[INTJ] Why do people hate INTJs?

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

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.

Ok.... I had not considered this... that being said, there is something that does not compute for me.

In another thread, you stated that you dislike people reading things into your words at not taking them at face value. I am sorry, but I cannot reconcile that with this. We're supposed to take your words at face value, except for when you're not?

Since INTJs tend to be blunt and not beat around the bush, this means I actually do take their words at face value, unlike with some other types. This means that when they argue for something that is harmful or false, I also take this at face value. I have no way to separate the wheat from the chaff, at least in a text-only environement. Perhaps, in person, their would be things I could use.

This is also the issue I have with being told to "trust" their Ni statements when they are not backed up by anything more than pieces of evidence with no connective tissue. No, I don't see it. And I'm not going to accept any of it just because you said so. I cannot separate the wheat from the chaff and determine which things are off the wall crazy (especially if they're thrown in alongside Holocaust denial) and which things are of value and are worth intellectual consideration. People say dumb shit all the time... I don't say any reason to act as though it as worth of consideration as something insightful.

If I treated all of it as if it actually made sense and tried to unravel it, I'd have no framework at all, and would be flitting from one viewpoint to the other. All because someone farted out someone because they had a fight with their girlfriend or something. This is why I look for emotional content and what is going on underneath.

I like intellectual stimulation, but I cannot afford to take anything anyone says ever as though it had equal weight, because then I'd be insane. My introverted thinking is not that fast, so doing that would paralyze me. To some extent, I already have this problem.

 

[Society]

This is also the issue I have with being told to "trust" their Ni statements when they are not backed up by anything more than pieces of evidence with no connective tissue. No, I don't see it. And I'm not going to accept any of it just because you said so.

to be fair, i've never actually seen @Coriolis do that... each and every time i've conversed with her or was in the same thread as her she has given very clear explanations and reasoning.

(also if i remember correctly i think she's married to an INTP, so i am guessing she is comfortable side by side with Ti reasoning).

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

to be fair, i've never actually seen @Coriolis do that... each and every time i've conversed with her or being in the same thread as her she has given very clear explanations and reasoning.

I haven't seen her do that either, but there are definitely INTJs that do. I don't hate them though, it's just kind of eye-rolling for the most part.

Still, she was explaining what was going on, and I was explaining why that annoys/confuses me. Even if she doesn't do it herself.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

Because sometimes they don't make any sense unless you do otherwise.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

I deny the Robot Holocaust.

 

[Society]

i realize the potential change of tone for the convo, but i have to ask...

I haven't seen her do that either, but there are definitely INTJs that do.

who? stop right there - indulge me for a moment & ignore the one obvious answer - who else?

i am asking honestly btw - i realize it looks like i am trying to make a point (and perhaps there is one to be made), but i am trying to think of anyone else, trying to list the INTJs in my head to find another one that does that, and my mind is drawing blank.

i can easily think of INTJs who don't: i haven't talked much to @kalatch but he explained his reasoning (behind his reasoning) to the point that he practically simulates the experience of his reasoning. posts by [MENTION=8936]highlander[/MENTION] & [MENTION=14015]Inari Love[/MENTION] and conversations with [MENTION=6071]Time[/MENTION] will often actually lead you in their process of back-treking and understanding how they reached a conclusion. posts by [MENTION=9811]Coriolis[/MENTION] & [MENTION=4050]ceecee[/MENTION] are so incredibly transparent & clear in their reasoning that i want to upload that part of their minds into an app the first opportunity (i'm calling it the bullshit slayer). [MENTION=9187]Within[/MENTION] and [MENTION=8595]Zang[/MENTION] can be quite out there in each in their own way, but just ask and you'll always get an incredibly strong construct of reasoning behind their ideas.

as far as my personal experience in RL as well - there are very few INTJs in my life that i am aware of and only two closely (my father and a childhood-to-now friend), and none are like that... my friend had a short phase when we were 13 that can vaguely be interpreted as rejecting the need for explanations - but even then not quite (basically we delved into pop psychology and for awhile he took the concept of "rationalization" out of proportions) - doesn't really fits the bill, and it only lasted a couple of months (and you know... we were kids).

now, obviously counter examples for the lack of a behavior don't contradict the behavior's existence or even it's potential associations... but for the sake of the argument, can you help me think of anyone? any INTJ from here or elsewhere or even an example of someone you know in RL? is there anyone i am missing?

