• 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?

Joined
Dec 10, 2014
Messages
36
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
so/sp
Actually the later 2, self questioning the most. INTJs from what I see is very much human, they are far from robots, even when it comes to emotions. The mature and older ones I know can adapt to situations easily. Younger immature ones more fight situations and thats how they adapt, they adapt in negative ways.

All very true.
 

evilrubberduckie

New member
Joined
Jul 16, 2015
Messages
836
MBTI Type
ENTP
Enneagram
7w8
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
My best Friend is actually an INTJ. At first she did come off as narcissistic, I'm not going to lie she really is. For good reason though. She actually IS badass. But it didn't faze me too much, just like my endless bouts of enthusiastic energy didn't faze her. We both spoke our minds, and the both of us had COMPLETELY different ideas and ideals. But I respected her, she stood her ground. She knows herself, and she knows people. She just hates them, and like a true introvert, had me practically dragging her out of the house to do things. Likewise, she had to do the same, except the opposite.

If a INTJ's knows what they are doing, and they do it. I guess people feel threatened about that type of confidence.

This is my opinion from what I experienced from an INTJ. Im no expert and I might be wrong.
 

Coriolis

Si vis pacem, para bellum
Staff member
Joined
Apr 18, 2010
Messages
27,226
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
Some people regard feelings as truth. Some people regard facts as truth. Some people regard logic as truth. Which one of these is correct?
(1) and (2). (3) - logic - is a process.
 

Julius_Van_Der_Beak

Up the Wolves
Joined
Jul 24, 2008
Messages
19,429
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
sp/so
(1) and (2). (3) - logic - is a process.

So, if facts are truth, how does someone discern if an authoritative-sounding statement is a truth or a lie? Say for instance, "we have reason to believe Iraq has WMDs." Certainly there were enough facts on the table to determine that, purely going by the facts, this would be a reasonable conclusion. To many people, it also felt like the right thing to do, based on a variety of emotions. Nothing else about that made sense to me, though; nothing else added up.

I vacillated a little at first because I was young, and so many other people seemed so certain it was the right thing to do. In the end, it became clear that my doubt was correct. I've learned to trust my doubt more and more, as I've gotten older, and it's only helped me, as far as I can tell.

In cases like that, doubt based on the fact that statements and behavior were illogical proved more truthful than the facts that were available.
 

uumlau

Happy Dancer
Joined
Feb 9, 2010
Messages
5,517
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
953
Instinctual Variant
sp/so
So, if facts are truth, how does someone discern if an authoritative-sounding statement is a truth or a lie? Say for instance, "we have reason to believe Iraq has WMDs." Certainly there were enough facts on the table to determine that, purely going by the facts, this would be a reasonable conclusion. To many people, it also felt like the right thing to do, based on a variety of emotions. Nothing else about that made sense to me, though; nothing else added up.

I vacillated a little at first because I was young, and so many other people seemed so certain it was the right thing to do. In the end, it became clear that my doubt was correct. I've learned to trust my doubt more and more, as I've gotten older, and it's only helped me, as far as I can tell.

In cases like that, doubt based on the fact that statements and behavior were illogical proved more truthful than the facts that were available.

The reason doubt appears to help you (when you have no real information at all), is that every statement of truth tends to have flaws. In politics the flaws are usually huge and glaring, but because both sides have their interests in the political outcome, both engage in half-truths, thus each leaving themselves open to arguments proving them wrong. Here's an example analysis along these lines: https://firstlook.org/theintercept/...s-media-still-cant-get-iraqi-wmd-story-right/ (I don't particularly agree or disagree with the opinion presented, but it's a good example of trying to figure out what the real truth is.)

That said, "doubt", per se, is NOT helping you, especially if you take "doubt' as meaning likely 100% false. What you are looking for is called "discernment", not "doubt". Discernment requires actually researching something (much easier now with the internet) on your own, allowing yourself to develop an informed opinion that isn't based on what people say, but on the overall patterns of what they're talking about.

