INXJ closed-minded certitude

[Economica]

Twice now I have posted the following regarding what I find is the most common, vexing and self-destructive problem area for INTJs (and possibly INFJs?), namely closed-minded certitude:

We INTJs base a lot of our self-esteem on being insightful and decisive, but we are not always right - and that's okay. Making errors (of fact and of judgment) is forgivable. (People don't mind that we are not perfectly oracular. Really! ) Refusing to recognize and own up to our errors, however, costs us serious points. And it's idiotic, really, given that we aren't fooling anyone, just alienating them. Some strategists!

The single follow-up I have gotten is from an INTJ who wrote:

Oh, and Economica - speak for yourself. I'm always right.

So I figure it's time for a poll. I'm making it multiple so that non-INXJs can vote on their experience with both types.

 

[ptgatsby]

So I figure it's time for a poll. I'm making it multiple so that non-INXJs can vote on their experience with both types.

When teaching my GF about MBTI, and about her INTJ personality, I explained it like this:

INTJs are always right. It's not that they are "objectively" right, it's that, right of this moment, they are right. If it turns out that they were wrong about something, they change it... and of course, that means they are right again. Since the change is instant, they are never wrong... always right, always certain.

The one exception is when they don't know how to act. In cases like this they tend to become very flustered. They will leap onto some mode of acting that isn't natural - could be emotional, like dating, or it could be outside their expertise (they know what they know, which is everything they know - same concept) and be forced to make a decision/act without being comfortable with it... in those cases, they don't have their confidence. And then they aren't quite as "right".

But otherwise? Always right. Always.

(edit: I said that I find all INTJs suffer from this because... every INTJ I have known has... but that's only a handful, so yah. However, it is so pronounced in all of them, I think it is fairly common. I also find it with ENTJs and with xSTJs, although there is a difference in terms of confidence. I've seen ESTJs reading the procedure bible while the house is burning down, so to speak... and convincing an ISTJ that something they hold onto is wrong is even harder than with INTJs.)

 

[Economica]

I also find it with ENTJs and with xSTJs, although there is a difference in terms of confidence. I've seen ESTJs reading the procedure bible while the house is burning down, so to speak... and convincing an ISTJ that something they hold onto is wrong is even harder than with INTJs.)

Yeah, I know other types suffer from closed-minded certitude too. However, when it's run by Ni it really seems to cause the most damage for all involved.

Also, my interest is in improving quality of discussion on this board and we don't have a lot of Si havoc-wreaking here... <insert joke about Sona>

 

[Athenian200]

It's hard to say, really. I've occasionally been closed-minded, but I've never been really been free of doubt. And if I see a good reason that I might have been mistaken, I'll try to reexamine my views. Although sometimes it can hard to dispel a view that I've held for a long time.

I'm an INFJ.

 

[Totenkindly]

...I also find it with ENTJs and with xSTJs, although there is a difference in terms of confidence. I've seen ESTJs reading the procedure bible while the house is burning down, so to speak... and convincing an ISTJ that something they hold onto is wrong is even harder than with INTJs.)

Word.

Also, my interest is in improving quality of discussion on this board and we don't have a lot of Si havoc-wreaking here... <insert joke about Sona>

And don't forget all those closet ESTJs either!

 

[The Ü™]

I don't know if I'm exactly closed-minded or just stubborn. I'm very weary of trying new things and get anxiety when I leave my habits. I also get convinced of my own conceptions. I withdraw when I get into an argument over difference of opinion, saying I don't want to fight anymore, but that doesn't mean I changed my views.

 

[Natrushka]

But otherwise? Always right. Always.

No wonder she loves you!

and convincing an ISTJ that something they hold onto is wrong is even harder than with INTJs.

Amen.

 

[cafe]

When I was younger I used to care more about proving I was right. Now, it isn't as much of a big deal.

I am pretty sure I do this:

INTJs are always right. It's not that they are "objectively" right, it's that, right of this moment, they are right. If it turns out that they were wrong about something, they change it... and of course, that means they are right again. Since the change is instant, they are never wrong... always right, always certain.

