[INTJ] Why do people hate INTJs?

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

You are. And while Im capable of recognizing that, I also find that I lack the knowledge or natural inclinations or methods needed to 'handle' the way you prefer your emotions handled, which makes it hard to 'joke' with you guys

For what it's worth, I'm no longer sure that I have that figured out, either.

 

[greenfairy]

I use a lot of sarcasm on here.... do you pick up on that or not, or are you just constantly confused as to how much of a jackass as I am? In person it's probably more obvious.

No, I get when you're joking. I think. You're pretty straightforward. Some INTP's are difficult to understand, though. Like Mal+. I think I get when he's joking some of the time, I just don't understand what the heck he's saying when he's not being entirely literal, so that makes me question it.

 

[RaptorWizard]

No, I get when you're joking. I think. You're pretty straightforward. Some INTP's are difficult to understand, though. Like Mal+. I think I get when he's joking some of the time, I just don't understand what the heck he's saying when he's not being entirely literal, so that makes me question it.

I actually think [MENTION=13589]Mal+[/MENTION] is a very easy person, both in understanding his presented content, and even by interactive standards. He's good at phrasing things in ways that are light-hearted, yet also logical and well-reasoned, without any kind of blinding over-confidence behind it all. Of course, maybe that's just because I'm more similar to him than you are.

If you want an example of a highly convoluted and confusing INTP who uses way too much subjective thinking in mind-blowingly (in the bad way) detailed fashion, we need look no further than at um, well, [MENTION=7595]INTP[/MENTION].

 

[greenfairy]

If you want an example of a highly convoluted and confusing INTP who uses way too much subjective thinking in mind-blowingly (in the bad way) detailed fashion, we need look no further than at um, well, [MENTION=7595]INTP[/MENTION].

That's weird, I understand him pretty well.

 

[Mal12345]

I actually think [MENTION=13589]Mal+[/MENTION] is a very easy person, both in understanding his presented content, and even by interactive standards. He's good at phrasing things in ways that are light-hearted, yet also logical and well-reasoned, without any kind of blinding over-confidence behind it all. Of course, maybe that's just because I'm more similar to him than you are.

If you want an example of a highly convoluted and confusing INTP who uses way too much subjective thinking in mind-blowingly (in the bad way) detailed fashion, we need look no further than at um, well, [MENTION=7595]INTP[/MENTION].

I've made some adjustments to my online "presence" over the years...

 

[RaptorWizard]

I've made some adjustments to my online "presence" over the years...

Ah, so are you implying that you used to act more like INTP (the member) acts?

Whether yes or no, apparently you're either naturally more intelligible than he is and/or you've made better progress than he has.

 

[Mal12345]

Ah, so are you implying that you used to act more like INTP (the member) acts?

Whether yes or no, apparently you're either naturally more intelligible than he is and/or you've made better progress than he has.

At one time I was the only Kantian on an Objectivist forum. Things could get pretty vicious, or I would write on and on and on...

 

[RaptorWizard]

I don't know too much about Kant, but from my understanding, he's made a pretty vast systemization of knowledge into many distinct definitions and categories.

Sure, there may be a lot of structure to that kind of thinking, but it's also very solid and expansive.

From my understanding, many INTJs are opposed to that kind of thinking, like it boxes them in or something.

In my opinion though, it really makes the old boxes explode, and puts new ones in their place.

We can illustrate this principle in elegant fashion with Newton's quote here (and yes, I know he's an INTJ [but the point I'm making remains]): You have to make the rules, not follow them.

 

[Mal12345]

I don't know too much about Kant, but from my understanding, he's made a pretty vast systemization of knowledge into many distinct definitions and categories.

Sure, there may be a lot of structure to that kind of thinking, but it's also very solid and expansive.

From my understanding, many INTJs are opposed to that kind of thinking, like it boxes them in or something.

In my opinion though, it really makes the old boxes explode, and puts new ones in their place.

We can illustrate this principle in elegant fashion with Newton's quote here (and yes, I know he's an INTJ [but the point I'm making remains]): You have to make the rules, not follow them.

How Kantian!

 

[Evo]

And, citizens, how are you thinking you're talking about a type other than your own? First and foremost here you are announcing your own preferences. And then making up, for the most part, bullshit about how other another type operates. These "insights" lack value until you determine where they came from. That means, you distinguish your type from the other types. You find out how you operate and what you want. You discover what unconscious horseshit you're piling on the table, and then perhaps you say why you're calling it lunch.


^knee-jerk "Fi"

I mostly agree with what you're saying here (I think)

But I am getting the impression that you're saying it's all, only about oneself?

