[INTJ] INTJ Intimidation

[Mycroft]

*sigh* That's the thing with INTJs. They know it, and they love it.

The alternative is going about feeling guilty about the way our minds are wired. To Hell with that.

More specifically, just because I've written a person off as, for example, a noisy blob of human-shaped biomass doesn't mean I have any contempt for them whatsoever. Contempt is too mentally taxing. I avoid it.

...also, aren't they called "limit breaks"?

 

[ptgatsby]

...also, aren't they called "limit breaks"?

Yes, but I didn't want to imply that INTJs lash out after taking damage, so I figured move would be more accurate

 

[Wolf]

More specifically, just because I've written a person off as, for example, a noisy blob of human-shaped biomass doesn't mean I have any contempt for them whatsoever. Contempt is too mentally taxing. I avoid it.

I think this is where the link other people draw between INTJs and Psychopaths comes from - they've seen us write people off.

 

[Economica]

Yes, but I didn't want to imply that INTJs lash out after taking damage

*spits water at keyboard*

I'm so glad to have you around, pt.

 

[Natrushka]

I think this is where the link other people draw between INTJs and Psychopaths comes from - they've seen us write people off.

It's not like writing people off and buring bodies are similar. I can't believe the idea of writing someone off is that foreign to some that it would appear so.

 

[Mycroft]

It's not like writing people off and buring bodies are similar. I can't believe the idea of writing someone off is that foreign to some that it would appear so.

This is where the democratic nature of language fails us. The vast majority of human beings will stay in relationships that are not beneficial or even destructive out of some sort of misguided notion of "obligation", however they dress this notion up. As a result, all terms that refer to removing someone from your life, once you've assessed their involvement to be of no benefit or detrimental, have negative connotations. Simply put, there's no way of phrasing the notion of "writing someone off" in a positive light even though doing so can be the best and most positive thing you could do.

 

[Wolf]

It's not like writing people off and buring bodies are similar. I can't believe the idea of writing someone off is that foreign to some that it would appear so.

The problem is that others see it that way, just as Mycroft points out above.

 

[proteanmix]

It's not like writing people off and buring bodies are similar. I can't believe the idea of writing someone off is that foreign to some that it would appear so.

This is where the democratic nature of language fails us. The vast majority of human beings will stay in relationships that are not beneficial or even destructive out of some sort of misguided notion of "obligation", however they dress this notion up. As a result, all terms that refer to removing someone from your life, once you've assessed their involvement to be of no benefit or detrimental, have negative connotations. Simply put, there's no way of phrasing the notion of "writing someone off" in a positive light even though doing so can be the best and most positive thing you could do.

I think people get upset when they're written off because maybe they feel like the relationship is worth saving, they don't view you (general you) as just taking up space, and they're surprised when the other person doesn't feel similarly. Sometimes people stick out of obligation, but I find that's not as true as you think. If it's like Mycroft said, it's not destructive or beneficial, really not doing anything, what difference does it make for the relationship or person to still be there?

I look at it like this: I have a lamp sitting in the corner of my room that's just been there for more than a year. I keep looking at it thinking I should throw it away but it's not obstructing my path so it just stays there. Maybe one day I'll need it, maybe I'll throw it away this weekend. I don't know how my relationship to the lamp will change over time, and it's not harming me so it's no problem for it to just be there.

This is why I think people tend to react so strongly to INTJs. There is a mentality that people either need to serve a purpose and use or they should be removed. The INTJ thinks how do they relate to me, instead of asking how do I related to them. There's no joy of having people around just for them to be there. This can be (mis?)construed as misanthropy. Be useful or leave. Maybe they do serve a purpose, but you don't know what it is yet. IMO, to sever the relationship is foolish simply because you don't know what may develop (for your happiness or the other person's).

I think INTJs think they're being thorough in the possibilities but they continually miss the people aspect. This is also related to PR, people may see an INTJ treat others like this and when approached by an unsuspecting INTJ they react without knowing what the nature of the transaction will be. This is part of the intimidating aspect, a person thinks, they'll just cut me loose when they're done with me, why should I help them? People sense this attitude and they react very strongly to it, often not in a good way, and even more often antagonistically to what you're trying to do. Combine this with the INTJ trait of being standoffish and cool and it's just a mess. This then becomes a vicious cycle between INTJs and the rest of the population. Maybe this is why I take particular pleasure in annoying INTJs . Some kind of convoluted ass-backwards notion of helping them see that people don't need to just be a tool for the implementation of goals.

 

[Natrushka]

The problem is that others see it that way, just as Mycroft points out above.

Oh I know they do. I've heard about it from them. I just can't (refuse to?) believe they don't understand. Scratch that. I've given up trying to explain.

Proteanmix, at the risk of pointing out the obvious, people aren't lamps and lamps aren't people. Lamps don't let you down. Lamps don't lie to you. Insert "thing people do" and add "lamps don't do it". And while lamps also don't do the nice / warm fuzzy things people do - well sometimes the tradeoff isn't really a tradeoff. When I get to that point where I've had enough of something / someone then I've had enough - people aspect nothwithstanding.

Of course it takes quite the event to cause this to happen. Not much really annoys me and consequently I don't often feel this way.

This then becomes a vicious cycle between INTJs and the rest of the population.

For whom? When I "write someone off" I don't suffer. I typically feel a lot better.

I'd like to say more, but damn I'm late.

 

[proteanmix]

Proteanmix, at the risk of pointing out the obvious, people aren't lamps and lamps aren't people. Lamps don't let you down. Lamps don't lie to you. Insert "thing people do" and add "lamps don't do it". And while lamps also don't do the nice / warm fuzzy things people do - well sometimes the tradeoff isn't really a tradeoff. When I get to that point where I've had enough of something / someone then I've had enough - people aspect nothwithstanding.

