[MBTI General] Why are INTJs stereotyped as super logical and good at debates

[PikUpYourPantsPatrol]

I never understood this, there's 7 other thinker types and INTJs don't even have thinking as a dominant function. Also they have Te rather than Ti so their arguments aren't always as logically consistent, they tend to be more factual than Ti users though.


Don't get me wrong INTJs are generally logical and good at debate, but why do they specifically get this stereotype attributed to them?

 

[Virtual ghost]

I never understood this, there's 7 other thinker types and INTJs don't even have thinking as a dominant function. Also they have Te rather than Ti so their arguments aren't always as logically consistent, they tend to be more factual than Ti users though.


Don't get me wrong INTJs are generally logical and good at debate, but why do they specifically get this stereotype attributed to them?

I don't know from where people are pulling off this argument that Te is not consistent because Te means that there is a great need to confirm the data before the debate. What makes sure that when you start a debate you have arguments that are not easy to crush.


On the other hand I think that intuition is actually much more important in debates than thinking. Intuition seems to greatly increase the flow of ideas in the person's mind, allows to see where the opponent is going and allows the planning according to that, sees things from multiple perspective, it allows the twisting of arguments in your favour or intimidates people in a way that they don't even want to question you.

 

[PikUpYourPantsPatrol]

I don't know from where people are pulling off this argument that Te is not consistent because Te means that there is a great need to confirm the data before the debate. What makes sure that when you start a debate you have a argument that is not easy to crush.


On the other hand I think that intuition is actually much more important in debates than thinking. Intuition seems to greatly increase the flow of ideas in the person's mind, allows to see where the opponent is going and allows the planning according to that, sees things from multiple perspective, it allows the twisting of arguments in your favour or intimidates people in a way that they don't even want to question you.

Because Ti is in essence logic, Te is empiricism. Ti makes sure everything fits together but analyzing the details of an argument and deducing what is true and false.

As for N being more important than T, not really, a logical person can see right through these tactics you're describing.

 

[Virtual ghost]

Because Ti is in essence logic, Te is empiricism. Ti makes sure everything fits together but analyzing the details of an argument and deducing what is true and false.

As for N being more important than T, not really, a logical person can see right through these tactics you're describing.

I am INTJ and therefore I see myself as a system builder. In other words I also makse sure that everthing fits togather but from more strategic point of view than definition point of view.


Any inteligent person can see through what I have described but most are not able to form a "good high impact" reply in small amout of time ... and therefore they lose their debate. Which is much more than just pure logic.

 

[OrangeAppled]

I never heard this applied to INTJs. I have mostly heard it about INTPs and ENTPs; the latter being that Ne makes them very "quick".

 

[Poki]

Because Ti is in essence logic, Te is empiricism. Ti makes sure everything fits together but analyzing the details of an argument and deducing what is true and false.

As for N being more important than T, not really, a logical person can see right through these tactics you're describing.

Ti goes for truth and truth doesn't always mean you win at a debate.

 

[Poki]

I never heard this applied to INTJs. I have mostly heard it about INTPs and ENTPs; the latter being that Ne makes them very "quick".

Quick, but Ne couldn't determine priority and importance if their life depended on it. To much run and not enough analyze...in other words...solid argument that doesn't really mean a whole lot.

 

[á´…eparted]

There's lot of stereotypes for a lot of types out there.

If you consider for a moment that cognitive functions are going to be attuned to different sorts of information, you can imagine that there will be stereotypes that say "well, these functions are good with this sort of stuff, which is important in this sort of area, so those functions should be good at that stuff". Considering that, it's not hard to see that NT function pairings would seem on paper to be more equip to preform well in a debate than SF function parings.

Really, it's simply because people consider functions too heavily on paper and over stretch ability potential.

 

[Virtual ghost]

This topic can be turned around and it can be said: INTJs are often stereotyped as very smart jerks, therefore it is natural that people presume that they are also good in debates.

 

[Poki]

This topic can be turned around and it can be said: INTJs are often stereotyped as very smart jerks, therefore it is natural that people presume that they are also good in debates.

It's called emotionally unaware, not jerks. That was very politically incorrect

 

[ChocolateMoose123]

....but most are not able to form a "good high impact" reply in small amout of time ... and therefore they lose their debate.....

Loudly yelling, "I know I am but what are you!?" is a good counter to this approach. Then when they are distracted by confusion you can quickly dip out.

 

[Santosha]

I've seen intjs stereotyped as best debaters, and while its subjective, I definitely see why.

As ni doms, they seem to be the strongest in weeding out irrelevant data and getting a flash of the highest probability. So at the very beginning, they seem to have a birds eye view of the best route and strategy. They then utilize their creative function, Te, within this ni "knowing" to support each of their claims with concrete, externally agreed upon, application.

And when a ti user brings up a good point, a lack of logical consistency, ni often pushes it away as irrelevant, and Te says "show me where its worked, in reality.

In terms of processing speed, time constraints, specific criteria, organized concepts, etc..

I do think the intjs Te will help them better work within this framework.

But I always admire the intps Ti, feeling that it parallels Fi in many ways. They test for truth, rather than what works.

