Ask an INTJ

[EJCC]

Well, it's really just not that simple.

See, from one perspective, you could say that we're always trolling.

But, from another, you could say that we're never trolling.

The truth lies somewhere in between.

And the truth lies in what I said.

You just have to learn to read those multiple perspectives that we're riffing.

We literally play them like an instrument.

You just have to learn to hear it.

Ohhh! I think I understand. I may be connecting some dots now. The bolded especially helps me connect everything, because I remember talking to my INTJ former roommate about how almost everything she says is a test, to see how people will react.

Do you think it would be safe to say that if an INTJ says something extremely irritating, but also vague and noncommittal, that (s)he is a definite troll? Provoking, but leaving the trolling/conversation's options open?

(I have particular posts on this forum in mind.)

EJCC I think the usual ENFP tactic is just to pick some elements in the INTJ's communication and twist them around a bit and see how the INTJ responds, and that's how you can get a read on them. It's like Heisenberg uncertainty, they don't have any Si grounding, but at least you can figure out how they're moving at the moment. And then you get them to have to play your game too because then they have to figure out what your position is and because their Si sucks they find that tricky and intriguing too, and then while they're distracted, you pounce.

What you're describing sounds like playing "Battleship". You're essentially saying that you should play the Ne game with them to understand their Ni game? Could you give an example?

I think the only way to tell is by knowing the person in question and whether what they said/did may seem reasonable to them. If not, they are 'trolling'.

This is the technique that I had been using, with my INTJ friends. But with INTJs I don't know well, that's where it gets confusing to me. I sometimes get into situations like the one in MacGuffin's quote:

I also think INTJs troll far less than INTPs do. Sometimes I'll see an NF laugh at what an INTJ posted, not realizing the INTJ was serious, the INTJ actually believes the crazy stance they are taking.

See INTJ Forum for further details. Whole lotta serious-crazy over there.

Although, now that you mention it, this applies to all social interactions of INTJs with other types, not just text-based ones. Which often leads to those moments where-- for example-- some people think you love them (because you were just polite, and left out the entire explanation as to why you were being nice), some people think that you hate them (because you are sarcastically bantering with them in a hyperbolic manner) and some people think you are an arrogant asshole (because of a few self-referential/sarcastically-deprecating comments that you made). It's a complicated game, showing your meanings... And it's definitely gotten me into trouble on a few occasions.

And I feel like all types do it to some extent, it's just that INTJs don't give a damn-- most of the time-- if the majority of their day-to-day interactions with people are confused as being significant of something else.

I dunno. I really don't think it's that complicated for Si users. I don't think I do what you're describing at all. I try to make a point of being as clear and concise as I can, and usually I do well at it. From my experience, if people read me wrong, it's because they're overanalyzing me. Sometimes a spade is just a spade, and an ESTJ saying "I like your scarf" is just an ESTJ who wants you to know that they like your scarf, without any ulterior motives or secret meanings.

Getting to the bottom of it can be straightforward if we "like" you: just ask. We will either give you an honest answer, or an answer so blatantly sarcastic that you will know the opposite is true. Otherwise we can indeed lead most people down the proverbial garden path quite effectively.

Why does it depend on whether you like the person or not? Is it that you don't want to waste the energy on people you don't care about?

♜♞♝♛♚♝♞♜
♟♟♟♟♟♟♟♟

♙♙♙♙♙♙♙♙
♖♘♗♕♔♗♘♖

Suddenly, a wild chess game appears.

EJCC used Te/Si Getting To The Goddamn Point!
It's super effective!

EJCC,
I think INTJs are trickier than INTPs because they tend to mix ''trolling'' with a high dose of seriousness. They are usually making a point indirectly. I call that semi trolling. When done right, it is beautiful. There's no easy way to tell - you need to understand the other person well.
INTPs do that too, but we are usually more blatant. Among other reasons, I guess our tolerance for interpretive deviation is significantly smaller.

That's why I'm so much better at reading you guys. I think I even posted a question on this thread a while ago, asking the INTJs if they enjoyed playing games with everyone, because I was getting really sick of having to deal with that style of conversation from my roommate. But it's easier to deal with once you get used to it. I got a LOT better at that style of sarcastic/sharp/brutal/deadpan banter over the course of my time rooming with her. And I got to a point in the middle of the year when I decided that, when in doubt, I would assume she wasn't serious.

