• You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

[INTJ] Why do people hate INTJs?

Lark

Active member
Joined
Jun 21, 2009
Messages
29,569
I have rarely been disappointed in the results, online or IRL. I won't presume to speak for my conversation partners, though.


This is another reason why you should just take my statements in a discussion at face value. Whether or not I really agree with the perspective I am defending, you should just address my arguments for what they are. If you think I'm playing devil's advocate or just yanking your chain, you can challenge me on this. Depending on the circumstances, I will either give you a candid and serious answer, or deflect the challenge in a way that leaves you none the wiser unless you know me well, and perhaps even supports the effect I am trying to create.

Playing devil's advocate is one thing, which I have reservations about anyone claiming, but what I have highlighted is a different story altogether.

Playing devil's advocate is something which is claimed, I have seen, when posters make sincere posts, or get sick of how certain opinions are represented, but then panick about popularity or group dynamics or even whether an unpopular opinion is going to get them banned.

Playing some sort of game, posting to try and create effects, is something different and likely to result, just speaking for myself, in my choosing to put someone on ignore or at least reconsidering what worth there may be in discussing anything with them. If its a game to them then there's not any point in discussing anything with them.

There are forum members who spend time, a lot of time as it happens, on the social games and the threads they post are about chalking up members bug bears to see who can be provoked into bannable behaviour. Sometimes its more than simply "we're all mates, lets get rid of anyone outside our social circle", which seems like a stupid strategy since it will involve alienating or excluding any "new blood" from the forum.

Sometimes there's an agenda about excluding opinions they dont like, in and of itself that's illustrative because the whole performance is done with "open mindedness", "tolerance" or something like it as a flag of convenience.
 

Coriolis

Si vis pacem, para bellum
Staff member
Joined
Apr 18, 2010
Messages
27,230
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
Playing devil's advocate is one thing, which I have reservations about anyone claiming, but what I have highlighted is a different story altogether.

Playing devil's advocate is something which is claimed, I have seen, when posters make sincere posts, or get sick of how certain opinions are represented, but then panick about popularity or group dynamics or even whether an unpopular opinion is going to get them banned.

Playing some sort of game, posting to try and create effects, is something different and likely to result, just speaking for myself, in my choosing to put someone on ignore or at least reconsidering what worth there may be in discussing anything with them. If its a game to them then there's not any point in discussing anything with them.

There are forum members who spend time, a lot of time as it happens, on the social games and the threads they post are about chalking up members bug bears to see who can be provoked into bannable behaviour. Sometimes its more than simply "we're all mates, lets get rid of anyone outside our social circle", which seems like a stupid strategy since it will involve alienating or excluding any "new blood" from the forum.

Sometimes there's an agenda about excluding opinions they dont like, in and of itself that's illustrative because the whole performance is done with "open mindedness", "tolerance" or something like it as a flag of convenience.
When I am playing devil's advocate, whether I admit it or not, the purpose is always to explore the issue more fully. If people are generally agreeing with me, this won't happen in the same way. I will take the opposite position to stimulate the arguments on both sides, so we all get a fuller picture of the issue.

When I speak of "the effect I am trying to create", it is never to provoke bannable behavior, or make someone look foolish, or deflect negative reactions to an unpopular opinion (those really don't bother me at all). It is usually to make a point to the other person that I cannot make by direct argument. It is serious, and not a game (though it can be amusing at times). Sometimes I will even argue for the same side as the other person, but in a way that takes the position to an extreme so they end up telling me I am going too far with it. Then I see what the limits of their position are, and often get them to expose their own internal contradictions in the process. I do less of this online because (1) there is less need; and (2) I don't feel I can control the discussion as well as I can in person with the instant feedback of a face-to-face discussion,
 

Lark

Active member
Joined
Jun 21, 2009
Messages
29,569
When I am playing devil's advocate, whether I admit it or not, the purpose is always to explore the issue more fully. If people are generally agreeing with me, this won't happen in the same way. I will take the opposite position to stimulate the arguments on both sides, so we all get a fuller picture of the issue.

I'll be honest, I've not seen a lot of that, I've been told about the other, which I mentioned, by others who've been following threads that I've ignored.