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

i
i can easily think of INTJs who don't: i haven't talked much to @kalatch but he explained his reasoning (behind his reasoning) to the point that he practically simulates the experience of his reasoning. posts by [MENTION=8936]highlander[/MENTION] & [MENTION=14015]Inari Love[/MENTION] and conversations with [MENTION=6071]Time[/MENTION] will often actually lead you in their process of back-treking and understanding how they reached a conclusion. posts by [MENTION=9811]Coriolis[/MENTION] & [MENTION=4050]ceecee[/MENTION] are so incredibly transparent & clear in their reasoning that i want to upload that part of their minds into an app the first opportunity (i'm calling it the bullshit slayer). [MENTION=9187]Within[/MENTION] and [MENTION=8595]Zang[/MENTION] can be quite out there in each in their own way, but just ask and you'll always get an incredibly strong construct of reasoning behind their ideas.

[MENTION=9811]Coriolis[/MENTION] and [MENTION=8936]highlander[/MENTION] I can follow without difficulty. Some of the others I can't really follow half the time. Maybe that's because you're dominant Intuition, so you pick up on what they are talking about. Perhaps if I were less lazy, I might be able to do the same. I'll try it next time with some of the others.

I think that might be the difference. Your description of what the are talking about even sounds a little more intuitive.

 

[Evo]

i realize the potential change of tone for the convo, but i have to ask...

Oh meh Gerd!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Not a change of tone!!! What will we do????

 

[Society]

[MENTION=9811]Coriolis[/MENTION] and [MENTION=8936]highlander[/MENTION] I can follow without difficulty. Some of the others I can't really follow half the time. Maybe that's because you're dominant Intuition, so you pick up on what they are talking about. Perhaps if I were less lazy, I might be able to do the same. I'll try it next time with some of the others.

I think that might be the difference. Your description of what the are talking about even sounds a little more intuitive.

right, ok, whether an explanation is clear or not is another matter and is probably subjective. i suppose what i am really asking is - beyond the obvious one - have there being any other INTJs who outright left you to "trust" their Ni statements when they are not backed up?

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

right, ok, whether an explanation is clear or not is another matter and is probably subjective. i suppose what i am really asking is - beyond the obvious one - have there being any other INTJs who outright left you to "trust" their Ni statements when they are not backed up?

No. But it seems like that is what is being asked of me. Perhaps I am wrong in that.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

right, ok, whether an explanation is clear or not is another matter and is probably subjective. i suppose what i am really asking is - beyond the obvious one - have there being any other INTJs who outright left you to "trust" their Ni statements when they are not backed up?

No. But it seems like that is what is being asked of me. Perhaps I am wrong in that.

 

[WALMART]

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?

Systems cannot be multivariable? Isn't polarity an inherent feature of extremism?

I don't think you receive a Nobel for developing a cognitive model of the decision making process without knowing a thing or two that makes sense.

 

[Evo]

Systems cannot be multivariable? Isn't polarity an inherent feature of extremism?

I don't think you receive a Nobel for developing a cognitive model of the decision making process without knowing a thing or two that makes sense.

I think he knows what he is talking about...In defining problems between companies, and the problems that arise when one system is operating without the other... (I don't think I said I didn't like him or anything...or that he doesn't know a thing or two...)

However, what I was saying, is that I don't think what he is saying is upholding the notion of "how notoriously bad intuition is documented as being."

Actually the ironic part is that...after watching that, someone can come to the conclusion that we should have both systems operating. (He might have even said that we need the balance of the two systems) Which is what @Zaruthustra said and what I was getting at as well...

You need your auxillary.

If someone is hating on an INTJ, it's probably because the INTJ doesn't use their auxillary enough.

Or as [MENTION=5731]Kalach[/MENTION] was implying....the person that's doing the hating has a shadow.

