[INTJ] Why do people hate INTJs?

[PeaceBaby]

I'm not saying it isn't rational, just that it is fundamentally absent logic thanks to Fi, which deals explicitly in arbitrary binary yes/no value judgement affirmations that are completely subjective, based on feels, and have no place in the scientific method. Ti makes similar binary decisions which are also subjective, but they are based on isomorphisms: whether or not one cataloged thing is like another cataloged thing. The error there can be in cataloging the wrong thing, but the process is logically sound.

Fi is logical.

Logic: reasoning conducted or assessed according to strict principles of validity.

It's simply not the version of logic you use.

 

[geedoenfj]

Why do INTJs hate people

 

[Poki]

Fi is logical.

Logic: reasoning conducted or assessed according to strict principles of validity.

It's simply not the version of logic you use.

Stubborn ass strict Fi validity...lmao its all good. Its part of what makes us individuals. It's for better and for worse. I tell my GF..."stop thinking" or "stop feeling" with a mixture of seriousness. One of its causing issues right now, lots of other areas it helps with.

 

[Tilt]

Why do INTJs hate people

Did you figure it out, fellow ENFJ?

 

[anticlimatic]

Fi is logical.

Logic: reasoning conducted or assessed according to strict principles of validity.

It's simply not the version of logic you use.

"Validity" being the key term. In the context of validating their own feelings, sure there is logic present for that, but in using it as a cornerstone for attempting external Te validity it's simply incompatible.

 

[geedoenfj]

Did you figure it out, fellow ENFJ?

I figure out the answers whenever I turn the question the other way around [emoji6]
yes I think I figured it out fellow .. [MENTION=26163]Protege[/MENTION]

 

[Tilt]

I figure out the answers whenever I turn the question the other way around [emoji6]
yes I think I figured it out fellow .. [MENTION=26163]Protege[/MENTION]

I just force them to love me.... using Fe....

 

[geedoenfj]

I just force them to love me.... using Fe....

Everyone loves Fes that's for sure[emoji4]

 

[PeaceBaby]

"Validity" being the key term. In the context of validating their own feelings, sure there is logic present for that, but in using it as a cornerstone for attempting external Te validity it's simply incompatible.

No, Fi is not about validating feelings, that's not the system. Let's take this discussion elsewhere since it's a derail from the INTJ hate.

 

[PeaceBaby]

I have seen you write the bolded part many times, but I have yet to see anything to justify this pretty bold assertion. I am not trying to argue it is not true. I would love to understand this idea better as I don't feel it.

Seeing long term ramifications is something Ni does well. I am not saying that Ji can't do this.....

Looking just at the other Ji type than yours, Ti doms and auxs don't seem to see ramifications of their logic very well, though they have laser focus logic. They often seem to be unaware of the long term consequences of their short term truths and so win battles and lose wars.

It's more about a battle of wills. Je is generally the immediate victor over Ji since it will go to greater lengths to secure victory and Pe cares a lot less; Je has more of a sense of security to lose. As far as seeing outcomes, I can point to any number of instances where my predictions have come true. There was a decision made at one of our previous churches (by Pi doms & auxs) that I predicted would result in a split in the church itself. 2 years later I was proven correct and had no hand in making it happen since we didn't attend there anymore. Even on this forum - I've predicted when and why people would leave in reaction to certain decisions, I predicted 3 years ago that the new rules wouldn't lead to a greater sense of community and less hostility; idk, what else do you want? What rubs me is that Pi doms (in particular) often think they've got the lock on predictive ability - Pi has a band of applicability that's not comprehensively global in nature. It's about a string of Je decisions eked out in the immediate that shape a Pi outcome. Pi - Je / Je - Pi has more will. It does better with momentum. But it's not a guarantee, since Je is not as long-lensed.

I know I suck at seeing how to put puzzle pieces into place for myself in order to lead me to an outcome I desire - partly because I have trouble defining what outcome I want in the first place and partly because I can see so many variables along the way that could derail me, so I find it near impossible to make a choice. But what I can do is hear what people have decided and know what outcome is most probable from that point forward. Like, in a "No, that's going to be a bad idea" kind of way.

 

[SearchingforPeace]

It's more about a battle of wills. Je is generally the immediate victor over Ji since it will go to greater lengths to secure victory and Pe cares a lot less; Je's got more of a sense of security to lose. I can point to any number of instances where my prediction have come true. There was a decision made at one of our previous churches (by Pi doms & auxs) that I predicted would result in a split in the church itself. 2 years later I was proven correct and had no hand in making it happen since we didn't attend there anymore. Even on this forum - I've predicted when and why people would leave in reaction to certain decisions, I predicted 3 years ago that the new rules wouldn't lead to a greater sense of community and less hostility; idk, what else do you want? What really rubs me is that Pi doms often think they've got the lock on predictive ability - Pi has a band of applicability that's not comprehensively global in nature. It's about a string of Je decisions eked out in the immediate that shape a Pi outcome. Pi - Je / Je - Pi has more will. It does better with momentum.