Here's an example of my personal opinion/discernment w/r to the 2nd invasion of Iraq. The problem in my mind is not whether Saddam deserved to be invaded and toppled. There are lots of reasons beyond WMDs that he "deserved" it, especially multiple violations of the no-fly zone and firing on US aircraft, any of which could be considered an act of war. Or if you want the moral argument, he was an evil dictator who, along with his sons, abused his people. But that's all irrelevant to the question of whether the war was a good idea in the first place. The problem is that the goal was to essentially turn Iraq into a client state. They called it "freeing Iraq" and probably had visions of Iraq existing as a free state completely independent of the US, but there was no way that could happen without a huge ongoing US military presence, and there was no way a huge military presence could be guaranteed for the decades necessary to stabilize things. Keeping troops in Germany, where no fighting has occurred since WW2, is politically easy. Keeping troops in Iraq, with ongoing incursions especially from Iran and various terrorist groups, is extremely politically difficult. That puts the US in a lose/lose situation: either stay and put up with soldiers getting killed but otherwise keeping the peace and protecting the Iraqi people, or leave and let the country devolve back into another autocratic state of some kind.

So whether you buy my argument on this point or not, my big-picture point is that the "truth" of whether WMDs were really at stake is a non-issue. It could be true, and the invasion would still be a bad idea, or it could be false, in which case it was one out of 19-or-so cited reasons for the invasion that happened to be false. It's the matador's red cape, the reason that had political legs, and nothing more.
 

Siúil a Rúin

when the colors fade
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
14,036
MBTI Type
ISFP
Enneagram
496
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
I don't see how the negative qualities associated with INTJs are different from any other Ts. Actually, of all the T's the INTJs and ISTJs can be the most polite because they have tertiary Fi. They and the E-TPs are the closest to Feelers, so most likely to have more awareness and sensitivity to others.

Edit: Just go the the various T forums and you will see that the INTJ forum is not more hostile or negative than the others. Although I would say the INTJ forum I remember seemed equally divided between INTJs and ISTJs.
 

Julius_Van_Der_Beak

Up the Wolves
Joined
Jul 24, 2008
Messages
19,429
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
sp/so
The reason doubt appears to help you (when you have no real information at all), is that every statement of truth tends to have flaws. In politics the flaws are usually huge and glaring, but because both sides have their interests in the political outcome, both engage in half-truths, thus each leaving themselves open to arguments proving them wrong. Here's an example analysis along these lines: https://firstlook.org/theintercept/...s-media-still-cant-get-iraqi-wmd-story-right/ (I don't particularly agree or disagree with the opinion presented, but it's a good example of trying to figure out what the real truth is.)

That said, "doubt", per se, is NOT helping you, especially if you take "doubt' as meaning likely 100% false. What you are looking for is called "discernment", not "doubt". Discernment requires actually researching something (much easier now with the internet) on your own, allowing yourself to develop an informed opinion that isn't based on what people say, but on the overall patterns of what they're talking about.

Here's an example of my personal opinion/discernment w/r to the 2nd invasion of Iraq. The problem in my mind is not whether Saddam deserved to be invaded and toppled. There are lots of reasons beyond WMDs that he "deserved" it, especially multiple violations of the no-fly zone and firing on US aircraft, any of which could be considered an act of war. Or if you want the moral argument, he was an evil dictator who, along with his sons, abused his people. But that's all irrelevant to the question of whether the war was a good idea in the first place. The problem is that the goal was to essentially turn Iraq into a client state. They called it "freeing Iraq" and probably had visions of Iraq existing as a free state completely independent of the US, but there was no way that could happen without a huge ongoing US military presence, and there was no way a huge military presence could be guaranteed for the decades necessary to stabilize things. Keeping troops in Germany, where no fighting has occurred since WW2, is politically easy. Keeping troops in Iraq, with ongoing incursions especially from Iran and various terrorist groups, is extremely politically difficult. That puts the US in a lose/lose situation: either stay and put up with soldiers getting killed but otherwise keeping the peace and protecting the Iraqi people, or leave and let the country devolve back into another autocratic state of some kind.

So whether you buy my argument on this point or not, my big-picture point is that the "truth" of whether WMDs were really at stake is a non-issue. It could be true, and the invasion would still be a bad idea, or it could be false, in which case it was one out of 19-or-so cited reasons for the invasion that happened to be false. It's the matador's red cape, the reason that had political legs, and nothing more.

