[NT] NT! Why are you ASSHOLES?

[substitute]

Can you tell me how that hypothetical statement was sugar-coated or a "bullshit screen"?

No, I didn't mean that your suggested approach was a bullshit screen. The BS screen, that was something else... never mind.

I really don't know what to say if people perceive that approach as insincere but I would say it's more problematic for those who automatically interpret similar statements as insincere than the ones making them. I'd say if this seems to be the person's typical way of interacting with people then I'd assume it was sincere and honest and deal with it with that in mind.

Aha. But that goes both ways, you see? Why not flip that over and say well, is it problematic for the person who sees the other statement as offensive or malicious when it isn't? If it seems their typical way of speaking and interacting with people, why not assume that it's honest and sincere and backed by good motives, instead of assuming it's the opposite because it's the opposite of how you'd put it?

Do most people respond with you pointing out what they do wrong with grace, humility, and calm acceptance? If I'm going to do this (most people its not even worth it because I'm not invested enough in them to bother) I try to figure out their reactions first and work from those.

As I said, I don't talk to "most people" in that way. If I don't think they're ready to hear it candidly, I just don't say anything at all. If they're at that stage, then whatever you say to them, even the most tactful and sensitive approach, could still be misread either as an attack or an endorsement of how they already go about things.

There seems to be a lot of things read into the Fe-ish comments that weren't there so this really cuts both ways I suppose.

That's what I was saying: if it cuts both ways, why is it automatically the T who has to adapt and change their approach?

With whom? How they say things doesn't matter at all? If they're privy to personal and intimate knowledge about you I would view them as being in the greatest position to do the most harm and most good so I would be more sensitive to how they say things. Random Joe and Jane Blow on the street I wouldn't give two shits about but someone I care about cutting into me would be a. It all depends on the spirit and context in which it's done so in a frank and honest discussion I still expect respect and no low blows.

Most obviously, priests during confession. I was never one of your robotic, go to confession in the box with anonymous priest behind semi-opaque grille types. I spoke face to face with a confessor I was on close terms with, and chose him because I knew he'd give it to me, no punches pulled. But also amongst my friends we're very candid with each other all the time. Did you never hang out with a bunch of guys for a day and see how they interact with each other, typically? There isn't much sugar coating there at all, and yet fights don't seem to be breaking out all the time at your local garage...

I think you're forgetting the detachment factor as well... people can say what they like, whoever they are, however personal... it doesn't tend to bother me cos it's almost like we're talking about someone else; I objectify my very self by habit, so... the only things that irritate me are things like when a person starts to give their own value to my words, put words into my mouth, tell me what I think and feel, not listen to me... these are things that obscure and prevent clear communication, thereby causing unnecessary difficulty, which is extremely inefficient to everything and just about any purpose you might have. So they bother me on that level. I'd honestly get more het up about something happening that doesn't specifically target my own person, but more a symptom or cause of widespread social ills, than I would about an actual personal comment or even intended insult.

I question whether I'm dealing with reasonable people sometimes. A common scenario is that I disagree about how to solve a problem, and because I seem to be approaching it from a technical rather than a sympathetic angle, the determination is made that I am an unsympathetic person. From there, everything I say is adjudged through the lens that I'm evil incarnate and trying to make them aware of how cool I think this is when this is far from the truth.
E.g. one bleeding heart acquaintance was talking about a problem common to a certain part of the world, and very upset about it. I appreciated that she wanted to help, but thought her method wouldn't help and would probably hurt. I make an alternative suggestion. She promptly informs me I need to consider these poor people. how are hysterics any better? I eventually get somewhere by pointing out we both want to help but disagree on how to go about it. From then, everything I say is judged thru the lens that I'm a less caring person than she is.

The knack for reaching quick unfounded decisions about how much I do or don't care about something based on how the words and demeanor match up to their standards of appropriate feeliness means that to avoid this I do not engage in certain discussions with some people unless I know they'll take the effort to really go on a long nonjudgmental walk thru the woods on the issue. With people who know better (friends, e,g, quite a few of them feelers!), it's not as exhausting because there's less of a need to jump thru what strikes me as irrational hoops.