Thank you for this. From what I hear (please correct me for I interpret you wrong), you have seen many Je types steamroll over Ji types by pure determination, not by being right and convincing others of that. They have a plan and impose such plan on the outside world. Therefore poor outcomes arise that you have seen early on, but Je would not listen and could not be derailed. Did I get this correct?

I do get that Je can bring a certain will, but it seems from my experience that Ji can also be a very powerful force, a catalyst for change, disrupting Je plans and bringing to light the flaws in Je plans, with a will that can not be denied. I also find Te in the Dom or Aux is more likely to be the steamroller than Fe, but that might just be my biased perception.

I know I suck at seeing how to put puzzle pieces into place for myself in order to lead me to an outcome I desire - partly because I have trouble defining what outcome I want in the first place and partly because I can see so many variables along the way that could derail me, so I find it near impossible to make a choice. But what I can do is hear what people have decided and know what outcome is most probable from that point forward. Like, in a "No, that's going to be a bad idea" kind of way.

Now this part I can completely relate to myself. I easily can see the direction everyone else is going and how it will turn out, which variables are strong or unlikely, and the end result becomes very clear, and I am pretty comfortable doing that.

I completely suck at doing this for myself these days, partly because of that uncertainty about what I want for myself, and partly because of past experience of envisioning a direction, getting exactly where I wanted, and still being unsatisfied with the result.

 

[Poki]

Thank you for this. From what I hear (please correct me for I interpret you wrong), you have seen many Je types steamroll over Ji types by pure determination, not by being right and convincing others of that. They have a plan and impose such plan on the outside world. Therefore poor outcomes arise that you have seen early on, but Je would not listen and could not be derailed. Did I get this correct?

I do get that Je can bring a certain will, but it seems from my experience that Ji can also be a very powerful force, a catalyst for change, disrupting Je plans and bringing to light the flaws in Je plans, with a will that can not be denied. I also find Te in the Dom or Aux is more likely to be the steamroller than Fe, but that might just be my biased perception.



Now this part I can completely relate to myself. I easily can see the direction everyone else is going and how it will turn out, which variables are strong or unlikely, and the end result becomes very clear, and I am pretty comfortable doing that.

I completely suck at doing this for myself these days, partly because of that uncertainty about what I want for myself, and partly because of past experience of envisioning a direction, getting exactly where I wanted, and still being unsatisfied with the result.

Je acts alot first, Ji processes alot first. Je as age progresses processes more, Ji as age progresses acts more. I don't think they ever really meet in middle and cross. Je will always be E and Ji will always be I

 

[entropie]

People love porn. INTJ unequal porn. q.e.d.

 

[violet_crown]

Je acts alot first, Ji processes alot first. Je as age progresses processes more, Ji as age progresses acts more. I don't think they ever really meet in middle and cross. Je will always be E and Ji will always be I

Excuse me, sir. I have never Ji'ed in my life.

 

[Coriolis]

I'm not saying it isn't rational, just that it is fundamentally absent logic thanks to Fi, which deals explicitly in arbitrary binary yes/no value judgement affirmations that are completely subjective, based on feels, and have no place in the scientific method. Ti makes similar binary decisions which are also subjective, but they are based on isomorphisms: whether or not one cataloged thing is like another cataloged thing. The error there can be in cataloging the wrong thing, but the process is logically sound.

Remember, Fi as a function is not emotion, but subjective judgment. It encompasses our values, morals, and sense of what is important in life. As such it can hardly be binary, but rather is quite multifaceted. Its place in the scientific method is right up front, when the scientist or her organization decides what to investigate to begin with. In other words, identifying and describing the problem.

And this is how Ji types learn they can sell a Je type anything with good enough rationalization(s), and based on subjectivity paraded as objectivity. It took time for me to learn that Je types wanted an explanation rather than a justification, and that there's an expectation of negotiation further involved to see what idea proves more objectively sound. Since Ji can more clearly see the long-term ramifications of any particular decision, I can see with a high level of probability what I need to say to convince you of a short-term outcome. Sometimes the answers can even be (imo) plain stupid.

I'm not sure what your point is here. In my example, I was the Je-type, giving an explanation to someone who was likely also Je (ESTJ, probably). I was not trying to control the outcome, just trying to make sure the "boss" had more information on which to make a decision. I see this frequently, especially where I work now. Front-line managers insulate middle and upper managers from important information from "the trenches". This results in bad decisions by middle and upper managers, not because they mean ill or are bad decision makers. They simply lack important information relevant to the decision.

