[INTJ] INTJ Intimidation

[Mycroft]

Yes. If there's one term that conjures feelings of tolerance and magnanimity it's "crusade".

 

[Blackwater]

yes! let's nitpick words rather than look at any intended meaning meaning behind them

 

[Totenkindly]

yes! let's nitpick words rather than look at any intended meaning meaning behind them

Fixed!

 

[Blackwater]

 

[ptgatsby]

Was ptgatsby's point that INTJ intimidation a result of our reputation for writing people off? I was never actually clear on that.

No. The point was that other people sense the evaluation going on in the INTJs mind and react to it. No one knows what criteria is being used, no one knows how it will manifest. It's like being constantly watched.

Even in my relationship at home it happens. If I don't do the dishes the right way, ouch. In business, if I didn't accomplish (x)... at work, if I don't deliver exactly something right (of course all of these being subjective to the INTJ), the weighing.

It's not reputation - the reputation exists because of the behaviour but the same complaints come from those that have no idea about personality. One advantage though, it rarely comes from INTJs after their 30s, or at least, I've never felt the same way with the older ones.

 

[Athenian200]

No. The point was that other people sense the evaluation going on in the INTJs mind and react to it. No one knows what criteria is being used, no one knows how it will manifest. It's like being constantly watched.

Even in my relationship at home it happens. If I don't do the dishes the right way, ouch. In business, if I didn't accomplish (x)... at work, if I don't deliver exactly something right (of course all of these being subjective to the INTJ), the weighing.

It's not reputation - the reputation exists because of the behaviour but the same complaints come from those that have no idea about personality. One advantage though, it rarely comes from INTJs after their 30s, or at least, I've never felt the same way with the older ones.

It's possible some people felt you were attacking INTJ's by mentioning this reputation. You see, it could have been construed as implying that INTJ's only care about people if they meet certain logical criteria, and while they may be irritated if they don't meet them, I don't believe that.

I know that probably isn't what you meant, I'm just saying it could be taken that way.

 

[Totenkindly]

Even in my relationship at home it happens. If I don't do the dishes the right way, ouch. In business, if I didn't accomplish (x)... at work, if I don't deliver exactly something right (of course all of these being subjective to the INTJ), the weighing.

My best friend is an INTP married to an INTJ, and this is definitely the case in that relationship. The INTJ had a very rough childhood and spent a lot of time being perpetually angry (left over from feeling to helpless during childhood), which does not help whatsoever; but the INTJ is naturally extremely critical of anything (whether it's how the dishes are washed or when the dog is walked or how the daughters are put to bed) ... just "pick pick pick". The INTP couldn't seem to do anything right, and it became a large issue in the relationship. Even if the INTJ did not say anything, it was clear they were still thinking it. This is an extreme case, of course.

(I only mention INTP vs INTJ because it offers a nice contrast between two generally freethinking NT types, highlighting a difference.)

 

[ptgatsby]

It's possible some people felt you were attacking INTJ's by mentioning this reputation. You see, it could have been construed as implying that INTJ's only care about people if they meet certain logical criteria, and while they may be irritated if they don't meet them, I don't believe that.

I know that probably isn't what you meant, I'm just saying it could be taken that way.

Hmm. I take it back then.

I looked back over the thread quickly, I didn't see any mention of reputation in my post... but maybe I didn't think one of my posts through... where did this impression come from?

 

[Mendacity]

No. The point was that other people sense the evaluation going on in the INTJs mind and react to it. No one knows what criteria is being used, no one knows how it will manifest. It's like being constantly watched.

Even in my relationship at home it happens. If I don't do the dishes the right way, ouch. In business, if I didn't accomplish (x)... at work, if I don't deliver exactly something right (of course all of these being subjective to the INTJ), the weighing.

I can only speak from my personal experiences, but:
Most of the people who found me intimidating at one point get past it relatively quickly. Usually it happens after they get to know me a little better than a first meeting might allow.
It's not that I'm constantly evaluating someone. Maybe this is different from most INTJs, but I think this is what people were trying to say when they mentioned that they only write people off for huge betrayals and the like. I, too, am in the habit of only writing people off for rather large reasons.
I can be critical, but as I said I won't write someone off for something small.

I think Economica's E-type is a 1, while a lot of other INTJs here are probably 5s, 6s or possibly 8s.

What is this of which you speak?

 

[ptgatsby]

I can be critical, but as I said I won't write someone off for something small.