Yeah, just wanna say I relate to that a great deal. It's just being task oriented, task focused isn't it? If I say "you didn't do too well on that project, you need to spend longer looking up information", I'm not trying to say "you're stupid and useless and you can't look up information properly and you make a mess of everything". I'm trying to say exactly what I DID say! I'm thinking about the task at hand and I don't see why the other person can't lay their precious feelings aside for a moment to do the same and just talk about how to improve the project or whatever, without having to have their ego stroked all the time. My comment and intent is so impersonal in intent and content, it's not even funny, yet the other person sometimes takes it as the very opposite extreme!

Remember my P part. Good enough is enough. Not intended to be cruel, or you'd be crying like a stereotypical INFP by now.

Good point. If I intend to hurt, believe me, you'll know about it. It won't just be an average level of offence that you have a rant about to your friend to make you feel better. It'll be total obliteration, scorched earth, you'll be in therapy for years.

That's why I've adopted philosophies that minimize the possibility of me wanting or intending to hurt, however much a person pisses me off. That's why I repress and restrain my emotions - cos they're just too violent and intense to be allowed out to play without hurting the other boys and girls. Bit like a Vulcan

Sorry for the multiple posts guys, I was asleep whilst you were saying that stuff so I had to catch up in the morning

 

[garbage]

here's an example:
...
Another Fe example:
...
Now THAT hurt my feelings far more than any NT remark. wierd stuff huh?

Fe definitely has a way of finding another's weaknesses and exploiting them in the most evil possible way.

Not to say that Fe-dominants are necessarily assholes, but they've got this tool at their disposal.

My ENFJ friend has done this on several occasions to others, but probably only once to me and out of anger. Gotta love that Fe loyalty.


A NT's lack of Fe, or lack of perceived value of Fe, can also have an adverse affect on their social behavior. Naturally.

There was an analogy in some thread months ago that stated that, in the realm of people, Fe-users are trained and skilled knights while others are children swinging swords around. The former group can use their skills deliberately for good and for bad, where the latter are just.. reckless when dealing with others.

 

[Moiety]

Fe definitely has a way of finding another's weaknesses and exploiting them in the most evil possible way.

Not to say that Fe-dominants are necessarily assholes, but they've got this tool at their disposal.

My ENFJ friend has done this on several occasions to others, but probably only once to me and out of anger. Gotta love that Fe loyalty.


A NT's lack of Fe, or lack of perceived value of Fe, can also have an adverse affect on their social behavior. Naturally.

There was an analogy in some thread months ago that stated that, in the realm of people, Fe-users are trained and skilled knights while others are children swinging swords around. The former group can use their skills deliberately for good and for bad, where the latter are just.. reckless when dealing with others.

All the while, the Fi bards, bearing no weapons but their banjos, are just enjoying their weed. I like that, yeah.

 

[entropie]

I remember one time answering to this thread "Cause we can"

Therefore: Cause we can

 

[thisGuy]

Seriously,

Don't give me this I am so out of touch with my emotions crap. You are all smart people. You understand MBTI. So why, with all your knowledge are you so goddamn proud at your dysfunction and assholery? You would think, if you were a real NT, that you would be ashamed at what you have not perfected.

i have often wondered that too. i think its cuz after reading a theory that seems to explain self like a key opens a lock, NTs find conformation with the theory to be empowering. the theory gives us a tool that appears to be able to explain ourselves. so we try to exhibit our good and the bad...we think of it as who-we-are without caring too much for what-we-can-be...its the irrefutable excuse ('i am who i am' or 'i cant help it, its in my nature'), except when it highlights the lurking ignorance

also, since assholes seem more assertive, its even more attractive to the nerd who got picked on in high school to be "more assertive"

and im sure coming up with ideas in your head and realizing the uniqueness that comes with developing theories doesn't help with the ego thing

this is mainly in people who are new to the personality stuff and have not yet risen above the justifications for being asshole. a little knowledge can be a dangerous thing

its true, humility is a lost virtue

personally, i AM in touch with my emotions. when i'm an asshole, its usually on purpose...purpose being humor...usually

i have unintentionally hurt people sometimes...and then learnt that saying sorry is NOT a sign of weakness

 

[Willfrey]

I am unsure if it has been said already, but I think there is a stark difference in how many people behave online then how they are in real life. Everyone can be a tough guy if they want to here because there is no real repercussions.