[Coriolis]

I try to make a point of being as clear and concise as I can, and usually I do well at it. From my experience, if people read me wrong, it's because they're overanalyzing me. Sometimes a spade is just a spade, and an ESTJ saying "I like your scarf" is just an ESTJ who wants you to know that they like your scarf, without any ulterior motives or secret meanings.

Interesting. I try to align my conversations with my goals. If I tell someone I like their scarf, it could have one of several meanings:

1. I really do just like their scarf and want them to know.

2. I don't actually "like" the scarf, but it reminds me of something (the curtains at my grandmother's house?) makes me think of something (Bravais lattices?) or is somehow striking to me, and I feel the urge to comment on it somehow but don't want to get into all the implications of what it means to me.

3. I want to appear friendly, put the scarf-wearer at ease, possibly even distract him/her.

Why does it depend on whether you like the person or not? Is it that you don't want to waste the energy on people you don't care about?

It is more about openness and closeness/trust. If I like someone, or am close to someone, I am more inclined to be candid and share my real intentions with them. Others I am more likely to keep at a distance. The verbal parrying, sarcasm, banter, and other remarks of indeterminate intent keep my own motivations hidden while giving me more opportunities to observe (test) the other person.

[EJCC]

Interesting. I try to align my conversations with my goals. If I tell someone I like their scarf, it could have one of several meanings:

1. I really do just like their scarf and want them to know.

2. I don't actually "like" the scarf, but it reminds me of something (the curtains at my grandmother's house?) makes me think of something (Bravais lattices?) or is somehow striking to me, and I feel the urge to comment on it somehow but don't want to get into all the implications of what it means to me.

3. I want to appear friendly, put the scarf-wearer at ease, possibly even distract him/her.

Oh this is all very Si vs. Ni, I think.

I would (almost) never consider #3, and I would definitely not think of it as a distraction. The closest thing to that, that I sometimes do, would be complimenting their scarf because they complimented something I was wearing and so I felt like I should compliment the thing they're wearing that I like the most. But again, that's still sincere, and I still like the scarf. I try not to do that sort of thing if I don't mean it. Not that I'm calling you insincere. But it's a style of manipulation that I'm just starting to understand (via INTJs in my life), and that I would never consider using. (But keep in mind that the main reason that I don't bullshit/lie/manipulate is that it doesn't cross my mind. I might be less lawful good if my instinct wasn't finding a way to be honest and straightforward no matter what, because it uses less energy.)

On that note, #2 is very interesting. I've found that to be one of the main differences between INTJs and ISTJs (and ESTJs too, I guess), i.e. that it uses a lot of energy for you guys to explain yourselves. Whereas it's very easy for us to explain ourselves; the data is right there in our filing cabinet, neatly labeled and easy to find, just waiting for us to grab a file and quote from it. In a situation similar to #2, I would probably end up just saying what it reminded me of, e.g. "Hey, I like your scarf, it reminds me of Dr. Who. Do you watch that show?" And regardless of whether they do or don't, it's a good conversation starter, and they'll consider it a compliment regardless of whether they've seen the show or not. They may want to look it up afterwards!

But I digress. It's interesting that INTJs are drained by that, while Si types are drained by trying to be indirect and/or to manipulate. What's your theory on that? I still haven't figured it out.

It is more about openness and closeness/trust. If I like someone, or am close to someone, I am more inclined to be candid and share my real intentions with them. Others I am more likely to keep at a distance. The verbal parrying, sarcasm, banter, and other remarks of indeterminate intent keep my own motivations hidden while giving me more opportunities to observe (test) the other person.

That makes sense. I keep similar things close and away from strangers, and our motivations for that are probably similar. (Protecting our delicate Fi, right?)

What would you consider to be succeeding at the test? Do you have an ideal outcome in mind while you test them?

[skylights]

What you're describing sounds like playing "Battleship". You're essentially saying that you should play the Ne game with them to understand their Ni game? Could you give an example?

Yeah, absolutely. I feel like you sort of have to treat their responses like Schrodinger's Cat, as if it's both serious AND not serious. Because probably it is both - and to outrightly question the "what" of the statement is really an exercise in futility, because if you choose one side, serious or not serious, the INTJ will immediately see the truth in the other perspective. However, usually you can collapse their wave function by making them extravert. Basically I just assume that INTJs are strategic planners first and foremost, and there's a rather specific reason behind why they chose to say whatever they said, and it points at something, and the game is to figure out what that something is.