Maybe not to the INTJ extreme, I don't know. The weird thing is that I never know when a change in my thinking is going to happen or even how it happens. Sometimes I can see it coming, but it's not a conscious thing. It's like a switch in my head flips while I'm not looking and the next time I'm thinking about it, I've totally changed my mind and am just as certain about the new opinion as I was about the old.

Other times it's very conscious, but it's more a result of an epiphany and those are usually unanticipated.

I am confusing even to me.

I haven't really suffered much for it, though, that I can think of, though I may have inflicted suffering on others.

Edit: For the poll, I probably suffer from it but I am not working to overcome it. I think awareness of it is about the best I can do with this thing. It's too innate and hard-wired in. I didn't see that option.

 

[Langrenus]

Twice now I have posted the following regarding what I find is the most common, vexing and self-destructive problem area for INTJs (and possibly INFJs?), namely closed-minded certitude:



The single follow-up I have gotten is from an INTJ who wrote:





So I figure it's time for a poll. I'm making it multiple so that non-INXJs can vote on their experience with both types.

Protest! Where's the "I am an INTJ and I believe that I suffer from it, and I intend to carry on pretending to be ignorant to the issue" option?

On a more serious note, I think you've identified an inherent weakness, but calling it closed-minded certitude is unfair - and I'm always right, so there. As pt points out, we can actually be very flexible in light of new information. I am a master of making assertions and then quietly moulding them as people present new (read contradictory) information, until by the end of the argument they never know where we started and have agreed with the conclusion I've reached. Clearly this works better in person than on a message board, which is probably why I self-censor so much here and withdraw from making posts; it's not pleasant to have people present quotes halfway through a discussion, since I feel compelled to defend them even if I was wrong (how this will come back to haunt me...)

I read somewhere that INTJ's have a deep-seated desire to demonstrate competence in everything they do, and this certainly rings true for me. Thus I'm not closed-minded...I'll just argue until I'm blue in the face to prove that I'm correct (and so 'competent') in the area being discussed. Fortunately most people are too lazy to challenge after a while, but it can be an incredibly dangerous aspect of our personalities.

Thanks for trying to improve the quality of content here. Oh, and don't quote me - it means I can't lie in the poll

 

[ptgatsby]

No wonder she loves you!

Oh, I've tempered you, haven't I dear? (I'm sure she'll have something to say on this )

Best way to crush the INTJ's problem? Make them keep track of how often they are wrong. Statistics > INTJ worldview.



But to me... and to keep it in perspective... it's the counterpart to the INTP "unwilling to act" routine. Sometimes it's good to have someone to balance you, but in general, the J ends up ahead... simply because acting is better than not. Regardless, balance is the keyword here.

Back on the ESTJ thing - see, if an ESTJ can't find the answer in the procedure book, they'll read it again. And again. The answer must be there. And if it isn't, then they'll look to authority to resolve it. The INTJ, however, will make up their own solution. That is what makes it dangerous. They do not have be bound by a ruleset. The healthy INTJ will be confident and ever changing, making the best choices possible and acting on them as needed. The unhealthy INTJ will be confident but will change only to avoid being wrong - not to be right. The objective in the first is to solve in accordance with reality; the other is to protect their ego (read: their built up structured data).

 

[Varelse]

INTJs are always right. It's not that they are "objectively" right, it's that, right of this moment, they are right. If it turns out that they were wrong about something, they change it... and of course, that means they are right again. Since the change is instant, they are never wrong... always right, always certain.

Elwin does that. Sadly.

And he also accuses me of not listening to him when he goes into his lecture mode...because I don't agree with him.

Maybe that's better than being indecisive, though.

 

[cafe]

My daughter is so funny because she will make some assertion without thinking much about it as if it is Absolute Truth, then I will tell her that she is wrong and why. If I'm undeniably right, she will say "Exactly!"

It's like watching a cat commit some ungraceful act, then immediately begin bathing itself. "I meant to do that!"

 

[Natrushka]

Oh, I've tempered you, haven't I dear? (I'm sure she'll have something to say on this )

Meh, it is what it is; the truth. Anyone who makes an effort to try to understand us (INTJs) is worthy just by the very act. It doesn't hurt if you appeal to the ego - and if you're right.