But in real life I do think I am an asshole in the sense that sometimes the emotional attention I receive is a bit much for me, and I am ambivalent and act distant as a result. This is especially true when I can't reciprocate the feelings/empathy/whatever that is directed my way.

 

[sculpting]

A NT's lack of Fe, or lack of perceived value of Fe, can also have an adverse affect on their social behavior. Naturally.

There was an analogy in some thread months ago that stated that, in the realm of people, Fe-users are trained and skilled knights while others are children swinging swords around. The former group can use their skills deliberately for good and for bad, where the latter are just.. reckless when dealing with others.

As compared to Fi dom/aux users or Thinkers?

 

[Little Linguist]

Um, not to be a total derailing moron, but when *I* made a similar thread that wasn't half as harmful, everyone went apeshit crazy on me....And here someone comes out like this and says something a billion times worse and nothing happens. I call this NT BIAS!!!!!!! DAMN IT! And yeah, sometimes you are assholes!!!!!

Seeing as I've grown and learned a lot since the time when I first came here, I've come to realize that you guys aren't the only ones who are assholes sometimes. Every type can be an utter pain in the ass...if it's taken too far.

All in all NTs are great people, even if they are not as in touch with their feelings. Like everything in nature, personalities strive for balance, so you may be turned off by NTs, Thatgirl, because you need someone else to complement your personality....

 

[garbage]

As compared to Fi dom/aux users or Thinkers?

I'm talking about the function itself.

Where Fe comes into play for Fi (dom/aux)-users is pretty much indeterminate as a function of type, so Fi doesn't really enter into my equation at all.

 

[onemoretime]

Well, we wouldn't have to be assholes if you all didn't have to be wrong all the time (j/k), and get all pissy when we try to correct you - we want you to be better-informed people!

I think what many do not realize is that at least in my circumstance, if I'm talking to you and consider you a friend, then I already have a high opinion of you, and because of that "objective" Ti function, there's very little that you can do other than betray or humiliate me to change that opinion.

Of course, I could be completely wrong about that, but it wouldn't be the first time.

 

[Feops]

I avoid highly emotional situations because they make me extremely nervous and uncomfortable. Some people say my avoidance makes me an asshole.

But I've never gone out of my way to purposely hurt anyone.

Sums up my thoughts nicely.

I accept this aspect of myself, so I'd rather embrace it than needlessly feel bad about the nature of how I am.

 

[BlahBlahNounBlah]

Well, we wouldn't have to be assholes if you all didn't have to be wrong all the time (j/k), and get all pissy when we try to correct you - we want you to be better-informed people! ...

I know your tongue was in cheek, but there's actually a lot of truth to this.


The people who dislike me most are the ones who are frequently wrong ... people who adhere to some random bit of nothing, seek out my opinion on it (this part needs to be emphasized. why are they asking me if they aren't prepared to be challenged?), and then get upset when I rip apart the entire foundation of the argument.


People who think rationally (and I'm not talking about F or T or S or N here) think I'm the nicest person they've ever met. And I enjoy being around them because I can learn from talking to them.

 

[kuranes]

Like ThatGirl, I find it annoying sometimes to read the frequent posts by self-proclaimed assholes. Sometimes it's funny, but it gets old fast. I'm an INTJ, and that crowd, in particular seems to have a lot of people who try to play up their assholery. It seems so superficial sometimes. Like, I can't count how many posts I've read from INTJs claiming to have no soul and wanting to take over the world from their garage.

I partly blame Myers-Brigg for this. Some people read the type descriptions and then cling to them rigidly. Their type becomes a huge part of who they perceive themselves as.

I think it's the nature of the internet to encourage gratuitous self-obsession and the belief that our little differences are incredibly important. Some NTs who are looking for a unique public identity may latch on to their asshole-ness and try and magnify it. Maybe for some it's better to be an asshole than unnoticed. Of course, I'm talking about the NTs who take a great deal of pride in their supposed heartlessness. I think it's a case of people looking for an identity. And I think that there are certain immature or lost people simply imagining themselves to be NTs because NTs seem so masculine, strong, and disconnected from emotional pain.

