[INTJ] Why do people seem to dislike INTJs?

[juggernaut]

If I'm not mistaken INTJ is the type most commonly associated with psychopathy. Maybe that has something to do with it?

Source please.

 

[Haphazard]

Athenian, stop leaking angst-juice all over the thread. This is about why people seem to hate INTJs, not why you can't understand the people around you.

What evidence do we have that people don't like INTJs, anyway? The fact that so many villains seem to be them, for so long? That in so many self-help publications, we're told that we're exactly how we should not be like?

 

[juggernaut]

It was, in fact, meant to demean. It was meant to show your knowledge over mine and to imply that my thought process was childlike. You of course are under the assumption that I have no point of reference and that I would dare make a claim that I myself had not put a lot of research and thought into. And again, you are trying to drive the point home by implying that I need to read more and stop talking out of my ass. It's fine that you do that - I don't care. But don't pretend as if you're not doing it.

I don't see it as a put down, because I wasn't put down. I have no reason to be. Believe me, I don't take things personally - especially not from strangers on the internet.

I've already explained that I like INTJs, but to others who may not be as strong minded as I am, you guys can come off as bullies. And you do that by making statements like the one you used in response to me.

No one would think you to be an unpleasant person if you simply said something like: "I've done a lot of research in this field and came to the conclusion that this is impossible. What are your reasons for thinking the contrary?"

While I certainly won't dispute that (I can think of one or two INTJs myself that I wouldn't mind having a word with irl), I've heard precisely the same said of ENTPs. The only NT that doesn't regularly get labeled a "bully" is the INTP and I suspect that's primarily because most people don't have a clue what the hell the INTPs are saying (including other INTPs). Some of the most vicious attacks on these boards have come from ENTPs. Might this be a case of the pot calling the kettle black?

 

[Amargith]

+1

 

[nonsequitur]

It was, in fact, meant to demean. It was meant to show your knowledge over mine and to imply that my thought process was childlike. You of course are under the assumption that I have no point of reference and that I would dare make a claim that I myself had not put a lot of research and thought into. And again, you are trying to drive the point home by implying that I need to read more and stop talking out of my ass. It's fine that you do that - I don't care. But don't pretend as if you're not doing it.

That is what you extrapolated on your own. I made no mention of childlike thought process, or of your point of reference. I simply said that people who thought something like that could not have any understanding of cell biology or biochemistry. Was I wrong? Did you consider the subject in that context?

Don't project what I meant to do. I may be thoughtless and impatient, but I have never sought to hurt people.

I don't see it as a put down, because I wasn't put down. I have no reason to be. Believe me, I don't take things personally - especially not from strangers on the internet.

I've already explained that I like INTJs, but to others who may not be as strong minded as I am, you guys can come off as bullies. And you do that by making statements like the one you used in response to me.

No one would think you to be an unpleasant person if you simply said something like: "I've done a lot of research in this field and came to the conclusion that this is impossible. What are your reasons for thinking the contrary?"

Funny, you say that you don't see it as a put-down, but you say above that I MEANT to be demeaning. So... I tried to put you down and you didn't see it as a put down, but you still saw me trying to put you down? How confusing.

I like NPs as people, I'm surrounded by them at work. But I tend to get impatient with them because they tend to be a little unrealistic about things. Many of them get absorbed in ideas that sound elegant and amazing (if they work), but actually have no basis in reality.

I make a policy of not interfering with them, and maybe that's why I'm not thought of as an unpleasant person. I also tend to keep my thoughts to myself because even though I'm often proven right, I realise that my opinions are not appreciated. They come across as buckets of cold water.

 

[Costrin]

That is what you extrapolated on your own. I made no mention of childlike thought process, or of your point of reference. I simply said that people who thought something like that could not have any understanding of cell biology or biochemistry. Was I wrong? Did you consider the subject in that context?

Don't project what I meant to do. I may be thoughtless and impatient, but I have never sought to hurt people.

That statement. You may see it as a simple statement open to debate, but the wording makes it seem as if you are arrogant and not open to discussion about it.

 

[Amargith]

Man, this is hilarious. Are NTPs seriously telling INTJs that they're hurtful in their wording? Ohh, the irony

 

[Haphazard]

I dunno.

There are people who think I'm evil and mean for trying to get to the freaking point and make everyone focus because we're supposed to be doing something important.