Example -

I guess that means female INTJs can't spot it either?

They just can't keep their panties out of a twist.

Well, that's kind of awkward, isn't it. It sounds like he's joking, but INTJs are usually nuts, so maybe he's not. Also, there is some truth to INTJs generally having their panties in a twist, whether male or female. Also also, there seems to be an obscure G-spot joke floating somewhere in there. Also also also, maybe he's pissy at the INTP and making a snappy remark. Or maybe he's just tired and making shit up for a laugh. So really, analyzing the "what" is kind of pointless. There are too many possibilities. It is probably varying degrees of most of them.

Since classic communication doesn't work in this situation, let's just indirectly comment on one of those possibilities that the comment could mean, to make him clarify what he's getting at. Tease the premise, I guess. Bonus points for sexual innuendo, and/or messing with Z.

For instance:

I guess that means female INTJs can't spot it either?

They just can't keep their panties out of a twist.

• That's funny, I could swear both genders of INTJ usually have their panties in a twist.
• Say what?
• Female INTJs with usernames that start with M and Q.
• Because, unlike male INTJs, female INTJs may actually possess some degree of EQ.

Not that any of those comments are rivetingly thought-provoking. But they're okay examples of how you can engage an INTJ without having any idea what his actual meaning(s) or intention(s) was/were.

[skylights]

But I digress. It's interesting that INTJs are drained by that, while Si types are drained by trying to be indirect and/or to manipulate. What's your theory on that? I still haven't figured it out.

I hope you don't mind me bumping in again on conversation, but it's late and I'm bored , and this is an interesting point. I would assume this stems from the diametrically opposed functions (literally!) of Si and Ni, which are, respectively, to keep track of concrete meanings over time and to keep track of abstract meanings over time.

For an N dominant, the easiest cognitive task is to seek meaning beyond what is at hand. I shy from using the word "manipulation" with Ni users because even though it is often manipulation, I don't think it's fair to place the negative stigma on that activity, because I suspect they are doing what seems most reasonable to them, which is to utilize the abstract patterns they keep track of to envision a big-picture endgoal, and to be actively seeking that endgoal - thus Coriolis trying to put the scarf-wearer at ease, because if he does the situation will be brought into line with some abstract pattern, which in turn facilitates fluid Fe or Te action. Because the Ni user is not focused on concrete meaning over time, their files aren't organized in the same way... it seems like they're organized by telos, essentially - by final purpose - which makes sense if you think of Ni in terms of distilling sequences of events (Se) into patterns-over-time, or "event-archetypes" (ie rebirth). I'm stilll a little blurry on this one, though, to be honest - my best firsthand understanding of Ni comes from an ENFJ, so it might be slightly skewed by the Je lead.

Anyway, in contrast, and as far as I understand it, Si files are arranged more like Aristotle's material and formal causes, or what objects/concepts are made up of and how they are internally arranged. Si tracks statics-over-time, instead of Ni dynamics-over-time. It wouldn't make any sense for a Si user to try to put the scarf-wearer at ease by saying you liked his scarf, because that would obscure the fact that you, in fact, dislike his scarf, which would cause inconsistencies in all other statics relating to your personal tastes, the nature of the scarf in question, the nature of the scarf-wearer and his relationship to you, the nature of the situation at hand, and so on.

So essentially, acting on telos forces all the Si facts to "bend" to accommodate the false facts, which makes it a relatively distasteful option to the Si user. Whereas, in turn, acting on Si statics disrupts all the Ni teloi, which makes it a relatively distasteful option to the Ni user. In both cases, the user would have to alter a major line of truths through their paradigms, accounting for the major source of mental energy drain.

[Coriolis]

I would (almost) never consider #3, and I would definitely not think of it as a distraction. The closest thing to that, that I sometimes do, would be complimenting their scarf because they complimented something I was wearing and so I felt like I should compliment the thing they're wearing that I like the most. But again, that's still sincere, and I still like the scarf. I try not to do that sort of thing if I don't mean it. Not that I'm calling you insincere. But it's a style of manipulation that I'm just starting to understand (via INTJs in my life), and that I would never consider using. (But keep in mind that the main reason that I don't bullshit/lie/manipulate is that it doesn't cross my mind. I might be less lawful good if my instinct wasn't finding a way to be honest and straightforward no matter what, because it uses less energy.)