Sure, some NTs are genuine NTs. Some are also genuine assholes. But when some of them constantly mention what big assholes they are, I do have to wonder about their agenda behind it. Like, yeah, you've told me 100 times that you're a heartless bastard. Why do you care enough about that fact to constantly bring it up?

These people are more apparent on the internet than in real life, as was pointed out, and certainly don't represent all "T"'s. One wonders if they are trying to impress those who they feel are "F"'s or whether it is rather their fellow supposed "T"'s that they are trying to impress ? Or to outdo in a game of one-upmanship ?

Someone pointed out that some of the behavior I was complaining about in an earlier post seemed more like "F" behavior. I kept an open mind as I read that. It reminded me that I've wondered about this too, at times, as perhaps some of these people are "F"'s latching on to descriptions of what "T"'s are supposed to be like, and aping it poorly, or just trying to get a rise out of people, being more attuned to emotional triggers and hot buttons. Things such as dismissiveness and condescension are also considered "tools" for flame warriors ( versus discussions ) . For some people, one can't have an interesting discussion without there being two extremes in conflict. The oft more realistic grey middle-ground is less charged, though, and so they engage in this to "help" the forum continue to be appealing ...to people of the more adrenaline-seeking bent. Such people are not always youngsters.

But I agree with the assessment that a lot of people associate themselves with NT because they like to view themselves as strong, independent and original thinkers, whether or not it's true. It's not really my place to say whether people have mistyped themselves, but it's usually the most irrational people I see claiming to be rational to justify their emotionally driven and short-sighted arguments. They FEEL justified in their beliefs, so they claim it's rational and logical to give credit to their argument.

Yes

Typically I find this more true with men than women, as men are expected to be thinkers since feeling is apparently something only women are allowed to do. But just because you like football more than fuzzy kittens doesn't make you a thinker.

And, of course, some can pose as women to appear to offset this, and possibly accrue other advantages. Just sayin'.

To be honest, I think it's a bunch of volatile and bitter feelers that latch onto the perceived NT identity so they have an excuse to say shit and build themselves a tough guy exterior to protect their own vulnerabilities. The people most sensitive to criticism are the first to pull out the I DON'T CARE WHAT YOU THINK card in defence. Of course there are assholes of all types.

There are ( they're ) {probably a number of them} mingling with actual "T"'s that engage in this.

But whatever. I walk away whenever people try to start shit with me. I'm just not interested.

Sometimes I ignore them also, but other times I get tired of how their behavior might cause the absence of otherwise worthwhile posts and contributions from conflict-avoidant but valuable members . Then I'll fight them, even though it may jar a thread.

Well this is interesting. Do other NTs feel like this as well? I guess this is a bigger problem then I thought. Using that statement as an example, I wouldn't think rephrasing it a big deal. My reasons for this is because it would not put the person on the defensive by making character attacks ("if you weren't so lazy") and it opens up a dialogue for things such as why couldn't the person succeed the first time around, what was going on at the time, and how those obstacles could be avoided in the future. I would view couching my inquiry in that way as both constructive and productive. And I do think that if the person had gotten upset with me for saying something like that I wouldn't consider them hypersensitive. That statement is harsh as far as I'm concerned. I'm exaggerating this a bit, but can I assume I can say equally as mean things to NTs about their sore spots and weaknesses it will be well-received and laughed off? I'm going to try this very soon but I can predict how my responses will be.

Also, can you tell me what would be constructive and productive about the more "natural" NT way? I will say that sometimes I think people need that strong jolt statements like that can arouse in order to get people moving. But that seems like such an iffy motivator if the purpose was motivation to begin with. What would the purpose of saying it like that be? Like I said, harsher statements between family and friends may be more tenable, but not between someone I know casually.

Bolding mine. Good points. Context is a factor in giving advice, even when it is asked for. I might save some comments, however diplomatically ( or not ) they are worded, for a private conference versus a public discussion with others. As a side note, it is amusing to note that I see positive "rep comments" on forums being signed by their authors more often than I see signed negative ones.

Of course, the "T"'s we're speaking of here in this thread will tell you that of course they shrug off any harsh criticism.