 

[nonsequitur]

That statement. You may see it as a simple statement open to debate, but the wording makes it seem as if you are arrogant and not open to discussion about it.

Perhaps it is a wording issue. I didn't give much thought to the wording, to be quite honest. The impatience was the overriding factor.

 

[jenocyde]

Some of the most vicious attacks on these boards have come from ENTPs. Might this be a case of the pot calling the kettle black?

Did I say anything that was vicious?

That is what you extrapolated on your own. I made no mention of childlike thought process, or of your point of reference. I simply said that people who thought something like that could not have any understanding of cell biology or biochemistry. Was I wrong? Did you consider the subject in that context?

You said people who think this are naive, which indicates childlike. You also said that I could not have the level of understanding that you have, which questions my point of reference.

I may be thoughtless and impatient, but I have never sought to hurt people.

I realize this and that's why I stated that others may see this as bullying, even if I don't.

Funny, you say that you don't see it as a put-down, but you say above that I MEANT to be demeaning. So... I tried to put you down and you didn't see it as a put down, but you still saw me trying to put you down? How confusing.

It's not that difficult really. If someone tries to hurt you and they fail, can you then say that there was no effort to do so? It was merely a failed attempt. Perhaps I was wrong for assuming your intentions, and for that I apologize, but my statement is not confusing.

I like NPs as people, I'm surrounded by them at work. But I tend to get impatient with them because they tend to be a little unrealistic about things. Many of them get absorbed in ideas that sound elegant and amazing (if they work), but actually have no basis in reality.

Now this is a confusing statement. If they work wouldn't they have a basis in reality?

I make a policy of not interfering with them, and maybe that's why I'm not thought of as an unpleasant person. I also tend to keep my thoughts to myself because even though I'm often proven right, I realise that my opinions are not appreciated. They come across as buckets of cold water.

Your opinions are always appreciated and welcomed, at least by me. Your assumptions on my educational level, however, are not. If you still fail to see my point, then I have nothing else to add.


Amargith: I did not say that I thought her words were hurtful, I was just illustrating how others may think so. This thread posed the question, which I answered - with an example.

 

[thisGuy]

Man, this is hilarious. Are NTPs seriously telling INTJs that they're hurtful in their wording? Ohh, the irony

lawl

difference is NTP's reputation/demeanor/fluff-surrounding-the-convo negates most of the bluntness and dislike

no such luck with the intj...them fuckers are too to-the-point for half the word to understand them correctly...

its like they are speaking a foreign language. unless the listener understands what language the INTJ is speaking, they won't know what language dictionary to use...imagine the confusion when the listener THINKS they know what language the INTJ is speaking
shit prepped up to hit the fan? i think so...

 

[Amargith]

No, I get that Jeno, it's just...it's funny to see how different wording can irk different people. I mean, personally, I find NTP wording a lot of the time a lot harder to take than NTJ wording. Don't get me wrong, I absolutely love interacting with NTPs as well as they're hilarious and those conversations yield great insights, but they tend to exhaust me more because of their wording. Whereas I usually can easily see why an INTJ would word something the way they do without being offended by it.

I would love to get to the bottom of this and find out why it is that certain types find other types less offensive and more importantly, how we can do something about it. From what I've seen it's NTPs and NFJs that have probs with the wording of NTJs and NFPs and maybe NTJs (?) that find the wording of NTPs sometimes harsh to take, though this is a gross generalization and depends of course on the experiences with either balanced or unbalanced people.

 

[jenocyde]

Perhaps it is a wording issue. I didn't give much thought to the wording, to be quite honest. The impatience was the overriding factor.

Yes. My original point. Lack of Fe, perhaps?

lawl

difference is NTP's reputation/demeanor/fluff-surrounding-the-convo negates most of the bluntness and dislike

no such luck with the intj...them fuckers are too to-the-point for half the word to understand them correctly...

To me, blunt is not hurtful. I don't mind someone being blunt at all. It's the attacks on character, rather than the issue, that is the main difference between the xNTJ vs xNTP style. At least in my opinion.