And the person sees the shadow within themselves, and projects it onto the INTJ.

The poor fellow does have a point. As with, I assume, every type's communication, there's always going to be an element of like trying to speak to like. I'm aware, for instance, of almost never speaking straight up literally. There's always an element that urges discovery. Particularly so in internet posting. There's always an element of "can you see this, and this, and the form behind this...?" Sometimes it's used for entertainment. Actually, all the time it's used for entertainment. Finding hidden forms is exciting. So, yeah, being literal is for rubes, and INTPs. And maybe Ss, but I'm not so sure about that.

Enneagram might make this phenomenon more or less pronounced. I presume the wing 6ers lean more heavily on logical presentation, for instance.

Yea you don't write literally ha ha. It's taken me a while to read between your lines, even now, I struggle. >.<

 

[Amargith]

Id say its not the amount of aux used, its the skill level at which it is used... Overzealous Te is a lot line a stampeding herd, skillfully used Te however, is a lot like a high tech criminal crew

It maximises the support for the other functions to do their job and grow as well in finesse.

 

[Z Buck McFate]

Because people are INTPs.

Lol.

You can't have Ni without experience. You can have Ni without direct experience. If you do want to have direct experience, possibly Ni will summon a mystical ball of lightning to prevent it, but you know, maybe not too.

Sometimes it doesn’t look like a mystical ball of lightning. Sometimes it looks like forcefully dispatched pejoratives. I want to say that when an INTJ actually is being objective (reasoning without irrational emotional attachment- perhaps what Amargith means by "high tech criminal crew"), that’s when it looks like a super fun mystical ball of lightning. On the other hand (the bad hand, the grasping buttgrabber of reactivity) the forcefulness of the pejoratives seems directly correlated with irrational emotion interfering.

It’s a lot easier to take the mystical ball of lightning seriously, and to even get enthralled and to want to spend time figuring out what it means. The latter looks a whole lot like an INTJ trying to make something true with the sheer force of will, which invariably ends up looking like poo. Poo is the opposite of objective truth, and there's nothing super fun about it. The exception to this is when the INTJ has accumulated credibility for having reliable judgment (at least, in those whose scope goes beyond direct experience)- in which case their credibility will buy them the experience of playing the occasional ‘making things true through the sheer force of will’ card. If played too much though, it loses its value.

And in short, any negative opinion I’ve ever had about INTJs is because of the poo. I think that being widely frustrated with the lot of them probably is indication of shadow things a-happenin’ (as was explained in other posts), but with a very select few it’s probably the poo.

 

[FemMecha]

I haven't seen her do that either, but there are definitely INTJs that do. I don't hate them though, it's just kind of eye-rolling for the most part.

Still, she was explaining what was going on, and I was explaining why that annoys/confuses me. Even if she doesn't do it herself.

I've been questioning this aspect of Ni-doms also. There are some who make their meaning almost incomprehensible and others who are extremely clear. I guess it could be the result of Ni being a function that does not set up the clear, precise, linguistic structures that Ti and Fi can, so some work even harder to be clear?

I work especially hard to make my meaning clear when I am attempting to communicate, although my word choices are still not as precise as Ti and Fi people. I find that is why I spend a lot of time thinking and processing, and I often don't attempt to verbalize those aspecting of cognition that are too far away from language.

I've known a few Ni-dom people who speak in almost incomprehensible terms, and I don't know what to make of it. To be direct, I almost find it to be a socially driven use of language that deliberately places a wall. This might be an effort to form a mystique that places one above others. That can happen in the arts as well. It can also be the result of a highly personal perspective that reinvents a sense of definition, concepts, and metaphor. I'd be curious to spend enough time to analyze some of these folks use of language to see if it is consistent or not. I've worked with autistic individuals who use a purely metaphorical use of language that is incomprehensible if you are not familiar with their internal, personal associations of ideas.