 

[Mycroft]

I don't think that I'm "always right" by any stretch of the imagination. In any given situation, I make the best decision I can with the time and information at my disposal. Am I wrong occasionally? Of course. However, even factoring in the backtracking and patchwork my misfires necessitate, I get more accomplished by a long shot than all of my P friends who sit around hoping to find that one perfect solution. (And, guess what, even with all of their waiting around to find that "perfect plan", their plans misfire sometimes, too!)

As stressed by Clausewitz, a good commander realizes when the tactics have failed and recalculates accordingly, never forsaking the overall strategy.

 

[Totenkindly]

My daughter is so funny because she will make some assertion without thinking much about it as if it is Absolute Truth, then I will tell her that she is wrong and why. If I'm undeniably right, she will say "Exactly!"

It's like watching a cat commit some ungraceful act, then immediately begin bathing itself. "I meant to do that!"

Sigh. That *really* sounds like my daughter.

I don't think that I'm "always right" by any stretch of the imagination...

Far too many pokes to make, far too many to choose from...

 

[Kyrielle]

I don't know. Sometimes I'm very certain about something for reasons even I can't figure out...more often than not I'm partially correct (which can annoy people when I say, "See! I was kind of right!")

I can get stubborn about an opinion sometimes, and it doesn't even mean that I think I'm "right." It just means that I have a certain perception that I can't seem to shake or reason away, so it can lead to some pretty close-minded views. I seem to find these views whenever I have a discussion with my SO about some topic I either don't fully understand or have a pre-existing perception. He usually tries to help me reason myself out of it, and most of the time it works...though there's the occasional opinion that won't budge--that I WANT to budge. Right now, I'm trying to work through a particular issue that caused a recent argument between us...I swear it's like trying to push a 5-ton block sometimes.

 

[Economica]

Gone two hours and so much of substance to reply to!

(Blackwater, this post is for you. )

I haven't really suffered much for it, though, that I can think of, though I may have inflicted suffering on others.

Edit: For the poll, I probably suffer from it but I am not working to overcome it. I think awareness of it is about the best I can do with this thing. It's too innate and hard-wired in. I didn't see that option.

I believe that becoming aware of the extent and intensity to which one suffers from closed-minded certitude constitutes the bulk of the work one has to do to overcome it, because it's the ego-wrenching part. Once wallowing in the magnitude of one's idiocy , taking steps to improve attains paramount importance. (We want to get back to being inculpable as soon as we can, right? ) So I suggest that those who acknowledge some CC tendencies but feel unmotivated to modify their behavior in any way vote for the "never suffered from it" option.

Protest! Where's the "I am an INTJ and I believe that I suffer from it, and I intend to carry on pretending to be ignorant to the issue" option?

Does the above answer your question?

On a more serious note, I think you've identified an inherent weakness, but calling it closed-minded certitude is unfair - and I'm always right, so there. As pt points out, we can actually be very flexible in light of new information. I am a master of making assertions and then quietly moulding them as people present new (read contradictory) information, until by the end of the argument they never know where we started and have agreed with the conclusion I've reached. Clearly this works better in person than on a message board, which is probably why I self-censor so much here and withdraw from making posts; it's not pleasant to have people present quotes halfway through a discussion, since I feel compelled to defend them even if I was wrong (how this will come back to haunt me...)

Yes, when faced with an incontrovertible argument, INXJs will in fact often concede the point and update our opinion, but (like you describe) we do so silently and preserve appearances of having been right all along. This is only academically better than the self-deceiving variant, because the effect on our relationships with other people is the same. People who humor the practice get along very well with INXJs, but the song-and-dance still detracts from the INXJ's total package, whereas people who are impatient with the practice are subjected to aggressive (for INTJs, anyway) rationalization and if this fails, summarily avoided. All else equal, the INXJ's problematic behavior lowers the quality of the company the INXJ gets to keep.

This brings me to the reason why I believe (/hope ) that becoming fully aware of one's CC raises one's odds of overcoming it to 1. I touched upon it in the OP, but restating it won't hurt:

Being wrong sometimes does not hurt our standing with other people.

