Hatter]

Just use your J powers and cut the fat.

Actually, I did, I just take it one step further than he does.

Nope, see above, and get over it.

 

[Zarathustra]

Just use your J powers and cut the fat.

Nah, I'm just fine with it as it is.

I genuinely don't give a shit whether you read it or not.

Nope, see above, and get over it.

Same goes for here.

Here, though, you fail to see that I understand uumlau's example exactly as he intended it.

It is common for uumlau to express his examples as such, and for me to get his point, but have my own point in addition to it.

It is not, as you wrongly assume, a missing of his point; it is, in my opinion, a going further; I don't care for the relativism of it all.

 

[Mad Hatter]

I don't care for the relativism of it all.

Because you simply don't get it, but won't admit. No point in your posting at all then.
As for uumlau, I'd rather ask him what he actually meant (though, again again, see above) than rely on your stubborn twisting of words, or, as you call it, 'going further'. You don't even realize that you're engaging in the same sort of 'relativism' you're accusing others of.

 

[Zarathustra]

Because you simply don't get it, but won't admit.

Actually, you're just wrong.

And, as you don't actually understand what I mean, you seem to be engaging in #3.

As for uumlau, I'd rather ask him what he actually meant (though, again again, see above) than rely on your stubborn twisting of words, or, as you call it, 'going further'. You don't even realize that you're engaging in the same sort of 'relativism' you're accusing others of.

Actually, this statement is so full of shit it's hilarious.

This is the first time I've ever had a discussion with you, so forgive me for being confident that you don't really know shit about how I think.

 

[Mad Hatter]

This is the first time I've ever had a discussion with you, so forgive me for being confident that you don't really know shit about how I think.

This is not a discussion. It's just you saying 'you're wrong' or re-stating what you've said countless times before. (see #3)

 

[Zarathustra]

This is not a discussion,.

Nitpicking...

Man, the only one you've got left after this post is damaging efficiency (#1), and, at this point, I'm not sure whether that necessarily even deserves its own "cardinal INTP sin", or whether it's better seen as just one of the reasons why nitpicking is so annoying... seeing as how the above long post was more exploration than anything, at this point, I think I might just reconfigure them to:

The Cardinal Sins of the INTP:
#1 Nitpicking
#2 Not listening
#3 Fe-shaming

It's just you saying 'you're wrong' or re-stating what you've said countless times before. (see #3)

Actually, that's exactly what you've been doing.

All you've said is "you don't get what uumlau's saying" in various forms.

What? You really don't think I could give a quick and accurate synopsis of it?

It's an easy thought to understand; I'm sorry to say, but you're just objectively wrong about this.

How ironic, though, that you also seem to be attempting the "this is just your ego-speaking" Fe-shaming of #4 (new #3), though, too.

 

[Coriolis]

Yes, but not very many people are lovely, charming and gracious 24/7/365. After a few years I can see the chinks in the personality begin to shine forth more clearly. That's true of any type. The INTJs I know are very polite and easy-going. But then, sometimes, they can go cold as ice, either from being very focused or very angry. With some, anger is translated straight into a kind of glumness or depression, which prevents them from becoming aware of it.

Now this is not a bad assessment. For most people, though, it doesn't take years to see that there is more than a lovely, charming, and gracious exterior.

I do agree that INTJs try to see the core issue of things, but they approach it by looking at things at very superficial Te level and make Ni assumptions about the core issue from those surface level truths. This sort of approach is doomed to fail in reaching the core issue, even tho it might lead to assumptions that work, but only work at very superficial level. Naturally for INTJ it seems like they really understood the core issue, because it works on this superficial level, which is all they care about.

What does it mean for something work but only at a superficial level? What is the alternative -- working at some deeper level? Either something works, or it does not. If it just gives the appearance of doing something but does not actually do it, then it does not work. (I'm sure this is a brazenly Te perspective, but then in INTJ fashion, I am not used to half-baked results.)