In the case of the coffee pot, an answer to that question should simply be another question: "Why does it matter where the coffee pot is?" This question would address the underlying assumptions to the initial questioning on why it has been placed where it has been placed. Because honestly -- and I get that sometimes a question is just a question framed purely for the purposes of understanding -- 90% of the time it's not. So why pretend that it is? The audience to the question has the capability to extrapolate beyond the question and see a gradation of judgement in that. I can read that there's more to the question than the purpose of understanding, so this is why it is grating. And, who cares if the coffee pot is now located 90cm to the left of where it usually is? (Trust me, I know who cares; it's a rhetorical question more than anything.) Other types do not think in a "This is the best way for this" format. They won't enter into negotiation because they're not wired to do think that way.

Well, the example I was thinking of was a group situation where no one person has claim to where things go (e.g. it's not at my house, or your house). Think of a potluck lunch at work, or a coffee hour at church, or a reception following a lecture. I have been involved in enough of these events to understand that, yes, sometimes there are very good reasons for putting the coffee pot one place vs. another. Now if, as you say, the highlighted question is designed to address the underlying assumptions of my question, that only works if the person correctly guesses whatever those assumptions might be. My original question does indeed serve the purpose of understanding, but understanding in turn serves action. What I come to understand by asking the question might reassure me that no further action is needed. If someone did reply with the question you suggest, the conversation would proceed like this:

Coriolis: Why are you putting the coffee pot there?
Other person: Why does it matter where the coffee pot is?
Coriolis: You don't see any preferred place to put the coffee pot, then - it's all the same?
Other: Yes, why not?
Coriolis: OK, then you won't mind if I move it here.

If the other person really doesn't care, that's fine. If they do, though, I want to understand that before even considering doing anything different. To me, that just seems courteous.

Well, probably this is better stated, "She would not have asked if she knew with certainty." It's obsequious to say that there weren't possibilities raised that were already on her mind; it's not flat-out devoid of judgement. I agree it's better to ask the question in this circumstance since as a human matter there are far more variables and moving parts involved, and text communications alone can be fraught with misunderstandings.

Actually, no. I didn't consider any possibilities at all because I knew that whatever I might come up with had a good chance of being wrong. Why bother? Just ask and know for sure (efficiency + accuracy).

"Validity" being the key term. In the context of validating their own feelings, sure there is logic present for that, but in using it as a cornerstone for attempting external Te validity it's simply incompatible.

The two work together (since no function operates in a vacuum anyway). Fi helps us know what is important to us, what our priorities are; and Te helps us both cross-check it with reality, and achieve it.

I do get that Je can bring a certain will, but it seems from my experience that Ji can also be a very powerful force, a catalyst for change, disrupting Je plans and bringing to light the flaws in Je plans, with a will that can not be denied. I also find Te in the Dom or Aux is more likely to be the steamroller than Fe, but that might just be my biased perception.

Ji as a disruptor - I have seen this often. And that is exactly what Ji does, and a big part of why people with that approach can be very frustrating. By this I mean that Ji is indeed very good at pointing out flaws, at disrupting something, derailing it because there is something wrong with it. Usually, though, it leaves the situation in pieces and walks away, feeling it has done its job. It is not interested in actually fixing the thing so it actually works in the end, or works better, without the problems Ji has correctly identified. That is the drive of Je. I had a boss like this, and he came across as a total naysayer. He could point out all the flaws in anything, which was good, but never had any helpful input on how to fix it.

I'm not aware of too many things, but I know what I know if you know what I mean. And I know INTJs, inside and out. They don't appreciate coddling anyway, and I don't appreciate people trying to steamroll over the first amendment and censor things they don't like by trying to shoe horn it into "hate speech."

Sorry - not a fan of the New Bohemians. (I prefer the old ones, actually.)

 

[geedoenfj]

And this is how Ji types learn they can sell a Je type anything with good enough rationalization(s), and based on subjectivity paraded as objectivity. It took time for me to learn that Je types wanted an explanation rather than a justification, and that there's an expectation of negotiation further involved to see what idea proves more objectively sound. Since Ji can more clearly see the long-term ramifications of any particular decision, I can see with a high level of probability what I need to say to convince you of a short-term outcome. Sometimes the answers can even be (imo) plain stupid.