As a concession to the "T" POV I have seen elsewhere ( thrown out here by me as a... challenge to "F"'s ) they might argue that part of the value of a "public" internet forum, amongst people that you don't associate with in your day to day life, is the advice you may get that isn't just telling you what you wanted to hear. This is why they sometimes object to a forum becoming more "social', where people treat it more as a "community" where we might ( however virtually but not always virtuously ) begin to behave as we do with a real life neighborhood. I still think there is room for a middle ground like proteanmix said, where the advice or comments are neither in-your-face nor pollyanna sugar on most occasions. ( I don't see them objecting to "Meet-Ups" on INTPc, however. )

The people who dislike me most are the ones who are frequently wrong ...

On another note, I think that the words "think" and "feel" are not always used here in the precise MBTI meaning, outside of the fact that ( even if they were ) Feelings do not always have to be completely ungrounded in any reality feedback, as can "Thoughts" nevertheless be incorrect for various reasons. Some people use the word "Feeling" just to mean "it is my opinion that....". When it is obvious by the context that such a person means it this way, or when it is vague enough as to be both unclear and not even a linchpin of that same someone's argument, then I think it is ....unproductive to point out that an "F" ( or someone accused of being illogical ) has in fact used it, as though you have scored a big point and caught someone with their pants down etc.

I've long fought the "NTs aren't robots" fight at INTPc...

Most of the time the NT is just young and immature.

I've noticed your earnest and persistent efforts to accomplish this. Keep up the good fight, comrade. Don't let s0's recent comments about maturity not usually being a factor in this dissuade you, either.

I haven't found very many "T"'s outright bragging about being proud to be "assholes" either. They would be more likely to say that their confidence is mistaken for arrogance etc. Or that their justified arrogance is mistaken for "conceit" or something like that.

The two friends that I am currently spending much of my social time IRL with are both tested as INTJ's by the way. One is a classic INTJ. The other is more of an INtJ, IMO. They've shown no interest in participating in the forum, despite my encouragement. We make fun of one another's quirks. One guy is always so certain of himself that he likes to call for a bet when we disagree, and I must admit it is fun to whip him when there is an easy ( impartial ) reference book to referee the bet. perhaps i should start a thread on his opinions sometime. ( Could it succeeed like Siskel and Ebert's discussions did ? )

 

[onemoretime]

people who adhere to some random bit of nothing, seek out my opinion on it (this part needs to be emphasized. why are they asking me if they aren't prepared to be challenged?), and then get upset when I rip apart the entire foundation of the argument.

My dad (who I think is an ESFP) is exactly like this. Taking in information from trusted sources (that tend to have what I consider a non-reality-based perception of the world), he'll come up and ask about what I think. Most of the time, I'll just cut him off and say "you know we're not going to agree, so let's just end it here", but that hardly seems to work, mostly because he interprets that as me thinking he's wrong, correctly, but then in that characteristic way they have taking it way too personally.

If he does get me into the debate, he'll then eventually get pissed as I systematically chop his arguments to shreds, and then pull out the "well I guess you know everything then" line, at which point I tend to stop, because I know intuitively at that point the next thing to say is "well maybe not, but I sure know a hell of a lot more than you about this", which of course is about as big a body blow to that type as anything a person could say.

Then Mom, ISFJ as I think her to be (which of course leads to whole other conflicts, being each other's shadow), will usually come up and tell me that I need to work on "learning how to say things the right way", which of course is true, but still, I have a severe problem with doing what he wants and validating his opinion when it's objectively wrong (and I have data to back that up).

The other half of it is what I think other types don't realize, that to an NT, we do hold our nearest and dearest to some sort of ideal (more than we would a neutral figure, such as an athlete or politician), and when you do something to debase that ideal, it's personally damaging, because not only have you caused us to feel like we are logically incorrect about something, you're close enough to engage the shadow F function, and lo and behold! something actually resembling emotional damage starts to manifest.

I think this is why we tend to get a little punchier around the closest of friends and family.

 

[ghoti]

And, of course, some can pose as women to appear to offset this, and possibly accrue other advantages. Just sayin'.

You lost me there. Are you talking about transsexuals or something entirely different?

Sometimes I ignore them also, but other times I get tired of how their behavior might cause the absence of otherwise worthwhile posts and contributions from conflict-avoidant but valuable members . Then I'll fight them, even though it may jar a thread.