Well, the administration seemed dishonest because they started out saying they were doing it because of WMDs and "Al Qaeda connections" (that really didn't exist in Iraq until we invaded it), and then they turned it into being about freeing Iraq. The evidence for WMDs also wasn't convincing, and many of the claims seemed based on flimsy logic.

The intentions behind it really didn't matter to me, and they still don't. The fact that they seemed dishonest was proof enough that it was not a good idea, even if they were primarily lying to themselves via willful ignorance. They assumed that we would be greeted as liberators, and that didn't happen. This was also something I strongly doubted, but most people, especially older people, seemed to treat it as a given. People weren't comfortable with me asking questions like "how", and "why are we really doing this?"

If more people had asked questions and attempted to search for logical coherence, rather than a notion that "we gotta help those people out because helping people out is always the right thing to do, because the biggest problem is that nobody helps each other" would we have had to negotiate this nuclear deal with Iran? Would ISIS exist?

Let's not forget that British colonialism had good intentions, and that the turmoil in the Middle East as it exists now is a byproduct of that legacy. I suppose we should just go and do the same thing because the British were right since they had good intentions.
 

uumlau

Happy Dancer
Joined
Feb 9, 2010
Messages
5,517
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
953
Instinctual Variant
sp/so
You're trying to argue about Iraq/WMD. You're not even disagreeing with me about the topic, what little I wrote about it.

If you read what I wrote VERY CAREFULLY, that isn't the point of what I wrote at all. I'm using the topic as a stepping stone to a larger topic about what "doubt" means (kind of useless, because proving people "wrong" is easy, whether using formal logic or political arguments), and what actually trying to figure out what the truth looks like.

You were asking other people things like "how" and "why". All you get from that is opinion. For facts, you need to look into things yourself, where the only lies you have to watch out for are those you tell yourself (which is a different skill and a different topic).
 

Julius_Van_Der_Beak

Up the Wolves
Joined
Jul 24, 2008
Messages
19,429
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
sp/so
You're trying to argue about Iraq/WMD. You're not even disagreeing with me about the topic, what little I wrote about it.

If you read what I wrote VERY CAREFULLY, that isn't the point of what I wrote at all. I'm using the topic as a stepping stone to a larger topic about what "doubt" means (kind of useless, because proving people "wrong" is easy, whether using formal logic or political arguments), and what actually trying to figure out what the truth looks like.

You were asking other people things like "how" and "why". All you get from that is opinion. For facts, you need to look into things yourself, where the only lies you have to watch out for are those you tell yourself (which is a different skill and a different topic).

The point is, all the facts "eveyone knew" and all the emotions of "trying to help others out" led people into disaster. A more logical approach would have been better. Maybe I'd be less pissed about all the deaths that happened and all the chaos and destruction that caused if I wasn't the one getting blamed for it.

You're assuming that your INTJ perspective on truth is superior to an INTP perspective on truth. I'm arguing differently.

Anyway, who gives a shit that Dubya resulted in a lot of chaos and destruction? He was a heckuva nice fella who meant well.
 

Poki

New member
Joined
Dec 4, 2008
Messages
10,436
MBTI Type
STP
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
I don't see how the negative qualities associated with INTJs are different from any other Ts. Actually, of all the T's the INTJs and ISTJs can be the most polite because they have tertiary Fi. They and the E-TPs are the closest to Feelers, so most likely to have more awareness and sensitivity to others.

Edit: Just go the the various T forums and you will see that the INTJ forum is not more hostile or negative than the others. Although I would say the INTJ forum I remember seemed equally divided between INTJs and ISTJs.

But how well do they deal with non-intjs? You can't say a person is a certain way just because that's how they act around certain people. It's all encompassing around everyone. You can't not pick certain actions around certain groups to find the person as a whole. One big issue I see with ITJs is they can point fingers at other person and not internally so when there is something that causes a problem it's not their issue so they sit in the crap environment always thinking its not my fault, when it takes 2 to tango. They are a type to stick around unhappy and negative because it's not their problem. This is irregardless of who's problem it is or if it's just differing personalities and not really a problem.