If that is what you mean, (which I mostly believe that everything in life that happens "to" someone, is simply a mirror/reflection of themselves) it seems as though you're speaking of independence.

Are you?

If so, aren't we all interconnected?

[MENTION=15886]superunknown[/MENTION]

To try to equate Creationists with Ni users, if that's what you just did, is a dumb and false conflation, so that's your error in reasoning.

Also, it is not simply a feedback loop if the NJ has removed themself from the infantile states of being and 1) started balancing their introversion and extroversion (for INJs, developing their aux Je function), and 2) recognized and severed their problematic relationship with their shadow, and learned the importance of assimilating/merging these functions into their consciousness (i.e., develop their tertiary and inferior Ji and Se functions). The better a job the NJ has done at these two things, the less the issues that you complain of will be present in them.

Yea I believe #1 and #2 are pretty necessary

Creationists are like textbook Ni. Particularly the doomspeakers. If you don't see the correlation you've never read Jung or anything he based the S/N dichotomy off of.

I'm almost surprised you aren't aware of how notoriously bad intuition is documented as being. Check out "Thinking Fast and Slow".

I don't agree.

One of the purposes of Ni is to take info in, and reference it with what has already happend, for the result of improvement.

Ni is always evolving...which is different from Creationism. (kind opposite actually )

***

And I am in the middle of a video now of Prof. Daniel Kahneman. He is expaining Ni mixed with Fi....

He gives an example of the halo effect....that's Fi

Alone Ni only has associative coherence. Not emotional.

This is what I mean, by Te has to be developed. To evaluate the associations made by Ni.

He uses the example: that if you hear president Obama, and like his politics, you'll probably like his voice. But if you don't like his politics you'll probably notice that he has very big ears.

That example is a combination of Ni and Fi. That's the system 1 he's talking about.

(And System two has Te and Se in it)

But he is referring to the the loop.

***

I agree with him about the narrow thinking as it can pertain to Ni in cases where it gets bogged down by details.

The example he gives is : You will treat each choice as if it is the only one.

And, that relates to inf Se.

And that's where I can see what you mean I think.

But as Zara said one has to learn the importance of assimilating the inf.

***

As relating to the op though, and narcissism, I still don't get the link between narcissim and inf Se.

I'm assuming it's because I am biased and somewhere along life decided I value Ni more than Se. (which, that just means it's a preference)

Because at first glance, INTJs tend to be stand-offish and give off a sense of superiority behind their Te-walls. Ime, what really is going on is observation of the situation and keeping people at an arms length to keep themselves safe as they evaluate that situation.

Once they get past that phase, there is the condescension danger. Some INTJs will determine on their very personal Fi-values whether or not others are worthy of their admittedly limited energy and time - as we all do, btw, they 're just more...visceral about it. Which in itself can rightfully be experienced as condescension.

After this, some people have their own values, prejudice and jump-to-conclusions problems which leads to dislike of said INTJ

yes, perfect.

I think its a TeFi vs FeTi thing

I have the same difficulty in gauging this stuff with NTPs for instance, especially with Fe-related humor coz I'm never quite sure how...much they adhere to social etiquette and therefore, what is up for grabs humor-wise and what is considered a no-no, whereas to FJs it seems often self-evident.

I guess for me, in this particular example, it is clear that an INTJ, unless incredibly immature and/or deluded, is not going to deny the Holocaust. That would be preposterous to Te. It's a well documented fact and no self-respecting INTJ would deny that in any serious fashion, unless he is capable and willing to back it up. Therefore, to utter such a thing to someone that does not know them very well, is proof of ulterior motive. Since INTJs rarely care for public opinion nor respect those that misinterpret who they are without first attempting to understand their pov (pesky tertiary Fi), they have no qualms trying to sell you such drivel and consider you the moron if you buy it hook, line and sinker.

Did I mention the condescension issue?

(You have the interpreter gift too! )

It seems respecting choice is often misread as being condescending. If someone has decided they want to eat shit, I let them. The alternative, which is telling them to stop eating shit (if they want to associate with me), seems far more condescending to me as it invalidates their choice. Also, I see eating shit as a symptom of an underlying character flaw. So, whether they stop eating it or not, they are unlikely to be the kind of person I would want to associate with anyway. One might call that condescension, but then having a distaste for shit must also be condescension - and who would want to argue that?

^that's some funny shit. (lol)

 

[Amargith]

yes, perfect.

(You have the interpreter gift too! )

Why thank you. It is, after all, my trade.

