[INTJ] INTJ Input Needed

[Xenocide]

An INTJ told me this a discussion about INTJ communication style.

I was going to say earlier that I think an aspect of the reason INTJs might seem pushy, especially in my case, is that they need to "attach" to higher probability possibilities and explore them AS IF they believed in them. So even if the probability is dismissed by the other, despite the fact that the INTJ doesn't truly believe it's true, they try to guide the other person back to the discussion until they can discover how the other person came to the conclusion and discern its relevance. Ultimately this seems like pushiness and like they're pushing ideas on people because they keep requiring an explanation and pointing to how their theory makes sense logically, asking for it to be dismantled or replaced if you want them to let go of the possibility.

I want to know what other INTJs think about this and how it relates/doesn't relate to their way of thinking.

 

[freeeekyyy]

It's pretty much dead on. We want to know where we went wrong. Showing why we think we're right isn't solely to convince you, it's also so you can correct us.

 

[figsfiggyfigs]

sounds accurate, for the INTJ's I know.

 

[You]

Maybe....I dont think that is the whole story, or if even a valid part of the reality, but it is getting at what I've experienced and observed.

 

[Nicodemus]

Yes, it is quite true.

 

[Oaky]

An INTJ consciously aware of the fact of what OP posted while in the put position will more likely go for a different approach to what the INTJ would believe is more effective for the person he is talking to. Also, rather the beating around the bush to find the answer, a simple "how" or "why" would do the trick. However what perhaps may be a more likely occurrence is that the INTJ believes they know why the other person chose such a conclusion but will ask for confirmation.

 

[jbking]

Hhhhmmm...

I'm not sure I'd agree with the "attach to higher probability possibilities" part. I will say that my introverted intuition tends to give me a conclusion that then requires my extroverted thinking to figure out how that should make sense and in working that out it may seem like pushiness in trying to see how something makes sense in a way. This is more in terms of logical right than a moral or emotional right sense. I would see a sense of pushiness here in trying to logically rationalize something out and possibly being zealous in holding onto logic and structure as this can be more comfortable than trying to figure out something free form in a sense. At least that is how I can see some of that quote. Perhaps my intuition works a bit differently than some others.

 

[Coriolis]

It's pretty much dead on. We want to know where we went wrong. Showing why we think we're right isn't solely to convince you, it's also so you can correct us.

Yes, and it's amazing to me how reluctant people can be to provide substantive criticism, all the while maintaining that they're right and I'm wrong. I've practically begged people to pick apart my ideas in such situations, or at least to explain/defend theirs, but more often they just remain vaguely insistent, or get huffy and give up the discussion altogether.

 

[Zarathustra]

There were about 3-4 places in that section that struck me as poorly enough written that they caused me to be unsure of what exactly the section was claiming...

If I'm correct in assuming that the writer was trying to say that INTJs tend to ask their discussion partners to painstakingly walk through their line of reasoning about a topic in order to clarify the line of reasoning/understanding/perspective their discussion partners are approaching a particular matter from, so that the INTJs can further dissect that line of reasoning/understanding/perspective, in order to explore/discover/show whether or how their discussion partner's line of reasoning/understanding/perspective doesn't necessarily contradict/disqualify/invalidate the line of reasoning/understanding/perspective that the INTJ is trying to explore, then yes, that is certainly true (at least of me, and I would assume of most INTJs).

It is also pretty easy to see how this can come off as pushy, as it would force the INTJ's discussion partner to painstakingly explain their line of reasoning/understanding/perspective (which many are wont to do), while appearing like the INTJ is arguing against their discussion partner's point of view (which, if we are actually doing this, we likely are).

It's related to our desire to see things through multiple perspectives: to keep an open mind to alternate possibilities; to not close our minds prematurely.



The other options are that we "bulldoze" you and/or just write you off as a stupid fucktard.

If we opt for the first of these three, we must think you actually have some hope.

 

[Beargryllz]

It might explain why my INTJ friend loves Coast to Coast AM. I believe him to be an adept skeptic, but he derives so much from the program not in the form of truths or revelations, but instead in the form of entertainment and as a way to strengthen his own (unrelated to the program) bold assertions. It is a form of manual exercise, to put oneself in the shoes of a believer and then intellectually spar with stronger and stronger minds, improving the logical process or drifting towards a cursed land of unpolluted reason.

 

[alakazam]

There were about 3-4 places in that section that struck me as poorly enough written that they caused me to be unsure of what exactly the section was claiming...

If I'm correct in assuming that the writer was trying to say that INTJs tend to ask their discussion partners to painstakingly walk through their line of reasoning about a topic in order to clarify the line of reasoning/understanding/perspective their discussion partners are approaching a particular matter from, so that the INTJs can further dissect that line of reasoning/understanding/perspective, in order to explore/discover/show whether or how their discussion partner's line of reasoning/understanding/perspective doesn't necessarily contradict/disqualify/invalidate the line of reasoning/understanding/perspective that the INTJ is trying to explore, then yes, that is certainly true (at least of me, and I would assume of most INTJs).

It is also pretty easy to see how this can come off as pushy, as it would force the INTJ's discussion partner to painstakingly explain their line of reasoning/understanding/perspective (which many are wont to do), while appearing like the INTJ is arguing against their discussion partner's point of view (which, if we are actually doing this, we likely are).

It's related to our desire to see things through multiple perspectives: to keep an open mind to alternate possibilities; to not close our minds prematurely.



The other options are that we "bulldoze" you and/or just write you off as a stupid fucktard.

If we opt for the first of these three, we must think you actually have some hope.

Personally, I think this hits the nail on the head. My dad's an INTP and I'm a hybrid P/J - I find myself doing this a LOT and it drives him absolutely bonkers.