When I speak of "the effect I am trying to create", it is never to provoke bannable behavior, or make someone look foolish, or deflect negative reactions to an unpopular opinion (those really don't bother me at all). It is usually to make a point to the other person that I cannot make by direct argument. It is serious, and not a game (though it can be amusing at times). Sometimes I will even argue for the same side as the other person, but in a way that takes the position to an extreme so they end up telling me I am going too far with it. Then I see what the limits of their position are, and often get them to expose their own internal contradictions in the process. I do less of this online because (1) there is less need; and (2) I don't feel I can control the discussion as well as I can in person with the instant feedback of a face-to-face discussion,

Hmm, yeah, I'm not sure this is possible in online discussion, I'm unconvinced of it as a strategy generally.

It makes me think of Schumpeter's rules for winning arguments, there are people who read up on that source and seek ot apply it but the work itself was supposed to be highlighting the poverty of discussion per se and the way in which it had descended into manipulation, competition, egotism.
 

Evo

Unapologetic being
Joined
Jul 1, 2011
Messages
3,160
MBTI Type
XNTJ
Enneagram
1w9
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
I have rarely been disappointed in the results, online or IRL. I won't presume to speak for my conversation partners, though.

I see what you mean. Thank you.
 

RaptorWizard

Permabanned
Joined
Mar 19, 2012
Messages
5,895
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
The INTJ forum is easy to survive on. But, then, I R the Neffpea.

Actually, I just made that idiot comment to jumpstart this htread back up. ;)

But seriously, INTP forum is a hell of a lot worse; they banned me after 20 minutes! :shock:

It's a terrible feeling, being rejected and shunned by your own kind. :(
 
A

Anew Leaf

Guest
Actually, I just made that idiot comment to jumpstart this htread back up. ;)

But seriously, INTP forum is a hell of a lot worse; they banned me after 20 minutes! :shock:

It's a terrible feeling, being rejected and shunned by your own kind. :(

the INTP forum IS worse because it is... WAIT FOR IT OMG SURPRISE.... infested with the devil scourge type of the world: INTPs in the shape of pasty white men.
 

RaptorWizard

Permabanned
Joined
Mar 19, 2012
Messages
5,895
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
Yes, on average INTJs are better people than INTPs, though the best of the INTPs could serve the rest of the INTJs a fresh loss and and take them back to school!
 

Salomé

meh
Joined
Sep 25, 2008
Messages
10,527
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
You weren't an INTP when you started this thread.

You're still not.
 

Evo

Unapologetic being
Joined
Jul 1, 2011
Messages
3,160
MBTI Type
XNTJ
Enneagram
1w9
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
"Sometimes, you succeed in finding out... but.... more often you don't."

Very interesting, Jung.

He is saying sometimes you succeed in finding out where Ni's results comes from, but most often you don't. Then he goes on to say that the sensor cannot always tell by sense perceptions what is going to happen. That's why Ni is important. Did you get to that part? 4:31?

I'm not disagreeing that Ni is aprior knowledge...I agree with that ...and so does Jung....that is what your quote is referring to...

First tho...I'm going to define a priori knowlegde : reasoning or knowledge that proceeds from theoretical deduction

Second I'm going to define deduction: the inference of particular instances by reference to a general law or principle.

Third I'm going to define infer: conclude (information) from evidence and reasoning

So it's inferring things from principles already known. If you're definition of a priori knowledge is any different from the way I've defined it, then I don't agree with you about apriori knowledge.

This guy explains it best I think, go to 14:14

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XT1HNk4eR4w

Anyways, I think that even if we don't like people...or thier bad behaviors and all that jazz... true transformation cannot come about if we don't accept it. That's the first step. (Carl said that too "We cannot change anything, unless we accept it")

I don't really think I have anymore thoughts on the subject. :shrug:
 
W

WALMART

Guest
He is saying sometimes you succeed in finding out where Ni's results comes from, but most often you don't. Then he goes on to say that the sensor cannot always tell by sense perceptions what is going to happen. That's why Ni is important. Did you get to that part? 4:31?

I'm not disagreeing that Ni is aprior knowledge...I agree with that ...and so does Jung....that is what your quote is referring to...