 

[SensEye]

Perhaps. No amount of telling me I'm wrong or even insulting me will make me question my intelligence. Generally, only two things can make me do that: (1) recognizing I have made a serious mistake or error in judgment; and (2) meeting someone who really is much more intelligent than I am.

I feel exactly the same way. I would mention in passing I think INTJs are the most likely to behave in this way though (i.e. question your intelligence and just tell you you're wrong when you don't agree with them). Those INTJs can get on your nerves. But those are the worst examples of their type.

Overall though, I get along well with INTJ's. They share the NT rational approach to analyzing things, so generally they are fun to engage in discussions.

 

[Jaguar]

Why do people hate INTJs. . . does the punch line involve a chicken and a road?

 

[Society]

On average, this is likely correct, but then Ni-doms are a small minority of the population. If practice makes perfect, or at least improvement, types who prefer Ni and use it more will become better at it than others. That tendency to stand by our intuitions comes from a track record of their being correct, especially in certain areas or circumstances. I can almost assign a confidence level to my Ni ideas, and usually come fairly close.

interestingly enough, dario nardi's research observes that generally speaking, Ni doms seem to be the exception to the notion of practice makes perfect (in contrast with Si doms, for whom practice really does make perfect):

(not sure if timed links work here - if it doesn't jump to 13 minutes in)

ofcourse this is measured by practicing in relations to specific sorts of problems - that's not to say that Ni doms don't on some level practice Ni as a whole each time they are presented with a new problem (i'll expand on that bellow) - but Ni seems to not necessarily improve by practice so much as improve by the accumulation of connectable knowledge to the problem.

the reason might be that unlike judging functions, much of the attributes we associate with the perception functions aren't quite related to specific areas in the brain so much as the general state from which the brain functions best (Se in the "bunny hop" mode, Ne in the "Christmas tree" mode, Ni in "the flow" mode, and please can someone come up with better names for this shit?), so the act of learning by practice - reinforced wiring in any particular area - isn't going to make the general state more easily accessible (this holds true to Si - even if improving via practice works for them to better grasp a type of problem, it isn't necessarily going to improve their general Si, or mine for that matter)... as a result, improving the abilities we associate with our perception functions isn't a matter of using them more so much as it is a matter of arming them with the mental resources they can best utilize.

 

[PimpinMcBoltage]

IMO it seems like a good deal of INTJs are generally warmer to me. I don't know why though, maybe it's the tad bit more focus on thinking than on feeling that makes them seem more vibrant and raw than INFJs are. Which seem to be very composed in my experiences. It can create some very welcoming people in a way.

I might just be kind of weird in this respect though.

 

[violet_crown]

Most people hate what they don't understand.

 

[Evo]

Persons don't exist prior to cognitive preference. If they did, there'd be no need for typology, or possibly even psychology. But for "preference" to be capable of sustaining a person, it can't be whim or fancy. Preference must be as much about rejecting cognition as it is about specialising cognition. If it weren't, no stable, substantial person could evolve. Whim and fancy for which principle of organisation to follow would break apart the evolving mental structures, undermining the principles on which they exist.

So, people bring unconscious bias to their gunfights maybe even more than they bring conscious concern. Conscious concern they can direct and develop; unconscious bias they can't even see. Meaning, it's not all and only about oneself, but one's self plays likely a big enough role in how and what you know that it might be worth looking in to.

Glad I'm on the same page.

*********

I'm almost surprised you aren't aware of how notoriously bad intuition is documented as being. Check out "Thinking Fast and Slow".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qzJxAmJmj8w

I watched the whole thing now, and boy am I glad I didn't waste my time reading something he wrote.

He says people are doomed because they're risk adverse....but at the SAME time doomed because they're optimistic. -_-

Makes no sense.

*********


does anyone know why I can't edit my post in this thread on pg.12? Is it TypoC or is it my computer?

 

[Coriolis]

It's hard for me to tell, because they say or do things that contradict that... but i can never know if that's just because people's beliefs don't always line up logically and make coherent sense.

One thing often said about INTJs is that we have no problem making a good case for an opinion we don't actually hold. In fact, it can be good fun to do so, especially if we are speaking with someone who seems gullible, pretentious, obnoxious, or otherwise in need of being shown a thing or two. This is a good way to handle people like holocaust deniers. See also Amargith's comment below. She knows how it is done.