That must of been the wrong impression I gave. Writting off doesn't have to be "I'll never talk to you again". It's the judgment that matters. Forget everything else I said since I seem to have given the wrong impression. INTJs weigh everything and they aren't as subtle as they think. Every interaction has this weighing quality... The rest of us feel it and it feels exactly like we will be written off once the - add up to more than the +.

All of this "I don't do that unless it's really major", IMO, ignores the underlying point.

(And yes, as you get closer to people, you may stop weighing them as much. Strong Js and strong Ts seem to have this nature more too, so it does vary, I'm sure.)

What is this of which you speak?

Enneagram

 

[Mendacity]

That must of been the wrong impression I gave. Writting off doesn't have to be "I'll never talk to you again". It's the judgment that matters. Forget everything else I said since I seem to have given the wrong impression. INTJs weigh everything and they aren't as subtle as they think. Every interaction has this weighing quality... The rest of us feel it and it feels exactly like we will be written off once the - add up to more than the +.

All of this "I don't do that unless it's really major", IMO, ignores the underlying point.

Ah, I see what you mean now. I wasn't offended by what you said... er, what I thought you were saying.. I just thought you were wrong

Yes, I think we do tend to weigh everything. And I can see how that could be creepy if you're on the receiving end of it.

 

[ptgatsby]

Yes, I think we do tend to weigh everything. And I can see how that could be creepy if you're on the receiving end of it.

There we go. That was a rough thread!

When I said "write off", I meant that was the impression that is given off. It's not just the weighing... its the "in my circle or not" along with weighing. People outside only see those two parts. Together - that's intimidating!

 

[Mendacity]

I think Economica's E-type is a 1, while a lot of other INTJs here are probably 5s, 6s or possibly 8s.

I am equally type 8 and 9 at 78% according to the free test I did. I don't know how accurate free tests are, but I'm poor
I will say that I dislike being cruseded at.

 

[Economica]

Sorry for having ditched this thread. I have been suffering from a seemingly never-ending hangover and I had to wait until the cloud lifted before I could write this reply.

I'll get straight to the most important point:

Mendacity, your repeated claim that you only took issue with the style of Blackwater's infamous post (#73)...

I never dismissed the behavior Blackwater spoke about as idiosyncratic. In fact, I never addressed that point at all, only took issue with his behavior. Please refrain from putting words in my mouth

1. You jumped down my throat for my response to Blackwater. You attributed to me an argument I never said and then responded to it with your own argument.

However, my intention with my post to Economica (the first one) was to correct her falsely attributing to me an argument I never made

... does not hold up. In your first reply to Blackwater's post, you wrote:

Obviously you were deeply traumatized by some INTJ somewhere. That's too bad. It's also too bad that the experience has prejudiced you against an entire group of people. So much so, in fact, that you just insulted a great number of them whom you have never met by making "observations" you will not back up with facts or experiences at the risk of having them called anecdotal.
Should I take this behavior to be typical of all ENTPs?

Here you essentially posited that the behavior Blackwater described was unique to a single INTJ he has known (i.e. idiosyncratic).

This motivated me (Jen, is your head spinning yet? ) to refer you to a poll providing evidence that the behavior in question is in fact common among INTJs. For the sake of rebutting your claim (quoted above) that I 'jumped down your throat' with this post, I will quote it:

Oh, and Mendacity: Blackwater may be traumatized (that would be mostly by me :blushing but there are too many INTJs out there doing the same for the behavior to be dismissed as idiosyncratic. Don't believe me? Check out the distribution of answers 7-10 in this poll. So far, 12 out of 16 non-INXJs have answered that in their experience a majority of INTJs suffer from closed-minded certitude. That doesn't mean that there are no exceptions; what it means is that they are just that, exceptions.

Your response to this (post #90) was not only blatantly irrational...:

- You issued your first wrongful denial that you had posited idiosyncrasy
- You completely dismissed the poll disproving idiosyncrasy

... By issuing your denial, you also misrepresented the exchange that had taken place:

I'm not sure why you think I was arguing that we don't suffer from this closed-minded certitude. It may certainly be true that we do. I don't think I've known enough INTJs to make a judgment like that, and as I've stated, I'd be hesitant to do so in any case.
You seem to have confused my distaste for Blackwater's style of putting his point across, with distaste for his point itself.

I didn't mind your irrationality so much - I can empathize with that - but I did mind your misrepresentation of our exchange. Because few people bother to go back and get their facts straight in a thread like this, misrepresentation effectively serves as a 'get out of debate free' card. Put idiomatically, when you fudged the facts, you were playing dirty - and so I too shifted gears.