I suppose I'm just goal-oriented enough to do this from time to time when I feel it necessary to accomplish something important. It is insincere, but probably not in the way you envision. If I really found nothing noteworthy about the person's scarf, I would not compliment it, but rather would find some other comment to make. The distraction aspect of such situations is often just to engage the person in smalltalk or idle conversation, to make our encounter seem entirely ordinary and predictable. This is what makes me feel insincere, though, since I hate these types of conversation, and in instigating one even for a good cause, I am pretending to be something I am not.

On that note, #2 is very interesting. I've found that to be one of the main differences between INTJs and ISTJs (and ESTJs too, I guess), i.e. that it uses a lot of energy for you guys to explain yourselves. Whereas it's very easy for us to explain ourselves; the data is right there in our filing cabinet, neatly labeled and easy to find, just waiting for us to grab a file and quote from it.

But I digress. It's interesting that INTJs are drained by that, while Si types are drained by trying to be indirect and/or to manipulate. What's your theory on that? I still haven't figured it out.

It does come down to energy drain, that and distance again. If the connection takes some explaining, or involves revealing personal information, I may just not want to get into it, and will settle for the straightforward "I like your scarf" comment, or more likely, just say nothing at all. The kind of manipulation I describe above is draining to me, because it involves emulating behavior that does not come naturally and that requires much effort. By comparison, the indirectness of deflecting questions or providing "Schrodinger's cat" responses, as Skylights so aptly puts it, is almost effortless. I suppose it is because I readily see an overlay of many possible conversational pathways (conversational chess, almost), and can provide a response that keeps the largest possible number of them valid. This is probably just due to how Ni sees things.

What would you consider to be succeeding at the test? Do you have an ideal outcome in mind while you test them?

The ideal outcome is for the other person to demonstrate that he/she is able and willing to carry on a civil, rational discussion with some basis in facts/reality, and some personal value added. Subtle, thoughtful, or sophisticated humor is a plus. Sincere questions are welcome. Insults, tantrums/whining, wilfull ignorance, and empty assertions are serious minuses, and will quickly cause me to lose respect for the other person, and to see toying with them as more worthwhile than attempting to carry on a serious discussion.

[EJCC]

Before I begin, let me just say how hilarious it is that during the course of our interactions on this thread, you have referenced the Uncertainty Principle, Schroedinger's Cat, and Aristotle, and I have cited a board game. I'm a little embarrassed!

I hope you don't mind me bumping in again on conversation, but it's late and I'm bored , and this is an interesting point. I would assume this stems from the diametrically opposed functions (literally!) of Si and Ni, which are, respectively, to keep track of concrete meanings over time and to keep track of abstract meanings over time.

For an N dominant, the easiest cognitive task is to seek meaning beyond what is at hand. I shy from using the word "manipulation" with Ni users because even though it is often manipulation, I don't think it's fair to place the negative stigma on that activity, because I suspect they are doing what seems most reasonable to them, which is to utilize the abstract patterns they keep track of to envision a big-picture endgoal, and to be actively seeking that endgoal - thus Coriolis trying to put the scarf-wearer at ease, because if he does it will make it easier for him to accomplish [task], which benefits everyone in the long run. Because the Ni user is not focused on concrete meaning over time, however, it is a more draining task to be required to recall that file-cabinet-style data - their files aren't organized in the same way - they're organized by telos, essentially. Final purpose.

Whereas, as far as I understand it, Si files are arranged more like Aristotle's material and formal causes, or what they are made up of and how it is arranged. They're statics, instead of dynamics. It wouldn't make any sense for you to try to put the scarf-wearer at ease by saying you liked his scarf, because that would obscure the fact that you, in fact, dislike his scarf, which would cause inconsistencies in all other facts relating to your personal tastes, the scarf in question, the scarf-wearer, the situation at hand, and so on.

So essentially, acting on telos bends all the Si facts, which makes it a relatively distasteful option to the Si user. Whereas, in turn, acting on Si statics disrupts all the Ni teloi, which makes it a relatively distasteful option to the Ni user. In both cases, the user would have to alter a major line of truths through their paradigms, accounting for the major source of mental energy drain.

