[INTJ] Why do people hate INTJs?

[Coriolis]

Oh, I think you know.

If I did, I would not have asked.

 

[Santosha]

If I did, I would not have asked.

What the OP describes is more like pigeonholing, as someone mentioned. It focuses on the utility or contribution of a person, not their individuality or humanity as Nicodemus neatly observed.

It was just a snarky comment, really. More of a personal joke. I don't care to get into how Ni infers the core from an se surface manifestation. In personal experience, I've known intj to be wrong a time or two.


I'd take it over the absurd rabbit-hole ni can fall down, losing all reference to the outside in a deepening and intensification of the 'truth'. Where nothing is any longer what it appears, and everything has some hidden meaning being obscured.

 

[anticlimatic]

Fi possesses a logic you are not wired to comprehend. It is as sound and rational as Ti. It takes Fi types longer in life (generally) to be able to express that incisive precision with elegance, but that does not mean it is not there.

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.

 

[anticlimatic]

You are speaking ill of an entire group, without making any declarations or even implying that this doesn't apply to everyone. Further, you speak of an entire group in a very harsh light, when there is no personality grouping that even comes close to that level of dysfunction or harm (unless we're speaking of personality disorders, which we are not), you need to be very clear that it isn't everyone and further clear it only speaks to a very small group of individuals in your experiences.

So yes, it is hate speech, and your generalizations are not only wrong, but harmful and unwanted.

You sound like an SJW. Generalizations by definition account for a minority factor otherwise they would be absolutes, but my interest is on the majority. When I shovel snow I don't consider the beauty of each snow flake, and I'm not going to buy the "rights" to be efficiently honest in one hand by coddling with the other.

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."

 

[ceecee]

I'm curious. Have you ever found those who are ok with you reverting back to a more natural tendancy after some time?

Of course. I don't do this all the time or even often. I probably do it less with my ENFJ, he knows what I mean more than anyone else.

I ask because sometimes I can adjust to someones way of doing things after I learn through experience that they mean no harm. If I an get past that sort of thing with a person I can usually get super close with them. Sometimes though, that can't happen and an altered behavior is an absolute must. Either way I always wondered on the other end if you notice patterns with being able to let the new behavior drop, not include it in the first place for everyone? Or is it totally unpredictable and you have to go by word of mouth?

I think it's unpredictable. If I'm getting close with someone, I'm going to do the altered behavior thing less, not more.

It's also very interesting that you can take on a behavior like this so readily. It's very difficult for me to take on a unnatural behavior unless my environment absolutely demands it (and even then it's sometimes impossible). I don't think it'd be possible for me to be close with anyone that would require to twist like that all the time.

Oh, I don't do it readily. This was not easy for me. I don't especially like doing it and there are times I choose to say nothing because it seems easier than explaining why I said - why did you put the coffee pot there? But when I do speak to people who either won't or can't hear what I say as it is said and as it is meant - I modify.

 

[ceecee]

Here's a perfect example of what I was saying above.

Oh, I think you know.

If I did, I would not have asked.

She would not have asked if she knew. Why is it impossible to take a question or a comment at face value? Why did you put the coffee pot there? It's the same thing, it's not the INTJ that had the problem, it's whatever the other person hears or thinks they hear. Or some kind of issue with Ni, in this case, and INTJ's being wrong.

 

[Pionart]

Hey, ya gonna use this post as lyrics for your new song?

While I intend to write many songs, I doubt that this will be one of them. Oh, how I do enjoy writing in rhymes, though.

I'll also give a more serious response - that while I don't hate INTJs as a group or anything silly like that, there have been several male INTJs I have met that use their intelligence in ways that are certainly annoying, if not destructive. Like... being condescending towards people, and a sort of insensitive real life trolling. The female INTJs I know tend to keep more to themselves and use their intelligence responsibly. I'm not trying to generalise, that's just what I've observed.

 

[PeaceBaby]

One of my training officers in the military used to ask questions like this, and given the context, nearly everyone assumed it was a command. I used to answer the question with an explanation, but also offer to change things if he wanted. "I put the recruiting flyers here because of X, Y, and Z. Do you want me to move them, sir?" The answer was always, "No, no - fine where they are." I was one of the few on good terms with him.

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.

She would not have asked if she knew. Why is it impossible to take a question or a comment at face value? Why did you put the coffee pot there? It's the same thing, it's not the INTJ that had the problem, it's whatever the other person hears or thinks they hear. Or some kind of issue with Ni, in this case, and INTJ's being wrong.