---

Is pleading with me to take my crusade elsewhere really the best you can do to get me to stop?

At least you acknowledge what it is.

Once again I find myself regretting having repeated in a thread an inaccurate term I have once used carelessly in a PM.

To be clear, I acknowledge zealously promoting my subjective insights. I also acknowledge not exactly being a pacifist. However, I am not a crusader in the historical sense; mere disinterest in my insights does not provoke my aggression. (It just makes me a . )

 

[Metamorphosis]

To be clear, I acknowledge zealously promoting my subjective insights. I also acknowledge not exactly being a pacifist. However, I am not a crusader in the historical sense; mere disinterest in my insights does not provoke my aggression. (It just makes me a . )

It makes you a banana?

 

[Mendacity]

Economica
Let me further clarify.
Stating that Blackwater had had a negative experience with an INTJ does not mean that such behavior is not typical of the type. The two are not mutually exclusive. And while it was obvious that he had had a negative encounter with AT LEAST one INTJ, it was not obvious that he'd had such an encounter (or, indeed, ANY encounter) with MORE THAN one INTJ. While the latter may be possible, it certainly does not necessarily follow.
Saying "Because you've had bad experiences with an INTJ in the past is no reason to insult a whole bunch of them you don't know" is simply asking not to insult the number (however large or small) of INTJs who DON'T exhibit that behavior. And even not to insult the ones who DO exhibit it. Also, merely stating that INTJs act like that isn't insulting in and of itself. However, the way he put it, certainly was insulting and (I would say) detracted from his argument, and by proxy, yours.
You read more into my statement than there was and then assumed that I was "fighting dirty" when I corrected your original misunderstanding.
To me

Obviously you were deeply traumatized by some INTJ somewhere.

is a statement with a neutral stance on the likely percentage of INTJs who exhibit the behavior in question. In fact, the statement doesn't address the behavior he spoke of at all.
I think it's unusual for someone to take issue with a statement like the one I made regarding Blackwater's point in quite the way you did. In my experience, a statement like that is usually understood to mean "at least, but not limited to, one." Even if it's not and I didn't make myself clear enough (as you seem to have done with your "crusade" statement), you seem unwilling to allow me to correct the original misunderstanding.

I didn't mind your irrationality so much - I can empathize with that - but I did mind your misrepresentation of our exchange. Because few people bother to go back and get their facts straight in a thread like this, misrepresentation effectively serves as a 'get out of debate free' card. Put idiomatically, when you fudged the facts, you were playing dirty - and so I too shifted gears.

Don't assume that because some people fail to check their facts that it is always the case. You misunderstood my first reply to Blackwater and have based all subsequent interaction with me on that initial ignorance. Your actions were based on an incorrect assumption.
Your post #103 only addresses my criticism of your argument to support your theory. Why didn't you take issue with my perceived "misrepresentation of our exchange" then? I could have addressed it much earlier, especially if that was the actual reason for your "changing gears."

Quite frankly, Economica, you keep attributing whatever you like to my statements.
You said I was arguing with Blackwater's post. I said, "no I wasn't, let me clarify." Now you're saying that I'm not clarifying, I'm trying to play some "get out of debate free" card. Even though I did, happily, debate the point once you addressed me with it. A debate which you responded to with hostility.
If you're going to just take my statements any way you like, discarding all attempts to make you understand me, as "fighting dirty" there's really no point in continuing this discussion. I might as well be speaking Swahili.

Truthfully, you've been angry about this since the get-go it seems. First I thought it was because I criticized your pet theory... but since I've apologized for doing so in a way that you took to be offensive maybe you're angry because I told Blackwater that he was being insulting and dismissed him.... although I'm sure it didn't help matters that I then criticized your theory, this whole thing seems to be about the fact that I took issue with how he made his argument. And you seem absolutely determined to continue this argument despite every attempt I've made to keep it a civil debate, to take you and your point (if not your support of the point) seriously and to try to make it a constructive discussion about your CC theory, which you don't seem to have any interest in.
If you want to just go off and be bitchy and insulting then please do so and drop the pretense of rational argument over a specific point.

 

[Recluse]

It makes you a banana?

It makes her an unhappy banana--you're missing the point.

 

[Economica]

To me...

Obviously you were deeply traumatized by some INTJ somewhere.

