Do you feel like INTJ's see through you?

[unmagic]

no

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

Its cute that they think they do.

 

[Madboot]

I've worked hard on actually listening to people, even if they are discussing things that don't normally interest me. Because I've been doing this I feel I have an easier time understanding people than some INTJ's but that does not equate to seeing through them in any way. The earlier comment on seeing through BS is fairly on the mark, but that is comparatively easy. I think only relatively immature INTJ's think they can see through people. I'll admit I may have felt this way in my teens and early twenties. When I met my wife (INFJ) I learned how full of it I was.

 

[rav3n]

Not at all.

 

[Forever_Jung]

I would say they're hard to fool. I think I can even BS INTP types pretty well if I talk fast enough, but NTJ's don't tend to buy it

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

The internet, like texting is prone to misinterpretation.

The less you assume about what's going on in the minds of others the better.

I generally try to follow this rule (no ones perfect) unless another makes an assumption about whats going on in my head. Then its fair game.

 

[Forever_Jung]

The internet, like texting is prone to misinterpretation.

The less you assume about what's going on in the minds of others the better.

I generally try to follow this rule (no ones perfect) unless another makes an assumption about whats going on in my head. Then its fair game.

So what you're saying is...you secretly resent your father?

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

So what you're saying is...you secretly resent your father?

Sometimes I do. But I think everyone's guilty of that particular sin, lol.

 

[Sacrophagus]

We can also see through people?
So mysterious. Much magic. Very identity crisis. Wow.

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

Just baffle them with feels. That usually works.

 

[Fluffywolf]

The internet, like texting is prone to misinterpretation.

The less you assume about what's going on in the minds of others the better.

I generally try to follow this rule (no ones perfect) unless another makes an assumption about whats going on in my head. Then its fair game.

Sometimes it is impossible to see intent.

But I think the main issue isn't with the written language itself though, as there are plenty of tools to get intent properly accross in written language. But most people are not accustomed to using these tools.

I often remind myself of a programmer issue where programmers often tend to forego defining types (leaving it up to the compiler instead) and it leading to bugs in the software (or hacker food).

If you talk about a scientific fact for example, it is proper to be direct in your statements, but if you are talking about a belief, you shouldn't forego the proper type identifications in your statements such as "I believe/think..." and not "This is how it is." This for example allows for proper dialog to occur without people feeling butthurt.

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

Sometimes it is impossible to see intent.

But I think the main issue isn't with the written language itself though, as there are plenty of tools to get intent properly accross in written language. But most people are not accustomed to using these tools.

I often remind myself of a programmer issue where programmers often tend to forego defining types (leaving it up to the compiler instead) and it leading to bugs in the software (or hacker food).

If you talk about a scientific fact for example, it is proper to be direct in your statements, but if you are talking about a belief, you shouldn't forego the proper type identifications in your statements such as "I believe/think..." and not "This is how it is." This for example allows for proper dialog to occur without people feeling butthurt.

Humans evolved to get much of the context from tone of voice and facial movements. Neither are available in the written format.

 

[Coriolis]

Sometimes it is impossible to see intent.

But I think the main issue isn't with the written language itself though, as there are plenty of tools to get intent properly accross in written language. But most people are not accustomed to using these tools.

I often remind myself of a programmer issue where programmers often tend to forego defining types (leaving it up to the compiler instead) and it leading to bugs in the software (or hacker food).

If you talk about a scientific fact for example, it is proper to be direct in your statements, but if you are talking about a belief, you shouldn't forego the proper type identifications in your statements such as "I believe/think..." and not "This is how it is." This for example allows for proper dialog to occur without people feeling butthurt.

If I didn't believe or think it, why would I say or support it? In school we were actually penalized for saying that in essays, as it was viewed as redundant. It is impossible to know someone else's intent with any certainty unless they tell you it plainly, and are being honest. I will state it if I feel it is necessary, or if someone is unclear and wants to know. I do not take kindly to having my intent assumed, however, especially since the assumption is at least as likely to be wrong as right.

Humans evolved to get much of the context from tone of voice and facial movements. Neither are available in the written format.

Indeed, which comes as a relief to be honest.

 

[Smilephantomhive]

They think they do, but they don't.