Thanks for this, skylights; it's a really good post, and makes a lot of sense. I would love to see more INTJ elaboration on it. (Which might be a silly thing to ask for, considering what we're talking about. ) What you said about Si probably applies even more with STJs than, say, SFJs, because STJs have the Fi desire for authenticity, reinforcing their communication.

You talk about Si use in theory, as if you don't use it. How would you say you use it, as an NFP? Does any of the Si stuff you said apply to you as well?

Also, could you (and whoever else feels like it; no one else would be intruding) elaborate on the Ni-style file cabinet arrangement? And also, maybe, how Te and Fi come into play with their Ni communication, for example, when compared with INFJs?

[Coriolis]

I hope you don't mind me bumping in again on conversation, but it's late and I'm bored , and this is an interesting point. I would assume this stems from the diametrically opposed functions (literally!) of Si and Ni, which are, respectively, to keep track of concrete meanings over time and to keep track of abstract meanings over time.

This was an overall decent post on the subject. As a Ni-dom, though, I don't feel as though I am keeping track of abstract meanings over time. I am more seeing or generating them as they are right now. Of course they are influenced by everything I have ever seen or experienced, but those influences are not obvious or readily traceable.

To answer EJCC's question, (at least my) Ni perceptions are not stored file-cabinet style. I'm not sure they are even stored at all, unless I specifically record them somewhere, but then they are being filtered and managed by Te. Sometimes I deliberately do not record Ni ideas, to see if they will persist over time. To make an imperfect analogy, consider a farmer attempting to predict the weather. If Si facts are the almanac he looks at to see the historical weather patterns for his locale, Ni is the impression he forms standing out in his field and watching the clouds, listening to the wind, observing the animals, etc. The analogy is imperfect since the Ni representation is full of Se imagery, but just imagine that kind of all-encompassing, many-layered, interwoven, instantaneous awareness manifested in one's inner world. This is the best I can come up with for now.

[EJCC]

I suppose I'm just goal-oriented enough to do this from time to time when I feel it necessary to accomplish something important. It is insincere, but probably not in the way you envision. If I really found nothing noteworthy about the person's scarf, I would not compliment it, but rather would find some other comment to make. The distraction aspect of such situations is often just to engage the person in smalltalk or idle conversation, to make our encounter seem entirely ordinary and predictable. This is what makes me feel insincere, though, since I hate these types of conversation, and in instigating one even for a good cause, I am pretending to be something I am not.

I understand that; I feel similarly when I'm forced to make small talk that I don't actually put any personal meaning behind. (Fe vs. Fi, anyone?) But the way I would see complimenting their scarf, I guess, wouldn't be small talk, unless the motivation was a need to reply to the scarf-wearer's complimenting of my clothing -- otherwise I'd just want to see their happy face when I told them I liked it. I'm not often impressed enough with people to compliment them like that, so when I am impressed, I want them to know it, because 1) I want to see their smiling face afterwards, because those sorts of compliments sometimes make people's day, and 2) because I like rewarding good behavior, because that will encourage the good behavior in the future. But yes -- I've always hated situations like the one in #3, because they always seemed fake to me, for similar reasons to what you described.

Also, what is "the way that (I) think", versus the way that you might actually call it insincere? Part of the reason why I'm asking so many questions on this thread is because I find myself becoming increasingly biased against Ni as used by NTJs, and I want that bias to go away, via increased understanding.

It does come down to energy drain, that and distance again. If the connection takes some explaining, or involves revealing personal information, I may just not want to get into it, and will settle for the straightforward "I like your scarf" comment, or more likely, just say nothing at all. The kind of manipulation I describe above is draining to me, because it involves emulating behavior that does not come naturally and that requires much effort. By comparison, the indirectness of deflecting questions or providing "Schrodinger's cat" responses, as Skylights so aptly puts it, is almost effortless. I suppose it is because I readily see an overlay of many possible conversational pathways (conversational chess, almost), and can provide a response that keeps the largest possible number of them valid. This is probably just due to how Ni sees things.

I'm a little bit confused by the first bolding, but besides that, this makes a lot of sense. I understand the second bolding, because, the way that you phrased it, I can see the Te in there. It seems like you're using Te to find the best possible solution to your problem in the quickest way possible. The way that we both have our broad internal writing on the world -- you with a flow chart that is constantly moving in different directions, and me with a tessellation that is constantly gaining pieces and rearranging tiles -- but the way we enact our decisions regarding that internal writing is still based on Te/Fi values.