In the case of the coffee pot, an answer to that question should simply be another question: "Why does it matter where the coffee pot is?" This question would address the underlying assumptions to the initial questioning on why it has been placed where it has been placed. Because honestly -- and I get that sometimes a question is just a question framed purely for the purposes of understanding -- 90% of the time it's not. So why pretend that it is? The audience to the question has the capability to extrapolate beyond the question and see a gradation of judgement in that. I can read that there's more to the question than the purpose of understanding, so this is why it is grating. And, who cares if the coffee pot is now located 90cm to the left of where it usually is? (Trust me, I know who cares; it's a rhetorical question more than anything.) Other types do not think in a "This is the best way for this" format. They won't enter into negotiation because they're not wired to do think that way.

.

Sorry you haven't convinced me with that (questiony answer) you're talking like you overbear Jes in that..
Why do you have to go all the way around the question just to ask another question? Being a Je I would say if you answer me with another question I would either go to another person who can give a proper answer, or tell you that I have my own reasons, maybe I'm a kind of a person who take time to find things if they're not where they are not placed on the way they were, perhaps I want to know if there are other things that have been changed, maybe if I know why it has been changed I would have more information about something else that's going on, I know that INFPs are private and I can hardly get any information from them, but sorry it's of a high priority and your silence is harming for our plans and commitments.
I mean when you answer me with "well this is the best way for" don't you think it's an aggressive response as you're trying to put me in a certain situation and expect me not to have concerns? I can do that too! I would put it somewhere else and tell you "hey it's the best way for it, deal with it!!" but I don't do that, if I'm not going to consult you, I'm going at least to inform you and give you proper explanation for this change ..

But in the case of the coffee pot? I realize controlling the outer environment brings Je an inner peace. But it's not all about the Je person.

From your comment I comprehend that others are allowed to control Je by putting them through certain situations without giving a reasonable explanation, that's EVIL you're EVIL hahaha
Yes I think I have the right to control my environment so my brain can put a plan to deal with things efficiently, why does anyone need to go against that? Is there a war against such a personal strategy that I'm not informed about?

 

[anticlimatic]

Remember, Fi as a function is not emotion, but subjective judgment. It encompasses our values, morals, and sense of what is important in life. As such it can hardly be binary, but rather is quite multifaceted. Its place in the scientific method is right up front, when the scientist or her organization decides what to investigate to begin with. In other words, identifying and describing the problem.

The two work together (since no function operates in a vacuum anyway). Fi helps us know what is important to us, what our priorities are; and Te helps us both cross-check it with reality, and achieve it.

I use the word feeling, not emotion, but this is pretty much what I've been saying: that the value judgements are the first gate, and the cornerstone that INTJs build their logic and schemes upon. And since value judgements defy logic in the "if, then" sense of the word, the whole apparatus that is built upon it is always in question. Fi is like a cheating logic shortcut. "If blue (or Jew), then bad." Without anything objective or substantial to support it. Te very seldom actually keeps it in check, and more typically just labors to enable it.

 

[prplchknz]

They have a tendency to be arrogant and look down on those they perceive as less intelligent which is fine if you're smarter just don't be a sick about this is mostly with the younger ones

 

[Coriolis]

I use the word feeling, not emotion, but this is pretty much what I've been saying: that the value judgements are the first gate, and the cornerstone that INTJs build their logic and schemes upon. And since value judgements defy logic in the "if, then" sense of the word, the whole apparatus that is built upon it is always in question. Fi is like a cheating logic shortcut. "If blue (or Jew), then bad." Without anything objective or substantial to support it. Te very seldom actually keeps it in check, and more typically just labors to enable it.

I can see how Fi could be that way. For myself, I find that Te checks in on my Fi judgments (values, priorities) quite often. I am always asking myself, "Why do you want to do that?", "You have made this your top priority. Why? What is the cost of putting other things second?" Of course this often just leads to a deeper layer of values, and so forth. What it does at least is to check for internal consistency and for conflicting values. I have actually made deliberate changes to my values upon realizing that such a contradiction exists. Part of this involves identifying which is the more fundamental value, and which the derivative one.

 

[Ursa]

For most people, it's the detachment. Relationships are cited commonly as the INTJ's weak spot. They don't seem to understand how people work, which at best leads to awkwardness but more usually leads to poor decisions when it comes to the human element. Leave it to an INTJ to underestimate or overestimate people — horribly.

This probably applies more to sensors, but inferior Se is really irritating. Ni has this dreamy, airy-fairy quality to it. A lot of INTJs come across as having "understood" all the relevant aspects of the world, or a situation, through reading about it in a book; then they feel justified in their expectations because they did all that reading. They don't get that that kind of knowledge is superficial and inadequate, and that there's no substitute for real-world experience. They seem more like dreamers than the practical system-builders they insist they are. "Be we have Te!" Yes, you do. It's a slave to your detail-blind, concrete reality-avoidant Ni.