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.

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.

eta: I can already hear the objections to "with certainty". Naturally, nothing is fully known or certain.

 

[ceecee]

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.

If it was, I wouldn't be taking the time to frame it differently. Somehow that effort often gets lost in the translation as well.

 

[Poki]

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.




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.

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.

eta: I can already hear the objections to "with certainty". Naturally, nothing is fully known or certain.

Lmao...isn't subjectivity objectivity for Je. Once you learn subjectivity its easy to use it as objectivity. It's a mere rewording of things.

 

[Tilt]

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.




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.

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.

What is so negative about asking such a thing? For me personally, I ultimately just want to know to understand to see if an overall objective was accomplished.

"Why did you move that coffee pot over there?" usually means for me that:

1. I noticed a change in routine... Is it a one-time thing? Do you want to change it for the long term? Have I been putting it in the wrong place all along? Should I rearrange my objective to make things more efficient?

2. Trying to figure out what the other person wants to do.

3. Double-checking the process/confirming that we are on the same page... when I don't, it often leads to miscommunication and causes major issues down the road.

Your interpretation of Je motivation seems a bit foreign to me and I have had my share of interactions with IXFPs.

 

[SearchingforPeace]

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 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.

 

[á´…eparted]

You sound like an SJW. Generalizations by definition account for a minority factor otherwise they would be absolutes, but my interest is on the majority. When I shovel snow I don't consider the beauty of each snow flake, and I'm not going to buy the "rights" to be efficiently honest in one hand by coddling with the other.

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."

To the bold: yes I know what you mean in a vacuum. It doesn't make it right or ok. And no, you do not know INTJ's inside and out. NO ONE does. I couldn't care less if INTJ's or any type don't "appreciate people trying to steam roll first amendement rights". First of all, there are no first amendement rights here. Period. Second, as I said previously, it's still wrong.

This has nothing to do with politics, and it's unfair for you to bring in a political pariah label (and it's honestly the first time anyone has ever referred to me as such, so that's certainly new) into this. Besides, your reply to @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.

Shows clearly (in particular the bolded lines) that you indeed ARE being unfair. Granted @Coriolis pointed out that the purpose of this thread was to vent frustrations. Sure, that's fine and well. Just because that's done though doesn't mean it's not hate speech. I can, and will, speak up and call people out if I see them spouting falsehoods or stereotypes that are harmful, or have shown to be harmful in the past. Given this forum has gone through A LOT of headache for years over people spreading and spouting falsehoods and unfair negative stereotypes about different MBTI types, and has demonstrated that it does cause harm, I am not in the wrong in the least for speaking up about this.

If you want to vent frustrations and feelings, fine. You need to be CLEAR though on how you do it. If you want to spout hateful things about an ENTIRE group (which is flat wrong regardless of how it's spun), then you must make qualifiers saying you're only venting frustrations, or poor experiences, and that this doesn't apply to everyone. In the absence of that, you can't expect it to be left alone, or people (such as myself) to not speak up and defend it.

 

[á´…eparted]

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.

See, if someone responds to me with the bolded, I will go from neutral to angry in milliseconds. I find it pretty impossible to keep my irritation in at this point. Because till my head, I will then explain why. If it ends there, no harm no foul I won't really care. Though it often doesn't and often I am met with a "but it still doesn't matter" or some other pointless nitpicked philosophical discussion. To which I often respond by taking it out of their hands, put it back, and them to not do it again, or I just walk away and make a note to avoid interactions with them in the future as much as possible. I can't stand it when people get philosophical in situations where it will lead to missing the point or be a complete waste of time. This is the lynchpin to nearly 90% of my problems I run into with Ti and Fi doms.

It basically comes down to "this is how it is, deal with it" on my end. The reply is usually in the form of "but there is no objective reason for it". Yes, we MADE one. If you don't like it, then that's too darn bad. Unless you come up with a solid reason other than being annoyed with the fact that we created a purpose, then this is how it's going to be.

If they protest to that then I will just lose my shit all together.

 

[magpie]

See, if someone responds to me with the bolded, I will go from neutral to angry in milliseconds. I find it pretty impossible to keep my irritation in at this point. Because till my head, I will then explain why. If it ends there, no harm no foul I won't really care. Though it often doesn't and often I am met with a "but it still doesn't matter" or some other pointless nitpicked philosophical discussion. To which I often respond by taking it out of their hands, put it back, and them to not do it again, or I just walk away and make a note to avoid interactions with them in the future as much as possible. I can't stand it when people get philosophical in situations where it will lead to missing the point or be a complete waste of time. This is the lynchpin to nearly 90% of my problems I run into with Ti and Fi doms.