Does that sound about right? I hope it does, because it feels good to gain understanding on something so foreign to me. Maybe someday I'll be fluent in it!

The ideal outcome is for the other person to demonstrate that he/she is able and willing to carry on a civil, rational discussion with some basis in facts/reality, and some personal value added. Subtle, thoughtful, or sophisticated humor is a plus. Sincere questions are welcome. Insults, tantrums/whining, wilfull ignorance, and empty assertions are serious minuses, and will quickly cause me to lose respect for the other person, and to see toying with them as more worthwhile than attempting to carry on a serious discussion.

I relate to a lot of this, and see a lot of it in the INTJs I know. It's interesting that they'll start enacting the vision begun in the bolded quote, when they lose respect for someone, whereas STJs (myself included) are likely to start being extremely curt, cold, and laser-focused in their brutal honesty. I think both methods involved getting a little fun out of seeing the person squirm; you guys toy with them, we engage in beautiful catharsis at their expense.

[Coriolis]

I understand that; I feel similarly when I'm forced to make small talk that I don't actually put any personal meaning behind. (Fe vs. Fi, anyone?) But the way I would see complimenting their scarf, I guess, wouldn't be small talk, unless the motivation was a need to reply to the scarf-wearer's complimenting of my clothing -- otherwise I'd just want to see their happy face when I told them I liked it. I'm not often impressed enough with people to compliment them like that, so when I am impressed, I want them to know it, because 1) I want to see their smiling face afterwards, because those sorts of compliments sometimes make people's day, and 2) because I like rewarding good behavior, because that will encourage the good behavior in the future.

I sometimes do a version of your (2) here. For instance, if I have a student who has needed guidance on appropriate dress for formal presentations, I might compliment his attire when he appears suitably dressed. I consider it important to see that happy face only if I care about the person, or it gives me confirmation that some strategy is succeeding.

But yes -- I've always hated situations like the one in #3, because they always seemed fake to me, for similar reasons to what you described.

Also, what is "the way that (I) think", versus the way that you might actually call it insincere? Part of the reason why I'm asking so many questions on this thread is because I find myself becoming increasingly biased against Ni as used by NTJs, and I want that bias to go away, via increased understanding.

I'm a little bit confused by the first bolding, but besides that, this makes a lot of sense.

The first highlighted part referred to my case (3). I will do this if I feel the need, but find it draining for the reason stated. I thought you might consider my statement in case (3) insincere because I in fact did not like the person's scarf, thus it would be almost a lie. I actually find it very difficult to tell a real lie, meaning to say something I know to be untrue. For this reason, I will confine my pseudo-smalltalk to things I actually mean. If I dislike the person's scarf, I will compliment something else, or chat about the weather, last night's game, or some other banal but commonplace topic. For me, the insincerity lies not in the falsehood of my comments but in my making them at all.

The way that we both have our broad internal writing on the world -- you with a flow chart that is constantly moving in different directions, and me with a tessellation that is constantly gaining pieces and rearranging tiles -- but the way we enact our decisions regarding that internal writing is still based on Te/Fi values.

Does that sound about right? I hope it does, because it feels good to gain understanding on something so foreign to me. Maybe someday I'll be fluent in it!

Interesting that you use the analogy of a tessellation. This is an ordered geometric structure, that lends itself readily to interpretation as a repeated pattern, rather than each individual piece and its place in the strucure, much as a chemist might write the formula for a polymer. The role of Te/Fi is certainly true, as these are our judgment functions. I find Fi tells me why I am doing something and to some degree what I should be doing (goal identification), while Te shows me how best to do it.

I relate to a lot of this, and see a lot of it in the INTJs I know. It's interesting that they'll start enacting the vision begun in the bolded quote, when they lose respect for someone, whereas STJs (myself included) are likely to start being extremely curt, cold, and laser-focused in their brutal honesty. I think both methods involved getting a little fun out of seeing the person squirm; you guys toy with them, we engage in beautiful catharsis at their expense.

Your average INTJ is quite capable of the highlighted as well. I suppose which approach I take depends on the topic, my current mood, how much time I have, and the exact nature of the other person's behavior. I think as long as I am toying with someone, I am leaving them room to redeem themselves (or perhaps just more rope to hang themselves). I am more likely to resort to the cold, cutting assessment when they are beyond hope, as a parting salvo.