Sometimes it's necessary, I agree. It's much easier online since I have time to process what's being said. A lot of arguments escalate from miscommunication, which unfortunately is a major weakness of mine when conversations become emotionally charged, since I'm only able to understand half of their response. I get lost when people don't say what they mean, and I hate it when they read into my responses what isn't there.

I'm used to people getting worked up very easily and then use emotional intimidation to win arguments, which has mostly been my experience with Fs. A lot of people act as if the truth is dependent on whichever side screams the loudest or insults the other most. I've never really been able to emotionally invest in these things, because beliefs have no bearing on reality.

Not to say there aren't any NT assholes, because there are. But it seems a portion of other types' assholes latch onto the NT identity as well because the perception it's more acceptable and natural for us to completely disregard feelings, so they lose any accountability for their behaviour. If you aren't a "positive" feeler, then you're less likely to want to identify as a feeler.

From my experience, Ts are more assholes out of neglect and lack of patience and understanding, while Fs are more deliberate because they know exactly where to put the knife in and twist.

But clearly I'm not an expert on these things, so I could be way off.

 

[Kangirl]

And since what I mean carries no ill will, malice or offence, there's no reason why expressing it clearly and precisely should give the impression that it does. My point though, is that regardless of how careful you are, there are always those people who just read whatever they want into your words. In such cases, it's not fair that I should be the one held responsible for the misunderstanding, or that I should be required to adapt even further in order to accommodate their flaws.

You know, in a situation like this, I don't think anyone is at 'fault'. Of course, WAY oversensitive types (who secretly really enjoy being offended) exist, as do overly blunt jerks, but most of the time I wouldn't fault anyone in this situation. If someone is offended by something I said, because they've interpreted it to mean something I didn't mean (which happens quite often), I'll just explain that I didn't mean any offense etc. Sometimes this take more than a simple comment from me and I need to do some convincing - I generally make the effort to do so. I don't know, I guess it just makes my life easier to take into account how others may react to something I say. My natural method of communication is very, very blunt. Life has taught me that this doesn't always equal the best outcome (i.e. the most understanding, on both parts), so I've learned to temper it. This doesn't bother me, it just is what it is.

To Ne-Monster re: the comment made by the other mother to her kid re: teeth. That is a perfect example of something that would have me enraged in .003 seconds flat. I'm angry even READING about it. Part of me wants to go sit beside her in the park and praise my child for, I don't know, something along the lines of "Well done for understanding our discussion this morning, Toddler Kangirl. I'm so happy you understand that being a passive aggressive shithead isn't a nice way to go through life. You're such a great kid!" You know, or just punch the other mother in the face.

 

[The_Liquid_Laser]

Spart I get that and thank you for explaining what you meant.

It's kinda funny to me that thatgirl started the in such an incendiary manner and then got all these emotional reactions and then people are saying they'd rather get this exact type of thing then something more neutral. Not sugar-coated and wrapped in cotton candy, but neutral. To me, it's very similar to Ne-monster's friend's comment. I'm interpreting mixed messages. The general reactions reinforces my belief people don't like negative character judgments made against them brought to their attention in any ol way, but if it's true it's OK doesn't matter how it's said? The defensive reactions to the thread says otherwise.

Perhaps because it's not true or because individuals don't want to be lumped into a category and associated with negative characteristics they don't have. IOW, their (possible) flaws are being brought up to them in a manner that is putting them on the defensive and going in circles. The thread is the embodiment of how I'm saying most people don't like to be engaged.

You're correct in your assessment. No one likes to be insulted (including NT's). The word "asshole" is meant to be an insult regardless of whether the listener is an NT or not.

The difference between NT's and other types are that NT's are naturally blunt. The bluntness of NT's makes it easy for them to unintentionally hurt other people's feelings. That is where the difference ends. Breakdowns in communication happen all the time between various people for a multitude of reasons. Some people will take the time to try to understand what others mean. Likewise everyone appreciates when the other person reciprocates and takes the time and effort to understand what they mean.

So being blunt does not make someone an asshole. However expecting the other person to always be the one to adapt their communication style does make them an asshole.

 

[entropie]

Cause we c... ok just ignore me

 

[GrnEyz]

I think anyone can be an asshole if properly provoked.... it would seems natural for any species.

 

[entropie]

Dont tell the guys here such wise things, they actually could learn something