First tho...I'm going to define a priori knowlegde : reasoning or knowledge that proceeds from theoretical deduction

Second I'm going to define deduction: the inference of particular instances by reference to a general law or principle.

Third I'm going to define infer: conclude (information) from evidence and reasoning

So it's inferring things from principles already known. If you're definition of a priori knowledge is any different from the way I've defined it, then I don't agree with you about apriori knowledge.

This guy explains it best I think, go to 14:14

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XT1HNk4eR4w

Yes, I watched the video very attentively. This stuff is my intellectual lifeblood at the moment. Watching just now, he says, "Of course, they felt attraction" regarding the couple in the analogy. I find this interesting and I missed it the first time.

I find it funny the gentleman in the video (NFGeeks) uses Einstein as an example for priori knowledge, because I think Einstein's critical flaw to understanding the universe was accepting space-time linked in such a fashion to the point of vehement opposition towards the shifting scientific interest in quantum mechanics. To him, his God - the god in his mind, pure geometry - was destroyed by the concept of a digital universe. It is an example of how priori reasoning taints evidence, how it subverts the actuality of experiential existence. I can't even truly accept the Uncertainty Principle on grounds that I feel establishing a limit to the universe is habitually pre-modern in scope.

Back to Jung, I find it coincidental he seems to be speaking of a duality similar to the Uncertainty Principle - that by perfectly knowing the position of things, you lose the velocity, and by knowing the velocity of things, you lose their position. While that may work in particle physics, I fail to see how it applies on a Newtonian plane. If there were a rhyme or reason to fish jumping out of water, the advantage would plainly lie in the person who has observed frequency and causation over the person that can simply profess some inherent knowledge. I find this analogy from Jung kind of silly, but of course, it is just an analogy. A better story - I interviewed for a company and stopped by my friend's house afterwards. His wife began to tell me, though she had never heard of this specific company in the past, what the company does. Many things she had to say were objectively untrue, me having just sat with a representative for two hours prior. This is an intuitive type.

I don't think intuition itself is bad. You mentioned in your last post about Kahneman finding intuition critical to existence, and it is - in its guided, educated form (I think this is Jung's opinion, too, regarding why he necessitates Ni.) Having good intuitive properties does not equate to being an intuitor (another fallacy I see often, people typed as sensors for bad use of intuition.)

Did you know Buddha thought the realm of ideas was an extension of sense? The mind is explicitly reflected in our physical form. I simply find it interesting, and thought you might, too.

Anyways, I think that even if we don't like people...or thier bad behaviors and all that jazz... true transformation cannot come about if we don't accept it. That's the first step. (Carl said that too "We cannot change anything, unless we accept it")

I don't really think I have anymore thoughts on the subject. :shrug:

I accepted this facet of the human condition (not excluding myself) long ago, well before my knowledge of modern typology.
 

INTP

Active member
Joined
Jul 31, 2009
Messages
7,803
MBTI Type
intp
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
sx

Evo

Unapologetic being
Joined
Jul 1, 2011
Messages
3,160
MBTI Type
XNTJ
Enneagram
1w9
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
Yes, I watched the video very attentively. This stuff is my intellectual lifeblood at the moment. Watching just now, he says, "Of course, they felt attraction" regarding the couple in the analogy. I find this interesting and I missed it the first time.

:happy2:

I find it funny the gentleman in the video (NFGeeks) uses Einstein as an example for priori knowledge, because I think Einstein's critical flaw to understanding the universe was accepting space-time linked in such a fashion to the point of vehement opposition towards the shifting scientific interest in quantum mechanics. To him, his God - the god in his mind, pure geometry - was destroyed by the concept of a digital universe. It is an example of how priori reasoning taints evidence, how it subverts the actuality of experiential existence. I can't even truly accept the Uncertainty Principle on grounds that I feel establishing a limit to the universe is habitually pre-modern in scope.

Hmm, I have failed to find it in the video...womp womp. So no comment as of yet...other than...I thought that Einstein used Ne not Ni. Thus making him more inclined to posteriori knowledge. I could be wrong. I don't know much about Einstein, the man, in particular.