 

[Mal12345]

You have it backwards.

I said yes, you can generalize from this anecdotal evidence that all INTJs are lovely, charming and gracious. Now you're saying I'm wrong or that I have it backwards?

The ISTJ was cracking a joke at your expense.

He was trolling, as always. Yes there is such thing as trolling in real life. Lately he's been on me about John Carter, as I am a fan of the books. The difference is that he is from a big family while I am from a broken family. This makes me easy prey for the likes of him who has had plenty of practice at verbal sparring. Thus I have had to ramp up my own abilities at it, but it's hard to contend with someone who can make up a plausible sounding lie in the spur of the moment, and I have nothing to respond with to counter it.

For example, a veterinarian friend of his, who is new to this kind of work, proudly cured a horse of a nervous disorder with a Sulfa drug. When I told him this, he replied that it can't be so because Sulfa does not pass the blood-brain barrier, therefore the horse got better on its own. I have no clue about it so I took him at his word. It turns out that Sulfa has no such issue, and that he purposely lied to me about it.

These kinds of "jokes" are a common occurrence with him.

 

[Mal12345]

Now this is not a bad assessment. For most people, though, it doesn't take years to see that there is more than a lovely, charming, and gracious exterior.

Wow, I must be really dumb!

In fact, my own ISFJ dad was a master of interpersonal management, and very few people figured this out about him. They only saw in him what HE wanted them to see. But since I had to live with him, I saw the drunken behavior (and worse) that few others were privy to, day after day. And yet even today I automatically give people the benefit of the doubt, so I don't go poking around in their psyches to root out their mental problems.

 

[Mal12345]

Nitpicking...

Man, the only one you've got left after this post is damaging efficiency (#1), and, at this point, I'm not sure whether that necessarily even deserves its own "cardinal INTP sin", or whether it's better seen as just one of the reasons why nitpicking is so annoying... seeing as how the above long post was more exploration than anything, at this point, I think I might just reconfigure them to:

The Cardinal Sins of the INTP:
#1 Nitpicking
#2 Not listening
#3 Fe-shaming

I'm almost afraid to ask, but what is #3 about?

 

[Zarathustra]

I'm almost afraid to ask, but what is #3 about?

It initially was brought up here (LINK), and was elaborated upon for some 5-6 posts, I think, between uumlau and myself.

I dunno, between that post and post 100 you should have the initial bases covered, I think.

It's basically a sort of (probably largely unconscious) projection (not in the typical sense) of inferior Fe onto others.

In the context we discussed it, it's basically a use of Fe to try and "correct" TJs for using Te as they do, as the TP rejects Te-styled thinking.

In fact, of those three sins I laid out, I noticed afterwards that each of them correlated to one of the INTPs four normal functions:

The Cardinal Sins of the INTP:
#1 Nitpicking - Ti
#2 Not listening - Si
#3 Fe-shaming - Fe

I suppose I see their Ne as the least of their problems, but, if you wanted to round it out and make it all nice and pretty (and so you could then apply it formulaically to all other types), you could probably have one sin for each of their functions, that basically represents an unhealthy/negative use of that function, and you could say something like problematic Ne has to do with derailing/not staying on topic. It also kind of relates to nitpicking in a way, via the tangents an NTP will follow while nitpicking (which is not to say that the nitpicking doesn't ever all come together into one giant Te whole, cuz I'm sure plenty of times it does [sometimes, though, it just seems like stupid, unfocused Ne tangents]).

 

[Poki]

What does it mean for something work but only at a superficial level? What is the alternative -- working at some deeper level? Either something works, or it does not. If it just gives the appearance of doing something but does not actually do it, then it does not work. (I'm sure this is a brazenly Te perspective, but then in INTJ fashion, I am not used to half-baked results.)

Long term results vs short term results.

 

[Poki]

Long term results vs short term results.

a Real solution vs Constant rigging

 

[Poki]

a Real solution vs Constant rigging

To do right vs To be done