They can be the most polite, but they can also be the biggest asshole due to being blind
 

Poki

New member
Joined
Dec 4, 2008
Messages
10,436
MBTI Type
STP
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
The reason doubt appears to help you (when you have no real information at all), is that every statement of truth tends to have flaws. In politics the flaws are usually huge and glaring, but because both sides have their interests in the political outcome, both engage in half-truths, thus each leaving themselves open to arguments proving them wrong. Here's an example analysis along these lines: https://firstlook.org/theintercept/...s-media-still-cant-get-iraqi-wmd-story-right/ (I don't particularly agree or disagree with the opinion presented, but it's a good example of trying to figure out what the real truth is.)

That said, "doubt", per se, is NOT helping you, especially if you take "doubt' as meaning likely 100% false. What you are looking for is called "discernment", not "doubt". Discernment requires actually researching something (much easier now with the internet) on your own, allowing yourself to develop an informed opinion that isn't based on what people say, but on the overall patterns of what they're talking about.

Here's an example of my personal opinion/discernment w/r to the 2nd invasion of Iraq. The problem in my mind is not whether Saddam deserved to be invaded and toppled. There are lots of reasons beyond WMDs that he "deserved" it, especially multiple violations of the no-fly zone and firing on US aircraft, any of which could be considered an act of war. Or if you want the moral argument, he was an evil dictator who, along with his sons, abused his people. But that's all irrelevant to the question of whether the war was a good idea in the first place. The problem is that the goal was to essentially turn Iraq into a client state. They called it "freeing Iraq" and probably had visions of Iraq existing as a free state completely independent of the US, but there was no way that could happen without a huge ongoing US military presence, and there was no way a huge military presence could be guaranteed for the decades necessary to stabilize things. Keeping troops in Germany, where no fighting has occurred since WW2, is politically easy. Keeping troops in Iraq, with ongoing incursions especially from Iran and various terrorist groups, is extremely politically difficult. That puts the US in a lose/lose situation: either stay and put up with soldiers getting killed but otherwise keeping the peace and protecting the Iraqi people, or leave and let the country devolve back into another autocratic state of some kind.

So whether you buy my argument on this point or not, my big-picture point is that the "truth" of whether WMDs were really at stake is a non-issue. It could be true, and the invasion would still be a bad idea, or it could be false, in which case it was one out of 19-or-so cited reasons for the invasion that happened to be false. It's the matador's red cape, the reason that had political legs, and nothing more.

It's all full truths damnit, I just gotta sweep this other stuff under the rug. Pay no attention to it, it's not relevant to MY point....lol
 

Poki

New member
Joined
Dec 4, 2008
Messages
10,436
MBTI Type
STP
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
The point is, all the facts "eveyone knew" and all the emotions of "trying to help others out" led people into disaster. A more logical approach would have been better. Maybe I'd be less pissed about all the deaths that happened and all the chaos and destruction that caused if I wasn't the one getting blamed for it.

You're assuming that your INTJ perspective on truth is superior to an INTP perspective on truth. I'm arguing differently.

Anyway, who gives a shit that Dubya resulted in a lot of chaos and destruction? He was a heckuva nice fella, No, don't take responsiblity for any of that, just continue to let me take the fall for it.


You got stuck on supporting data, not the point itself. I understand that beliefs are hard to get past, but you just proved his point to be true by your response whether what you are arguing is valid or not.
 

Destiny

A wannabe dog
Joined
Aug 5, 2013
Messages
452
I don't see how the negative qualities associated with INTJs are different from any other Ts. Actually, of all the T's the INTJs and ISTJs can be the most polite because they have tertiary Fi. They and the E-TPs are the closest to Feelers, so most likely to have more awareness and sensitivity to others.

Edit: Just go the the various T forums and you will see that the INTJ forum is not more hostile or negative than the others. Although I would say the INTJ forum I remember seemed equally divided between INTJs and ISTJs.


I agree with this. I find myself getting along very well with INTJ and ISTJ for this reason. Some of the INTJs that I met in real life are the nicest people ever.