For myself, Ni feels ethereal and like a cloud. It is not a specific, clear distortion of concepts, but abstract, intangible. To show a highly personal, illogical example of it, Our two new puppies have personalities and interactions nearly identical to the two that passed away recently. Some people could be tempted to take on a sense of their spirits being reincarnated or something like that. My mind is more readily brought to the Buddhist concepts of "not the same and not different". It is like scooping a handful of water from the ocean, watching it drain away, and then scooping up the next handful. If there is a connection I would be more inclined to entertain the idea that it is the result of time being an illusion, of separateness being an illusion. I feel as though it is Ni that helps me feel comfortable with processing data that is speculative, abstract, ethereal, intangible, impossible to pin down or even define.

Sometimes when I read the incomprehensible, highly personalized use of language, it doesn't always feel abstract, but as a very specific, concrete distortion from the external. It comes down to me wondering if that too is an expression of the sense of fuzzy reality, or if it is a completely different way of processing. It also makes me wonder if it is deliberate and socially driven, or something that is so natural and imbedded in the person that it would take great effort to change.

 

[FemMecha]

I don't see why anyone wouldn't accept a statement at its face value.

Only if one can glimpse a candid facial expression, or micro-expression because those don't lie.

 

[Salomé]

an INTJ trying to make something true with the sheer force of will, which invariably ends up looking like poo. Poo is the opposite of objective truth, and there's nothing super fun about it.

Poo is still more fun than the average INTJ.
I love these profound threads...

If the opposite of objective truth is poo, that must make Te the poo-function.
E.g. (Translations provided for those not versed in poo-ease.)

Similar to why people don't like ESTJs. As I understand it:

- ESTJs have the best sense of what is correct, until proven otherwise [translation: ESTJs are the most convinced they're right when they're wrong]
- INTJs are the "smartest"*, until proven otherwise [translation: INTJs are the most arrogant and deluded]

IME that "default" sense is pretty common in both types -- and that can bother some people.
[translation: these types rival each other for the title of "Most Obnoxious"]

*an approximation; not exactly correct, I know, but I'm not an INTJ
[Translation: I don't know what I'm talking about, but at least I'm not as anal as an INTJ]

I think you might be onto something, Zb.
Seems that volume of poo directly varies with presence of Te.
As to which poo stinks the most - dominant, or auxiliary? More research required.

 

[Evo]

Id say its not the amount of aux used, its the skill level at which it is used... Overzealous Te is a lot line a stampeding herd, skillfully used Te however, is a lot like a high tech criminal crew

It maximises the support for the other functions to do their job and grow as well in finesse.

I could go along with that.

I don't think I specifically mentioned that.

But I was assuming when we said the word developing it was implied, that the balancing side of Te should come out. The advanced side.

I've been questioning this aspect of Ni-doms also. There are some who make their meaning almost incomprehensible and others who are extremely clear. I guess it could be the result of Ni being a function that does not set up the clear, precise, linguistic structures that Ti and Fi can, so some work even harder to be clear?

I work especially hard to make my meaning clear when I am attempting to communicate, although my word choices are still not as precise as Ti and Fi people. I find that is why I spend a lot of time thinking and processing, and I often don't attempt to verbalize those aspecting of cognition that are too far away from language.

I've known a few Ni-dom people who speak in almost incomprehensible terms, and I don't know what to make of it. To be direct, I almost find it to be a socially driven use of language that deliberately places a wall. This might be an effort to form a mystique that places one above others. That can happen in the arts as well. It can also be the result of a highly personal perspective that reinvents a sense of definition, concepts, and metaphor. I'd be curious to spend enough time to analyze some of these folks use of language to see if it is consistent or not. I've worked with autistic individuals who use a purely metaphorical use of language that is incomprehensible if you are not familiar with their internal, personal associations of ideas.

For myself, Ni feels ethereal and like a cloud. It is not a specific, clear distortion of concepts, but abstract, intangible. To show a highly personal, illogical example of it, Our two new puppies have personalities and interactions nearly identical to the two that passed away recently. Some people could be tempted to take on a sense of their spirits being reincarnated or something like that. My mind is more readily brought to the Buddhist concepts of "not the same and not different". It is like scooping a handful of water from the ocean, watching it drain away, and then scooping up the next handful. If there is a connection I would be more inclined to entertain the idea that it is the result of time being an illusion, of separateness being an illusion. I feel as though it is Ni that helps me feel comfortable with processing data that is speculative, abstract, ethereal, intangible, impossible to pin down or even define.