It basically comes down to "this is how it is, deal with it" on my end. The reply is usually in the form of "but there is no objective reason for it". Yes, we MADE one. If you don't like it, then that's too darn bad. Unless you come up with a solid reason other than being annoyed with the fact that we created a purpose, then this is how it's going to be.

If they protest to that then I will just lose my shit all together.

Who is "we"? You? Why can't you let people do what they want? Why does their explanation have to measure up to your values? Who are you to decide what another person does? Who are you to decide what a solid reason is? If you don't like what someone does, are you going to throw a tantrum? Why does it matter where the coffee pot is? Who judges your explanations? "This is how it is, deal with it" isn't an explanation either.

 

[anticlimatic]

To the bold: yes I know what you mean in a vacuum. It doesn't make it right or ok. And no, you do not know INTJ's inside and out. NO ONE does. I couldn't care less if INTJ's or any type don't "appreciate people trying to steam roll first amendement rights". First of all, there are no first amendement rights here. Period. Second, as I said previously, it's still wrong.

This has nothing to do with politics, and it's unfair for you to bring in a political pariah label (and it's honestly the first time anyone has ever referred to me as such, so that's certainly new) into this. Besides, your reply to @PeaceBaby:



Shows clearly (in particular the bolded lines) that you indeed ARE being unfair. Granted @Coriolis pointed out that the purpose of this thread was to vent frustrations. Sure, that's fine and well. Just because that's done though doesn't mean it's not hate speech. I can, and will, speak up and call people out if I see them spouting falsehoods or stereotypes that are harmful, or have shown to be harmful in the past. Given this forum has gone through A LOT of headache for years over people spreading and spouting falsehoods and unfair negative stereotypes about different MBTI types, and has demonstrated that it does cause harm, I am not in the wrong in the least for speaking up about this.

If you want to vent frustrations and feelings, fine. You need to be CLEAR though on how you do it. If you want to spout hateful things about an ENTIRE group (which is flat wrong regardless of how it's spun), then you must make qualifiers saying you're only venting frustrations, or poor experiences, and that this doesn't apply to everyone. In the absence of that, you can't expect it to be left alone, or people (such as myself) to not speak up and defend it.

You're lucky I think ENFJs are cute.

The qualifiers are implied, I'm not going to waste my time spelling them out. I take it you're not a fan of mathematics.

Me: 4x2-5=3
You: 4 (not to disparage 1, or 2, or 3, or...) times (not that it is better than minus just because it comes first in this instance, other times it can come later) 2 (again, not to disparage any other number or single out 2 all the time, just this once here) minus (not that minus is better than plus just because there is no plus in this equation) 5 EQUALS (pause for equality parade) three (not that the answer to every equation will be three, just this specific one).

 

[á´…eparted]

You're lucky I think ENFJs are cute.

The qualifiers are implied, I'm not going to waste my time spelling them out. I take it you're not a fan of mathematics.

Me: 4x2-5=3
You: 4 (not to disparage 1, or 2, or 3, or...) times (not that it is better than minus just because it comes first in this instance, other times it can come later) 2 (again, not to disparage any other number or single out 2 all the time, just this once here) minus (not that minus is better than plus just because there is no plus in this equation) 5 EQUALS (pause for equality parade) three (not that the answer to every equation will be three, just this specific one).

This is nothing more than a belittling attempt under the guise of a non-sequtir. Which isn't even a good cover.

You didn't address any of the content I stated in my post, merely danced around it. As such it still stands.

 

[anticlimatic]

This is nothing more than a belittling attempt under the guise of a non-sequtir. Which isn't even a good cover.

You didn't address any of the content I stated in my post, merely danced around it. As such it still stands.

It was nothing more than an assassination on the form of your argument, because without form "content" just collapses into a puddle of indecipherable mush. Which is what I left you with.

Enjoy your mush.

 

[á´…eparted]

It was nothing more than an assassination on the form of your argument, because without form "content" just collapses into a puddle of indecipherable mush. Which is what I left you with.

Enjoy your mush.

If someone else understands the analogy/point you're trying to make, then I'll gladly hear it from them. It's clear you either can't, or don't want to explain. If no one else understands though, then you didn't mush anything.

 

[Virtual ghost]

Posters here argue about "Why people hate INTJs"? How cute.