... is a statement with a neutral stance on the likely percentage of INTJs who exhibit the behavior in question. In fact, the statement doesn't address the behavior he spoke of at all.

That is true. However, speaking of misrepresentation , you're conveniently leaving out the rest of the quote:

Obviously you were deeply traumatized by some INTJ somewhere. That's too bad. It's also too bad that the experience has prejudiced you against an entire group of people. So much so, in fact, that you just insulted a great number of them whom you have never met by making "observations" you will not back up with facts or experiences at the risk of having them called anecdotal.
Should I take this behavior to be typical of all ENTPs?

Here you departed from 'a neutral stance on the likely percentage of INTJs who exhibit the behavior in question' by presuming that Blackwater was extrapolating INTJ behavior from a single instance ("the experience has prejudiced you", "should I take this behavior to be typical of all ENTPs?"). In making that presumption and effectively challenging him to disprove it, you entered the lists as someone disinclined to believe that the described behavior is common among INTJs...

... So disinclined, as it later turned out, that you would completely dismiss the evidence I provided (Incidentally, you don't seem to care to clarify how that post of mine could be interpreted as 'jumping down your throat'? I don't blame you ) on the grounds that it was unscientific wtf - all the while paying lip service to your open-mindedness, of course.

Your post #103 only addresses my criticism of your argument to support your theory. Why didn't you take issue with my perceived "misrepresentation of our exchange" then? I could have addressed it much earlier, especially if that was the actual reason for your "changing gears."

Because I predicted that you would deny it. And you are in fact vigorously denying it, so whaddyaknow, I was right.

You seem to be under the illusion that I'm still debating you. FYI, I stopped believing you to be interested in rational discourse or constructive criticism after you made post #90. Now I'm trying to teach you a lesson - the hard way.

---

I complimented you earlier on your stamina. Just to be clear, I am not talking about your loquaciousness. (That's a standard tactic for obfuscating misrepresentation and rationalization and for tiring your opponent - INTJ intimidation, anyone? ) What I admire is the strength of your defense mechanisms as witnessed by your ability to continue this exchange. Of course, it could be that I'm just not being as effective as usual, but I rather suspect that I have simply for once come up against someone who suffers as badly from CC as I once did.

 

[Mendacity]

Economica Yes, I've also dismissed you (after your first hostile post) of being unworthy of debating. Right now I feel as if I'm just trying to explain myself to a person who is screaming gibberish at me.

That is true. However, speaking of misrepresentation , you're conveniently leaving out the rest of the quote:
Here you departed from 'a neutral stance on the likely percentage of INTJs who exhibit the behavior in question' by presuming that Blackwater was extrapolating INTJ behavior from a single instance ("the experience has prejudiced you", "should I take this behavior to be typical of all ENTPs?"). In making that presumption and effectively challenging him to disprove it, you entered the lists as someone disinclined to believe that the described behavior is common among INTJs...

You didn't read enough. Mycroft responded to Blackwater's original post with:

I don't suppose you'd care to, you know, substantiate any of these accusations?

Blackwater then responded to Mycroft:

this is always a predicament.
when i last told a personal story to illustrate a general point i was promply accused of being anecdotal.

I responded to Blackwater:

Obviously you were deeply traumatized by some INTJ somewhere. That's too bad. It's also too bad that the experience has prejudiced you against an entire group of people. So much so, in fact, that you just insulted a great number of them whom you have never met by making "observations" you will not back up with facts or experiences at the risk of having them called anecdotal.

My problem was with his refusal to back up his claims, not that anything he said to back up his claims would be anecdotal.
It's a good idea to get your facts straight before you start acting all crazy and angry. Often, if you don't, you can end up looking rather foolish.
"The experience has prejudiced you", was a reference to how he phrased his criticism. Even if MOST of a particular type exhibit certain behavior being nasty to a whole group of them because of that behavior is prejudiced. "should I take this behavior to be typical of all ENTPs?" meaning the rudeness and the prejudice and that it's a bad idea to go from "some" (or even "most") to "all."
Although I'm certainly wasting my time. You just keep reading whatever you want into what I'm saying. Keep those fingers in your ears Economica, otherwise you might actually learn something!

... So disinclined, as it later turned out, that you would completely dismiss the evidence I provided (Incidentally, you don't seem to care to clarify how that post of mine could be interpreted as 'jumping down your throat'? I don't blame you ) on the grounds that it was unscientific wtf - all the while paying lip service to your open-mindedness, of course.