Sometimes when I read the incomprehensible, highly personalized use of language, it doesn't always feel abstract, but as a very specific, concrete distortion from the external. It comes down to me wondering if that too is an expression of the sense of fuzzy reality, or if it is a completely different way of processing. It also makes me wonder if it is deliberate and socially driven, or something that is so natural and imbedded in the person that it would take great effort to change.

I am probably one of those people that are almost incomprehensible lol.

I find that I need to clarify what I am saying constantly.

It's mostly because of the definitions I have of things are different from others. And those definitions are ever growing for me, and not for others.

Also those definitions are just impressions that I have of something.

So I can see why people don't understand a thing I try to communicate.

I think that for me it's an expression of the fuzzy reality you speak of.

Not the socially driven thing.

When I first came to TypoC it was the worst. I was coming across so crazy lol.

I have put a lot of conscious effort into not coming off like I have a distorted reality. (Doesnt change that I have a distorted reality though )

With the puppy thing, after experiencing some time with the new pups, don't you see similarities?

And I'm probably more inclined to think that's a possibility, because I believe in a metaphysical world just as much as the physical. Also,I think it's because I am against the illusions you speak of.

So it seems I show characteristics of this type of NTJ

Only if one can glimpse a candid facial expression, or micro-expression because those don't lie.

I don't agree completely, that an expression doesn't lie.

I fake smile at work and no one knows the difference. The words I am saying are still the same but people don't have that "Oh my God, did she just say that?" response ...all because I have a smile on my face.

So when I am with someone that actually knows me, I think facial expressions really don't lie.

I think tone has a lot to do with it as well.

Poo is still more fun than the average INTJ.
I love these profound threads...

If the opposite of objective truth is poo, that must make Te the poo-function.
E.g. (Translations provided for those not versed in poo-ease.)
I think you might be onto something, Zb.
Seems that volume of poo directly varies with presence of Te.
As to which poo stinks the most - dominant, or auxiliary? More research required.

Yea I wouldn't say just the volume, as Amargith voiced, it's the skill level at which it's used.

I have recently started to tell myself "What's the rush? I don't need to have a conclusion right now, do I?"

A good example of me not doing enough research is just in this thread alone.

In post #147 Mane is saying to me "We'll have to wait and see to what extents the experiments are replicable, and under what leeway"

Before that, I thought in my head "it's good 'nuff, better than what we have in schools right now, lets get it started!" until Mane said hold your horses... And that kinda reminded me, not all the kinks have been worked out yet.

So stuff like that...I could use some more reminding of, so that I don't stink of poo. (Personally I use the word feedback instead of reminding, that's why I have put "I Want Feedback" in my signature lol)

Which to go along with that....

I don't think that it's necessarily the poo that is the problem, it's the person's willingness to acknowlegde that it could be poo, and that they could consider getting rid of the poo.

If someone says something and it's poo, so what?

If someone says something and it's poo, and others let them know....well now that someone could at least disect it to see if it's actually poo or not.

Otherwise, that's detrimental, if there's no growth.

 

[FemMecha]

I don't agree completely, that an expression doesn't lie.

I fake smile at work and no one knows the difference. The words I am saying are still the same but people don't have that "Oh my God, did she just say that?" response ...all because I have a smile on my face.

So when I am with someone that actually knows me, I think facial expressions really don't lie.

I think tone has a lot to do with it as well.

Oh, I agree that expressions can lie. That is why I put the two qualifiers "candid" and "micro". Candid is the expression people have when they don't think anyone is looking, and a micr-expression is something I learned about recently from some research done by a sociologist, I believe. There are fleeting, split-second expressions that come across people's faces that reveal how they are actually feeling. These can come intermittedly between false expressions. People can learn to perceive these, and some people may have a natural aptitude to see them, but they are often hidden from typical social interactions.