 

[thisGuy]

NTPs and NTJs get along failry well because, more often than not, NTPs readily give the INTJ benefit of the doubt and usually able to see past the wall INTJs erect for their pink soul-bunny

[i should expand on this...maybe later]

but there are times when the NTPs just stop giving a shit cuz the NTJ never bothered too and tell them to fuck off

 

[jenocyde]

No, I get that Jeno, it's just...it's funny to see how different wording can irk different people. I mean, personally, I find NTP wording a lot of the time a lot harder to take than NTJ wording.

I hear ya. But for me, it's not about the wording - it's the context of the words. I guess I stand from a distance when I talk about issues and I feel that saying negative things about the person, thus trying to draw me in closer, is fighting dirty and distracting from the topic at hand. But it takes a lot more than a few words to get me offended.

Perhaps xNTJs are easier for you because of shared Fi?

 

[RenaiReborn]

NTPs and NTJs get along failry well because, more often than not, NTPs readily give the INTJ benefit of the doubt and usually able to see past the wall INTJs erect for their pink soul-bunny

I actually get along with other NTJ's better. Soul-bunny? Well. Maybe. I've not come into contact with NTP's that I know of. Maybe they'll tell me I have a soul bunny. I hope they do. BUNNY STEW!

 

[nonsequitur]

You said people who think this are naive, which indicates childlike. You also said that I could not have the level of understanding that you have, which questions my point of reference.

Naive does not mean childlike.

(from the American heritage dictionary):

na·ive·té or na·ïve·té (nī'ēv-tā', nä'-, nī-ē'vĭ-tā', nä-)
n.
The state or quality of being inexperienced or unsophisticated, especially in being artless, credulous, or uncritical.

The context that I meant it in was "uncritical", "unsophisticated" and "inexperienced". I still believe that you don't have the level of understanding that I do in these specific areas (namely cell biology and biochemistry), and you haven't refuted that. I didn't address or put down your point of reference because I don't know what it is. I simply made a comment with regards to the concept.

I realize this and that's why I stated that others may see this as bullying, even if I don't.

It's not that difficult really. If someone tries to hurt you and they fail, can you then say that there was no effort to do so? It was merely a failed attempt. Perhaps I was wrong for assuming your intentions, and for that I apologize, but my statement is not confusing.

So you say that I'm trying to hurt you, and you don't see it as bullying. That is what I don't get. I am addressing two separate things that you said here:

(first bit)
"It was, in fact, meant to demean. It was meant to show your knowledge over mine and to imply that my thought process was childlike. "
(second bit)
"I don't see it as a put down, because I wasn't put down."

That was what was confusing me.

Now this is a confusing statement. If they work wouldn't they have a basis in reality?

They would be elegant and amazing IF they worked. Problem is that they don't, because the situation is a lot more complex. Said NPs would've realised that if he/she hadn't been overly-excited by the idea and done more reading of the literature (a LOT of NP supervisors have this problem, and I chose an ENTP supervisor precisely because I wanted a lot of enthusiasm, which I lack, and realised that we would be a complementary fit).

Your opinions are always appreciated and welcomed, at least by me. Your assumptions on my educational level, however, are not. If you still fail to see my point, then I have nothing else to add.

I didn't make any assumptions on your education level... I was addressing your understanding of specific topics, as above.

 

[matmos]

What is this balderdash about INTJs being less than lovable & cuddly?

C'mon. Group hug.

 

[Amargith]

Yeah I was thinking that. Apparently it's not that easy to get Fe and Fi to bridge the gap.

For me its the blatant judgementalism and sense of superiority that I perceive to come through the wording of NTPs as well as the constant misinterpretations/assumptions and judgements based on those that are very draining. Somehow I don't have that with NTJs. They actually take in what you're saying, and give it back to you first to see if they understood it right.I recognize this, coz I do the same (which then in turn irks NTPs sometimes, I've noticed), and I greatly appreciate it, as it assures we're talking about the same thing in the same way. And yes, they state things very bluntly, but crystal clear and in a rather detached manner, which ime softens the blow. You can tell that they didn't mean to offend you because of that, they're just stating their thoughts. The very fact that they're willing to give it a lot of thought, means you're worthy of their time which is a compliment in itself And as long as you don't repeat yourself, they're very interested in hearing your point of view so they can fit it into their own world view if it turns out to be valuable.

 

[RenaiReborn]

Nonsequitur- Careful, they may interpret your careful dissection and explanation of statements as a threatening action. The clinical way in which you analyze things may come across as...COLD.