Like I have an INTJ classmate of mine (she self-typed herself as INTJ, and I agree with her self-typing, her thinking style and everything is so similar to Hilary Clinton, whom I believed is an INTJ as well) who is the most selfless person I ever met in my life. She is not very verbal and she doesn't express her feelings much, but she would often show her care and concern for people through practical actions. And true to her INTJ label, she is every teacher's pet because she would always score top in class in every exam and assignments, but at the same time, she is so humble, she doesn't look down on people who are struggling in their studies, but instead, she would go around the entire class and offer her help. Whenever she sees me feeling down, she will start dropping some words of wisdom and give me some advice about life. She is very deep, very wise, very intelligent, very caring. Although INTJs often appear blunt and asshole on the surface, but their tertiary Fi can make them very kind and caring at times. But of course, this is not visible on the surface because it's hidden deep deep beneath their tough exterior. It would take a very perceptive person to notice their soft warm gooey side that they keep hidden from the entire world. :D
 

Julius_Van_Der_Beak

Up the Wolves
Joined
Jul 24, 2008
Messages
19,429
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
sp/so
You got stuck on supporting data, not the point itself. I understand that beliefs are hard to get past, but you just proved his point to be true by your response whether what you are arguing is valid or not.

First of all, I think [MENTION=9310]uumlau[/MENTION] is a she. Second of all, I don't understand how I did that. Sometimes what "everyone knows" is false. Sometimes there are other possibilities. Sometimes there are things unseen.
 

Poki

New member
Joined
Dec 4, 2008
Messages
10,436
MBTI Type
STP
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
First of all, I think [MENTION=9310]uumlau[/MENTION] is a she. Second of all, I don't understand how I did that. Sometimes what "everyone knows" is false. Sometimes there are other possibilities. Sometimes there are things unseen.

U is a guy, it's kinda like u got sidetracked by the trees when Uumlau was trying to prove the forest. You started arguing about the trees which proves it's a forest.
 

Julius_Van_Der_Beak

Up the Wolves
Joined
Jul 24, 2008
Messages
19,429
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
sp/so
U is a guy, it's kinda like u got sidetracked by the trees when Uumlau was trying to prove the forest. You started arguing about the trees which proves it's a forest.

Without trees, there'd be no forest.
 

Poki

New member
Joined
Dec 4, 2008
Messages
10,436
MBTI Type
STP
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
Without trees, there'd be no forest.

Right, but arguing about the trees proves that the trees are present and the forest is real. Who ever wins the argument about type, features, etc. Of the trees is a moot point in proving the forest.
 

uumlau

Happy Dancer
Joined
Feb 9, 2010
Messages
5,517
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
953
Instinctual Variant
sp/so
First of all, I think [MENTION=9310]uumlau[/MENTION] is a she. Second of all, I don't understand how I did that. Sometimes what "everyone knows" is false. Sometimes there are other possibilities. Sometimes there are things unseen.

Remember the part where I said you need to go look it up yourself? If you had looked it up yourself, you would have read "Male" on my profile page. It's one of those pesky things called "facts" that you keep on talking about but never actually employ in your arguments. (Which is in itself ironic, as I am not arguing with you, but illustrating perspectives of what truth really looks like.)

I'm sure there's an INTP/INTJ perspective dispute going on, here, as you suggest, but that doesn't change my overall point about your statements. You're worried about whether something is "true" or not, and assert that "logic" would resolve all of these perceived difficulties. It is possible - and extremely common - to have all the facts, to have them all be true, and still be no closer to resolving a real life problem than if you had no facts at all. You are missing the forest (the overall truth and context) for the trees (individual facts).

And let me be very clear, here. I am not trying to "prove" something to you. I am trying to show you something. I am pointing at where to look, and saying "go look for yourself". Go find those unseen things you mentioned, and then point them out to other people. Sitting on your butt talking about "facts" and $5 is only enough to get you a Starbuck's Latte, and not much else. ;)
 

Julius_Van_Der_Beak

Up the Wolves
Joined
Jul 24, 2008
Messages
19,429
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
sp/so
Right, but arguing about the trees proves that the trees are present and the forest is real. Who ever wins the argument about type, features, etc. Of the trees is a moot point in proving the forest.

Both the trees and the forest are real. Or neither are. Trees and forests are concepts created by our brains. Are they true, then, or are they false?
 

Poki

New member
Joined
Dec 4, 2008
Messages
10,436
MBTI Type
STP
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
Both the trees and the forest are real. Or neither are. Trees and forests are concepts created by our brains. Are they true, then, or are they false?

Lol, the words is a figment of our imagination, but you can't deny the physical structure despite what it's called...well you can, but then I would just have fun with you by building a road with a tree right I the middle and watch you try to drive through it since it's just a concept created by our brain.
 
Top