In fact, those close to us are already well acquainted with our fallibility - and when we start to recognize it too, they like and respect us more for it!

So ironically (since we are eternal improvement-seekers), our biggest problem, once acknowledged, is easy to fix. After our ego has fully accepted the imperfection of our judgment, qualifying statements, conceding points and openly admitting errors becomes no big deal (though admittedly it does take some practice ).

So why is it so difficult for INXJs to truly acknowledge our CC (I refer, of course, only to those of us who suffer from it )? I believe the cause of our denial is actually pretty simple. What is the core competency of an INXJ that we trade in the social marketplace? What is the unique value that we bring to our relationships with other people? Even if well-rounded (and hence possessing to some degree the hallmark qualities of other types), what is likely to make up the foundation for our identity is our insightfulness. No wonder we are scared when we perceive it is threatened. (And no wonder we are uncomfortable around ESXPs, the types who are the least likely to appreciate it.)

Best way to crush the INTJ's problem? Make them keep track of how often they are wrong. Statistics > INTJ worldview.

You said it.

I would add that doing it lovingly is key. Whip and carrot.

Far too many pokes to make, far too many to choose from...

Psst, Jen, just hinting at a reality check budges an INXJ not an inch.

 

[Dark Razor]

Mh, maybe I can add an ENTJ perspective here. I do not think that I am always right, this depends on what I am talking about, usually I will only comment on something with a definite statement if I have thoroughly researched the subject, otherwise I am more likely to ask assertive questions about the topic and then try to enter the discussion based on the information that is provided by the answers.

If I have researched something then it may look as if my statements are definite, but I usually expect that they could at least be partially wrong because it is impossible to review all the available information on a subject, so there is always the possibility of missing something that some person who has researched the subject from a different angle could point out and so develop both our understanding of the issue, though that is often not apparent from my presentation style.

However I usually have no patience with people who question the whole premise of the discussion/topic, so I will usually dismiss them. Once I have established that the premise is true (and I will be thorough with that) I expect others to accept that as fact and go from there, the rest of the issue is still open for dispute, but the premise is not, and if you refuse to accept that then you're out.

Of course I also act that way if I am wrong about the premise, though in that case it will usually become quickly apparent that I'm in fact wrong, which is of course highly emberassing and will cause me to become quite annoyed with myself (which will often look as if I am annoyed with my discussion partner). In that case I will try to learn about the correct way as fast as possible so that I become capable of taking the lead again.

If there are two mutually exclusive views of something, a popular example would be creationism vs. science, then I believe there is "right" and "wrong" and I do not accept the other side as a valid viewpoint because it is simply not true and should be changed. So I would for example not permit intelligent design to be taught in school but rather ban it from all discussion in school and set the goal of getting everyone to accept evolution as fact, as it should be. I realize this might sound scary to some , of course not all issues are that clearly black and white, but I think it is very important to be able to distinguish which topics are black and white and which are not, and many people can't do that from my experience. Some people are always trying to inject some grey area that sometimes just is not there and so they unnecessarily delay decisions.

 

[FemMecha]

So what exactly is Ni then? I often hear it explained as being able to view a scenario from multiple perspectives. That would seem to be the opposite of what you describe here, and yet it is the primary function of both INTJs and INFJs. I am getting so confused.

I also have no way to answer the original poll. The potential for irony is dizzying. I do find myself exploring a somewhat devil's advocate position in relationship to whomever I am discussing to be certain all sides are viewed. My entire mind is also in a deep state of flux in which there is virtually nothing I am certain of. I wrestle to approach politics, religion, philosophy, etc. because I view most sides simultaneously. It's very difficult to reach a decision unless it is in something in which I have been viewing every side for a long time, then when opportunity arises, I settle on the best plan, shut my eyes, and leap. I actually wish I could have more certainty. I'm getting rather tired of this endless expanse of grey. But am I certain of not being certain?