 

[anticlimatic]

Because it takes them three months to get tired of a topic and for some insane masochistic reason they actually enjoy the research part of it. They can stay on point until everyone else has blown their brains out with topic-fatigue, thus winning by elimination.



I can research for about 10 seconds before the (Ne)ed to experiment overwhelms me and I have to break free and physically introduce some good old fashioned home cooked CHAOS and ENTROPY to the point of topic and see what happens.

Otherwise I lose interest and move on to something else I can keep checked with some kind of empirical data. INTJs don't seem to care much about empirical data, which always baffled me. For a demographic interested in things 'that work in the real world' they sure don't seem to give much of a shit about the mechanics of how things in the real world 'actually work.'

 

[Coriolis]

I can research for about 10 seconds before the (Ne)ed to experiment overwhelms me and I have to break free and physically introduce some good old fashioned home cooked CHAOS and ENTROPY to the point of topic and see what happens.

Otherwise I lose interest and move on to something else I can keep checked with some kind of empirical data. INTJs don't seem to care much about empirical data, which always baffled me. For a demographic interested in things 'that work in the real world' they sure don't seem to give much of a shit about the mechanics of how things in the real world 'actually work.'

Odd, then how we manage to get so many things actually to work. And all those hours of research? That is what gives us the depth and breadth of knowledge that allows us to answer whatever question the boss throws at us about our proposal, and to anticipate what our client is going to want or ask in advance. True, often I don't need that informational overkill, but when I do, it makes all the difference.

Interestingly it has usually been the INTPs and even the occasional ISTP who I find want to solve everything through discussion and debate. I am usually the one to tell them: there's an easy way to find out. Just go in the lab and try it.

 

[Ghost of the dead horse]

I know two INTJs very closely and I would never call them super logical. I know they are logical in their own eyes. They have such hard preconceptions of the truth they can hardly admit having an opinion even when such opinion is measured, exposed, underlined, expressed and analyzed in full. Usually they then admit having an opinion as a basis for logic, but they just shrug it off, like "of course this issue has to be handled from this perspective, what other perspective would be worth thinking of?"

INTJs handle the things quite logically, but the reason why a premise exists for an INTJ is entirely without logic whatsoever. Its deeply personal for them, often nearly impossible for them to handle with formal logic or to validate externally.

In short, the INTJ are logical about selected parts of things they care about. About the other parts, their arguments seems to be a big fat "don't look that way, that's not the part of the argument I want you to see."

 

[anticlimatic]

Odd, then how we manage to get so many things actually to work. And all those hours of research? That is what gives us the depth and breadth of knowledge that allows us to answer whatever question the boss throws at us about our proposal, and to anticipate what our client is going to want or ask in advance. True, often I don't need that informational overkill, but when I do, it makes all the difference.

Interestingly it has usually been the INTPs and even the occasional ISTP who I find want to solve everything through discussion and debate. I am usually the one to tell them: there's an easy way to find out. Just go in the lab and try it.

Seeking depth and breadth of knowledge is one way of putting it- I call it an unhealthy obsessive disorder that can be a gateway to addiction in general.

It also depends on the context of the debates I think. Whether or not they're for problem solving, recreation, or expressing emotion. I think all T types use debate to express emotion more than they realize.

I've got a pet classification system for the function order that I feel is pertinent to identifying which context might be at work: Dom being the boring overused workhorse, Aux being the unwind recreation function, Tert being the fascination and fixation function, and Inf being the automatic enslaving function.

If the problem is telling people what they want to hear then Ni would be a pretty good tool, but if the problem is trying to figure out how to physically put a square peg in a round hole it's just not a tool that works. I've seen INTJs attempt home repair or installation projects, and it's just pure agonizing facepalm. Mostly, as with anyone, it's largely due to that asshole inferior function sabotaging everything- making them put the inconsequential details before their priority, and bogging down the process with distracting unpleasantries.

 

[Grand Admiral Crunch]

The INTJ's goal in arguments isn't to determine what is correct and right, but to win the argument, which I attribute to Ni. So they use dirty tactics, like insulting, presenting unrelated information to confuse their opponent, changing the subject, etc. They won't admit that their opponent has good points unless it can be twisted to further their own argument.

Due to TypoC being a controlled environment, the INTJ's here may not be a good example of this.

 

[entropie]

I can research for about 10 seconds before the (Ne)ed to experiment overwhelms me and I have to break free and physically introduce some good old fashioned home cooked CHAOS and ENTROPY to the point of topic and see what happens.

I havent read all the rest of this thread, cause my attention span is limited to boobs. But I was eager to ask, where you see that difference between chaos and entropy ?

 

[EcK]

The stereotype that INTJs are good at debate is a terrible lie and should be abolished.

 

[EcK]

The INTJ's goal in arguments isn't to determine what is correct and right, but to win the argument, which I attribute to Ni. So they use dirty tactics, like insulting, presenting unrelated information to confuse their opponent, changing the subject, etc. They won't admit that their opponent has good points unless it can be twisted to further their own argument.

Due to TypoC being a controlled environment, the INTJ's here may not be a good example of this.

It's not a controlled environment, it's an environment which is not representative of the general population. Or do you mean controlled because of mods?
I don't think that would change the tactics you describe much. Though I don't have a solid opinion either way.