I guess for me, in this particular example, it is clear that an INTJ, unless incredibly immature and/or deluded, is not going to deny the Holocaust. That would be preposterous to Te. It's a well documented fact and no self-respecting INTJ would deny that in any serious fashion, unless he is capable and willing to back it up. Therefore, to utter such a thing to someone that does not know them very well, is proof of ulterior motive. Since INTJs rarely care for public opinion nor respect those that misinterpret who they are without first attempting to understand their pov (pesky tertiary Fi), they have no qualms trying to sell you such drivel and consider you the moron if you buy it hook, line and sinker.

In the right circumstances this is incredibly gratifying -- and entertaining for those who recognize the game.

I think there's a bad generalization out there that only Ni-doms can be uber-mystical people.

This would be a bad generalization. I have found INFPs, for instance, generally to be more mystical than INTJs.

Please, the last thing I need to be doing is bowing down before those who have bigger brains than my own, simply because "I'm wrong and they're right".

If you really think that it's wise for me to not question those higher up in the social-intellectual heirarchy, then you're just as foolish in certain ways as you may be wise and perceptive in other ones.

Of course, you still will question yourself, and probably do a better job with it than at least 90% of people or so, but that doesn't mean you should have all confidence in certain things just because the evidence and your reasoning all integrated together supposedly make it a certainty.

First, better intuition != bigger (or better) brains, just ones wired differently. I'm not telling you not to question, just not to let the legitimate questions keep you from trusting Ni judgment when push comes to shove. The highlighted is my point, and what I said before about assigning confidence levels shows that we don't assign "all confidence" to our intuitions, but we have a pretty good idea how reliable they are (or not) in a given instance.

the reason might be that unlike judging functions, much of the attributes we associate with the perception functions aren't quite related to specific areas in the brain so much as the general state from which the brain functions best (Se in the "bunny hop" mode, Ne in the "Christmas tree" mode, Ni in "the flow" mode, and please can someone come up with better names for this shit?), so the act of learning by practice - reinforced wiring in any particular area - isn't going to make the general state more easily accessible (this holds true to Si - even if improving via practice works for them to better grasp a type of problem, it isn't necessarily going to improve their general Si, or mine for that matter)... as a result, improving the abilities we associate with our perception functions isn't a matter of using them more so much as it is a matter of arming them with the mental resources they can best utilize.

It is almost the same thing, though, inasmuch as I described Ni as experiencing more than learning. The practice that improves Ni isn't deliberate, repetitive, even conscious practice. It is rather the unconscious daily application of the function to an ever increasing pool of experiences. The more it processes, and the more it has to process, the more accurate it becomes. I don't know if this is a correct explanation, but I do know my own intuition, or at least by justified confidence in it, has increased substantially since I was a teenager.

 

[Society]

The more it processes, and the more it has to process, the more accurate it becomes. I don't know if this is a correct explanation, but I do know my own intuition, or at least by justified confidence in it, has increased substantially since I was a teenager.

because you use it more or because you have more dots to connect? obviously based on what's being gathered the answer can be both as much as either one - but as i said, there's reason to think it might the later (evidence that Ni dom children do not get better at problem solving through traditional practice), and the reason this distinction is important to the discussion (with [MENTION=15886]superunknown[/MENTION]) is because while making connections between those dots is Ni, the accumulation of those dot's in the first place might not be - at least going by Jung, the accumulation and attention towards self-evident and factual knowledge is largely attributed to Se.

 

[Evo]

interestingly enough, dario nardi's research observes that generally speaking, Ni doms seem to be the exception to the notion of practice makes perfect (in contrast with Si doms, for whom practice really does make perfect):

(not sure if timed links work here - if it doesn't jump to 13 minutes in)

ofcourse this is measured by practicing in relations to specific sorts of problems - that's not to say that Ni doms don't on some level practice Ni as a whole each time they are presented with a new problem (i'll expand on that bellow) - but Ni seems to not necessarily improve by practice so much as improve by the accumulation of connectable knowledge to the problem.

the reason might be that unlike judging functions, much of the attributes we associate with the perception functions aren't quite related to specific areas in the brain so much as the general state from which the brain functions best (Se in the "bunny hop" mode, Ne in the "Christmas tree" mode, Ni in "the flow" mode, and please can someone come up with better names for this shit?), so the act of learning by practice - reinforced wiring in any particular area - isn't going to make the general state more easily accessible (this holds true to Si - even if improving via practice works for them to better grasp a type of problem, it isn't necessarily going to improve their general Si, or mine for that matter)... as a result, improving the abilities we associate with our perception functions isn't a matter of using them more so much as it is a matter of arming them with the mental resources they can best utilize.

Yo homie, how dare you bring truth to the table!!! (j/k)

This is kinda actually exciting, that they were able to use typology in a practical and tangible way.