One of my quests in life is to find people willing to discuss ideas at a distance. That way I can explore multiple sides without constantly having to define my position. When analyzing, I prefer to lose myself completely so that personal opinion is dissolved into the greater sea of information. On those rare occassions when I have reached a conclusion, I don't mind debate except when it is cheap and quick. When people use personality, bluff, and arrogance in place of a well thought out position, i get really frustrated. I wouldn't bother presenting a position if I hadn't put a lot of thought into it. I appreciate when others have done the same. Mindless dismissal will make me appear far more opinionated than I actually am.

edit: Isn't Si more about certainty? Isn't Ni somewhat opposite? or somehow similar? Bah!! now i'm getting confused about type again.

 

[Athenian200]

So what exactly is Ni then? I often hear it explained as being able to view a scenario from multiple perspectives. That would seem to be the opposite of what you describe here, and yet it is the primary function of both INTJs and INFJs. I am getting so confused.

Ni is the ability to view a scenario from multiple perspectives. It's just that some INTJ's and INFJ's tend to use that ability to look at the scenario that showed their original thinking to be inaccurate in such a way that they believe they realized the answer before, or that the correct answer fits into their original thinking, and they simply failed to mention that aspect. Sometimes this looks arrogant (especially with INTJ's), but in fact it's just how their thoughts work. In reality, I doubt any of them ever truly believe that any particular perspective (even their own) is universally valid. I've learned how to show that I'm stating an opinion, and not say things in such a way that I'm perceived as being completely sure of myself. The way I look at things is, I have many opinions and rules that apply to things from my preferred perspective(s), but they may be completely meaningless or different from a different perspective.

I also have no way to answer the original poll. The potential for irony is dizzying. I do find myself exploring a somewhat devil's advocate position in relationship to whomever I am discussing to be certain all sides are viewed. My entire mind is also in a deep state of flux in which there is virtually nothing I am certain of. I wrestle to approach politics, religion, philosophy, etc. because I view most sides simultaneously. It's very difficult to reach a decision unless it is in something in which I have been viewing every side for a long time, then when opportunity arises, I settle on the best plan, shut my eyes, and leap. I actually wish I could have more certainty. I'm getting rather tired of this endless expanse of grey. But am I certain of not being certain?

I'm not certain what that implies, but from my usual perspective, that would indicate a strong tendency toward Ni.

One of my quests in life is to find people willing to discuss ideas at a distance. That way I can explore multiple sides without constantly having to define my position. When analyzing, I prefer to lose myself completely so that personal opinion is dissolved into the greater sea of information. On those rare occasions when I have reached a conclusion, I don't mind debate except when it is cheap and quick. When people use personality, bluff, and arrogance in place of a well thought out position, i get really frustrated. I wouldn't bother presenting a position if I hadn't put a lot of thought into it. I appreciate when others have done the same. Mindless dismissal will make me appear far more opinionated than I actually am.

This is mostly how I tend to be as well. I really don't like it when someone dismisses or berates my ideas without even really looking at them, or worse, uses their influence to discredit/dismiss them. I'm also bothered when I see someone doing this to another person. However, if they can explain their perspective, I'm happy to hear it.

edit: Isn't Si more about certainty? Isn't Ni somewhat opposite? or somehow similar? Bah!! now i'm getting confused about type again.

Actually, I recently put forth an idea that Ni is more the opposite side of Se than Si. I believe that Ni and Si can actually look very similar because they are both introverted perceiving functions. Tell me if you can relate to this idea:

Se and Ni both deal with reality as it happens, believe it or not. Se simply appears to look outwardly at reality as it happens, and unconsciously is reacting to an abstract model of it created by the senses and mind, believing it to be reality. In other words, Ni works unconsicously, creating a representation of reality. Because we only perceive things in our minds, through our senses, we cannot see reality, only a representation of it. Whoever said, "We do not see things as they are, we see things as we are" was quite correct.

Ni is a bit different. It focuses on the creation of the abstraction itself, aware that it is only creating a representation of reality. With the awareness of your mind constructing this abstraction, you have to consciously focus on creating it. But with this awareness, you aren't limited to representations of reality. You can take an awareness of any given thing, and represent it internally. Se works unconsciously, feeding data from the senses with which you consciously try to create the abstractions. In other words, Se perceives the "reality", Ni perceives the internal construction of the "reality".