Back to Jung, I find it coincidental he seems to be speaking of a duality similar to the Uncertainty Principle - that by perfectly knowing the position of things, you lose the velocity, and by knowing the velocity of things, you lose their position. While that may work in particle physics, I fail to see how it applies on a Newtonian plane. If there were a rhyme or reason to fish jumping out of water, the advantage would plainly lie in the person who has observed frequency and causation over the person that can simply profess some inherent knowledge. I find this analogy from Jung kind of silly, but of course, it is just an analogy. A better story - I interviewed for a company and stopped by my friend's house afterwards. His wife began to tell me, though she had never heard of this specific company in the past, what the company does. Many things she had to say were objectively untrue, me having just sat with a representative for two hours prior. This is an intuitive type.

*fans herself*

Phew

Now, how did you know that talking about the Uncertainty Principle gets this girl all worked up? :blush:

I have very different opinions on this subject. lol

I see that you have a fundamentally different perspective all together than I do. Which I accept, but I regret to inform you that my dreams of you and me growing old together, have officially been shattered :cry:

As I see you think it PUTS limits on the universe...that cuts deep, my man, deep. :dont:

*broken heart*

I don't think intuition itself is bad. You mentioned in your last post about Kahneman finding intuition critical to existence, and it is - in its guided, educated form (I think this is Jung's opinion, too, regarding why he necessitates Ni.) Having good intuitive properties does not equate to being an intuitor (another fallacy I see often, people typed as sensors for bad use of intuition.)

Did you know Buddha thought the realm of ideas was an extension of sense? The mind is explicitly reflected in our physical form. I simply find it interesting, and thought you might, too.

I accepted this facet of the human condition (not excluding myself) long ago, well before my knowledge of modern typology.

I think balance is what Kahneman was getting to. A balance between the conscious and unconscious.

I beleive that our outer world is a direct reflection of our inner world, yes. And I do find it interesting.



I think that you have made a point that I have considered: That Ni needs to be guided towards positive aspects of life. (Otherwise the results can be seen as transgressions, as the website you've mentioned suggests)

I can say from my own experience, I grew up in a very negative environment. It was racist/homophobic as all holy hell. And it took me a long time to not think of people as just a stereotype.

After I: moved out on my own, got my first real job, and found out that my 2 best friends were gay, I no longer could use my environment as an excuse to be a harsh person. So I stopped using derogatory words and thinking that way.

In this experience I can see how Ni can be led astray. (Very astray) But I can also see the amount of change and positivity it can bring to the world when in a positive state of mind. (I have made a 180)


I love both Se and Ni for very different reasons. I think they are equal, just in different abilities.

Someone with Se can be stuck in a rut and you may never see them change. Which causes inertia.

On the other hand Se causes action if it's going in the right direction.

It just depends on how the person's outlook is.
 

chubber

failed poetry slam career
Joined
Oct 18, 2013
Messages
4,413
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
4w5
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
Coming off as condescending, when I was merely explaining for the sake of explaining and expanding on things. I'm not assuming anything. I don't mind hearing the opinion of others. I do lack tact. The social field is a mine field for me. I tend to objectify everything and this seems to neglect the feelers out there when something could be seen as sensitive. I simply bulldoze over it.

I don't get along with INFJ or ESFJ in general. Statistically speaking ESFJs are popular and running into them is unavoidable.
 

SensEye

Active member
Joined
May 10, 2007
Messages
485
MBTI Type
INTp
But seriously, INTP forum is a hell of a lot worse; they banned me after 20 minutes! :shock:

It's a terrible feeling, being rejected and shunned by your own kind. :(
LOL. Not sure if you're joking, but when I first saw your delusional INTP self-typing my first thought was "you wouldn't last 20 mins on INTPC".
 

Stigmata

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Feb 16, 2011
Messages
8,779
LOL. Not sure if you're joking, but when I first saw your delusional INTP self-typing my first thought was "you wouldn't last 20 mins on INTPC".

Geez, this makes INTPc sound like the half-hour recess period at an elementary school located in a predominantly low-income suburb of Baltimore.

Sadly, that description isn't entirely inaccurate.
 
Top