I already addressed this point. That was my subjective interpretation as opposed to empirical fact bit from post #105.
The other point, about jumping down throats, I didn't realize needed clarification until just now. It's also a good idea to ask for clarification before getting all bitchy and sarcastic when you don't get it.

Edit: Oh, and Mendacity: Blackwater may be traumatized (that would be mostly by me :blushing but there are too many INTJs out there doing the same for the behavior to be dismissed as idiosyncratic. Don't believe me? Check out the distribution of answers 7-10 in this poll. So far, 12 out of 16 non-INXJs have answered that in their experience a majority of INTJs suffer from closed-minded certitude. That doesn't mean that there are no exceptions; what it means is that they are just that, exceptions.

This seemed to come out of nowhere and the tone seemed to be exceptionally fervent. I see now that you were responding to a statement I hadn't made based on the fact that you hadn't read the entire posts leading up to it, but at the time truly seemed to come out of the blue.

You seem to be under the illusion that I'm still debating you. FYI, I stopped believing you to be worthy of rational discourse or constructive criticism after you made post #90. Now I'm trying to teach you a lesson - the hard way.

No, I don't think you've been debating anything at all. I think you've been foaming at the mouth.
I can certainly see how you wouldn't want to respond to post #90 with anything but accusations of irrationality... it's a lot easier than actually defending or strengthening your argument.
And I'm not really sure why you're so angry and hostile (Or who the hell you think you are to be going around "teaching lessons.") but it seems to be because you can't constructively debate your point, or even have a reasonably friendly exchange when your point is criticized even a little.
Or, in fact, what lesson you're trying to teach me... other than that it's rather stupid to argue with crazy people over the internet.
Or, for that matter, why you don't seem to have anything better to do than "teach lessons" to people you've never met.
Or how you plan to accomplish this by being so hostile.
You're still accusing me of this CC bit when post #90 was an attempt to talk with you about it and understand your point better. I guess debate isn't always welcomed as a way to do that. Truthfully, I think your own behavior in reaction to post #90 is your best argument in favor of CC!
Or did you mean "teach you a lesson" as in "take revenge"? For what, exactly, are you taking revenge? Perceived irrational behavior that you keep saying you have been guilty of yourself?

Because I predicted that you would deny it. And you are in fact vigorously denying it, so whaddyaknow, I was right.

all the while paying lip service to your open-mindedness, of course.

Again, if you insist on interpreting what I'm saying any way you like and calling me a liar and a manipulator when I tell you that you are mistaken about my motivations, the intent behind my statements and the meaning of the statements themselves, you really don't need me. How about this? You go ahead and just pretend I'm saying whatever you want and respond to it on your own. This actually changes nothing in the way you've been going about this whole thing from the beginning, but allows me to do things that are more constructive. This way everyone wins!
I'm still not clear on what it was about post #90 that upset you so much. And that seems to be when you really lost it. Even if I had entered the thread as someone who didn't think CC was typical of INTJs (although truthfully, I hadn't really given it much thought until you addressed me with your poll), why would that be a problem for you? You keep accusing me of exhibiting behavior that you say you're also guilty of and then insulting me for that same behavior.
I came on this forum to discuss MBTI and hopefully gain some insight. Instead, I met you. I guess this is why people refer to forums as sewers and most people don't bother with them. Thanks for clearing up that mystery for me.
You have, in fact, done exactly what Blackwater was talking about in his first post:

INTJs tend to "go off" on some spree of their own aligning all kinds of factors (Te) to fit with some end that they conjured up (Ni). Alternatively, if you cross an INTJ they might do the same, only in an antagonistic manner. you say "1" and they'll run through the entire numerial sequence, comming back at you accusing you of having said "64763252".

You jumped to the wrong conclusion about me from the start because you've encountered this "anecdotal" argument before (probably why you posted an opinion poll on the subject). And now you're so upset with me, over something going on in your head, that you can't even be civil.
Stop foaming at the mouth and calling it rational discourse. It's not rational. It's foam.

 

[Mendacity]

You know, I didn't post Mycroft's reply to Blackwater, or Blackwater's post mentioning the anecdotal thing because I thought you'd actually read the pertinant posts. You attributed this, not to a misunderstanding of the facts by either of us, but instead as an attempt on my part to cheat at the argument and try to coneal what I'd atually said and lie about it.
This is a strange assumption to make, I think.
It may also be interesting to note that while I was giving you the benefit of the doubt on the matter, you were assuming the worst of me. This may be key insight into each of our personalities.