Of course it takes quite the event to cause this to happen. Not much really annoys me and consequently I don't often feel this way.

I know lamps aren't people. It was an oversimplified example.

My main point is that when a relationship is neither positive nor negative, INTJs (the ones I know and the ones I've seen responding on the forum) tend to axe the relationship. I interpreted the INTJ writing someone off in this context as something that is done when a person serves no apparent purpose, not really doing anything good or bad. My point is what difference does it make, they're not doing anything so they should be left as they are. To take the extra step to "write the person off" creates a tension that wasn't there in the before. This contributes to the INTJ being viewed as intimidating. That is what the thread is about right?

If the person is dragging you down, by all means get rid of them. No one should have to put up with that and you're right to feel relieved.

 

[Natrushka]

My main point is that when a relationship is neither positive nor negative, INTJs (the ones I know and the ones I've seen responding on the forum) tend to axe the relationship. I interpreted the INTJ writing someone off in this context as something that is done when a person serves no apparent purpose, not really doing anything good or bad. My point is what difference does it make, they're not doing anything so they should be left as they are. To take the extra step to "write the person off" creates a tension that wasn't there in the before. This contributes to the INTJ being viewed as intimidating. That is what the thread is about right?.

Ah, I see what you're saying. I was responding directly to Wolf's comment about psychopaths and INTJs, not the OP.

When I write people off, it's not because they're indifferent in my world, or I am indifferent to them. It's because it's necessary. The case you give isn't something I would do. If someone is neither a positive nor a negative in my life they simply "are". They're usually not close enough to me to have much of an impact on how I live my life.

I prefer to be left to my own devices so I tend to leave others to their own devices as well. It isn't writing off, it's just how I am. If that makes sense. Just because I don't seek you out doesn't mean I'm done with you, or you're dead to me </italian grandmother voice>.

Of course if the people around the INTJ know that the writing off happens, that might be intimidating.

 

[Metamorphosis]

I know lamps aren't people. It was an oversimplified example.

My main point is that when a relationship is neither positive nor negative, INTJs (the ones I know and the ones I've seen responding on the forum) tend to axe the relationship. I interpreted the INTJ writing someone off in this context as something that is done when a person serves no apparent purpose, not really doing anything good or bad. My point is what difference does it make, they're not doing anything so they should be left as they are. To take the extra step to "write the person off" creates a tension that wasn't there in the before. This contributes to the INTJ being viewed as intimidating. That is what the thread is about right?

If the person is dragging you down, by all means get rid of them. No one should have to put up with that and you're right to feel relieved.

It is just something we do mentally. Although, I suppose we might project some kind of subconcious cues to that effect. It is normally something we do without thinking. It really isn't an extra step to write a person off. In fact, it's quite the opposite. We streamline.

 

[Natrushka]

Metamorphosis, do you 'write off' people who haven't betrayed your trust?

 

[Metamorphosis]

Yes. I think everyone is reading too much into it. When I walk in a room, I survey everyone. If it isn't a threat, something interesting, or an attractive female, than it gets written off. Once I realize they aren't important, they may as well not exist. It's not like I'm hurting their feelings. If they talk to me, I'll respond.

 

[ptgatsby]

It is just something we do mentally. Although, I suppose we might project some kind of subconcious cues to that effect. It is normally something we do without thinking. It really isn't an extra step to write a person off. In fact, it's quite the opposite. We streamline.

Metamorphosis, do you 'write off' people who haven't betrayed your trust?

As in, good friends with common interests for many many years, trying to start a business, not being compatible, and drifting completely apart.

INTJs write people off based on subjective values of the person. That's what is scary - any failure can make you a write off. It doesn't have to be a big thing... they just cease to have you in their 'inner circle'. No one likes having that happen to them, and the uncertainty of what causes it... that's the intimidation.

 

[Natrushka]

Edited to say:

You got in before me, pt.

Ok. I write people off. I just refer to it as being 'selective'.

 

[Metamorphosis]

As in, good friends with common interests for many many years, trying to start a business, not being compatible, and drifting completely apart.

INTJs write people off based on subjective values of the person. That's what is scary - any failure can make you a write off. It doesn't have to be a big thing... they just cease to have you in their 'inner circle'. No one likes having that happen to them, and the uncertainty of what causes it... that's the intimidation.

Ok. In that sense, I don't normally. I was moreso talking about random people. To write off someone who is close to me they have to have wronged me in some way (even if they aren't aware of it).

 

[Natrushka]

Ok. In that sense, I don't normally. I was moreso talking about random people. To write off someone who is close to me they have to have wronged me in some way (even if they aren't aware of it).

Ok, that is what I was referring to. I've always called it "dismissing someone". Usually they don't know about it.

 

[Park]

What is it about us that causes people to think that we are stand-offish, aloof, intimidating, etc.?

I use to think that it was my dry humor and sarcasm, but I've had waitresses stop in their tracks on the way to the table and then say something to the extent of, "Why are you looking at me like you hate me," when all I did was glance in their direction. This hasn't been an issue in awhile really, but I still find it interesting.

Hmm, my husband is an INTJ, my father an INTX and I have a INTJ friend as well. After a fair amount of though, I have to say, I don't find any of them intimidating and I don't find the INTJs I've meet online intimidating either. Stubborn, selfconfident, sometimes prejudiced but not intimidating in any way.

 

[htb]

That's what is scary - any failure can make you a write off.

It doesn't need to be. Think of it this way: every shortsighted dismissal (and it is caprice, I don't agree with a scrap of what's been said) is a bridge or two burnt. One really can't get very far -- or at least very far in more than one direction.