INTJ observations

[ruminator]

People ask why I don't get along with INTJs, so this is a place for me to collect my experiences (and those of others). This isn't limited to negative things, I'll put good things too if I come across them.

Okay first one:

I had a ridiculous debate with an INTJ the other night about morality, which boiled down to him thinking whether something is illegal/unethical should be decided based on suffering, while I think it should be based on rights. This is basically a utilitarianism - deontology debate.

But anyhow, my qualm was not his viewpoint, I was just so frustrated at how the conversation went in circles and circles and circles. It felt like he was not trying to understand my position, and was just arguing against everything I said. And when I tried to object to his position, instead of directly addressing my critiques, he just kept re-explaining it over and over again in different ways, and I would have to keep re-explaining my objections, and we made no progress.

It just felt like we were talking through different lenses, I was talking about apples and he was talking about oranges. I mean, when this happens I generally try to narrow down what the core underlying disagreement is, and agree to disagree on that. But that didn't happen in this convo. The core disagreement (which I explained above) wasn't addressed, and instead he just kept trying to convince me about oranges.

And worst of all, his tone was just rude to me. I always try to be friendly, and acknowledge that I understand what the other person is saying, while also giving my own opinion. But him, it felt patronizing, and he made little passive aggressive remarks that attacked me on a personal level.

At this point, I still feel like I did not get a fair opportunity to make my case, and I do not know how to do so without him sidestepping my criticism and writing long essays re-explaining his talking points again and again.

 

[QuickTwist]

They might just have narcissistic personality, personality style, or just be a narcissist. Usually that's what those kinds of people have in common, especially if you think this person has half a brain in their head.

FWIW, I've had my problems with INTJs as well. They are very inflexible in their beliefs and I'd attribute it to the weak Fi.

 

[Grayman]

Sounds like he is a step ahead of you in the argument and he's trying to bring you to where he is at the core of the argument. You are arguing that laws should be based on rights but he has moved past that to defining what rights should be based on. If he did so instinctively, he would have trouble definining the logical path from a to b and therfore would have trouble getting you both on the same track.

 

[QuickTwist]

Sounds like he is a step ahead of you in the argument and he's trying to bring you to where he is at the core of the argument. You are arguing that laws should be based on rights but he has moved past that to defining what rights should be based on. If he did so instinctively, he would have trouble definining the logical path from a to b and therfore would have trouble getting you both on the same track.

I don't think one is necessarily more "advanced" than the other. The real question is if ruminator means its based on individual rights and compare that to a broader picture of suffering in general. you can't eliminate all human suffering, but you can limit it. With individual rights, that leaves the door open for equality if that logic were to follow all the way through. but ofc that begs the question who defines what rights are.

I'd say limiting suffering is a bit more ambiguous for sure but can also work better on a global scale better than individual rights. The upside of individual rights is that you can use that as a system of reference so that everyone is treated equally.

Really though, I think IMO the argument for individual rights is superior to limiting suffering, because the latter doesn't really give any direction on what to do.

If they are really an INTJ they should be able to understand this better than an INTP. Remember INTJ's are the strategists so they have a better idea of how things can follow a sequence of events. That's why I suggest the guy just is a bit narcissistic and is trying to be difficult on purpose.

 

[Urakro]

I was thinking it's the lack of Fe, which is in the same spot as Se in INxP's. A read in typology yielded that INxP's have minimal or messy dwelling spaces and things become invisible if not moved which they attribute to low Se.

Depending on whatever the functions actually do, IxTJ's could be the same with Fe. It's just really forgotten about and neglected; there's no motivation to pay much mind to it. I make Fe as something that minimalizes conflict between parties and strives for extroverted harmony. Based on ExFJ's that I know, they often say they only want everyone to be happy.

I want to add that with most TJ's, it doesn't take much effort to see the Fi working behind the scenes and influencing their behavior. Something like Fe, but instead Fi is more fussy over what they care about, picking only a few things and focusing a lot of energy on them alone. Fi being a lot of who they are, but lacking and striving, repressed and a bit smothered out.

But INTJ's aren't all that bad. They are all Ni more than Te. I find I really wish they speak their mind more, because I can feel they have a lot of neat observations and thoughts going on in their head, but they keep it locked away to themselves. INFJ's are like that too.

Somehow getting on the INTJ's good side and being authentic, they'll most likely open up to you, which I've found some really do have a softer inside.

And yes, don't argue with the INTJ, not unless you have good evidence. Vague feeling-type theories are out, and best dropped if there's a conflict in POV.

 

[Nebulous]

My best friend is an INTJ so I have some insight.

They hate being vulnerable. I've told them my deepest darkest thoughts, feelings, and secrets but they're more reserved ab theirs. Like they can read my diary but I can't read theirs. (Which is fine btw, an observation not a complaint.) What worries me about this is the possibility that they could be really upset or struggling with something, and they wouldn't reach out. :/ I feel like that could be a common occurrence with INTJs. Not letting anyone know that they're suffering.

They'll listen to your views and explainations if they really respect you.

The INTJ I know at school is one of the nicest people I've met. She's funny and smart and talented and beautiful and perfect and brb I'm gonna throw myself into a trash can

 

[Haim]

That is sounding like me arguing, so annoying that people don't assume I understand their opinion.Of course he didn't try he probably already understood you and is trying to counter your claims for fun while you keep thinking he didn't understand you which make him think you don't understand his arguments.

By the way both suffering and rights are bad ways to determine if a thing is illegal/unethical.
Many times the best course of action is causing suffering, what suffering?of 1 person?of 10000 people?can I divide the suffering?if I make one person suffer a lot is it the same as making many people suffer?
in other words bullshit, it does not consider the balance of interests that make human society.
Rights?they are just rules, which like all rules fail in practical realty, it is stupid to be blind to realty, if you are an employer and you know a certain person from some certain group of people is a lot more likely to be bad employ, it will be stupid to ignore that in your considerations.

It should be about fairness, to keeping my interest while not unreasonable hurting yours(as long as your interests are also reasonable)
Anyway it should not be automatic you should think about every situation for itself and make the best course of action(which is the reasonable fair one)

 

[Grayman]

I don't think one is necessarily more "advanced" than the other. The real question is if ruminator means its based on individual rights and compare that to a broader picture of suffering in general. you can't eliminate all human suffering, but you can limit it. With individual rights, that leaves the door open for equality if that logic were to follow all the way through. but ofc that begs the question who defines what rights are.

I'd say limiting suffering is a bit more ambiguous for sure but can also work better on a global scale better than individual rights. The upside of individual rights is that you can use that as a system of reference so that everyone is treated equally.

Really though, I think IMO the argument for individual rights is superior to limiting suffering, because the latter doesn't really give any direction on what to do.

If they are really an INTJ they should be able to understand this better than an INTP. Remember INTJ's are the strategists so they have a better idea of how things can follow a sequence of events. That's why I suggest the guy just is a bit narcissistic and is trying to be difficult on purpose.

You are confusing methods with goals. Human rights as a concept is used as a method or structure for promoting your goals by limiting the powers of government and authority and it based on a set of goals you are aiming for. It might make more sense to say that 'human rights' are based on a certain set of values that you hold dear to you and likely your prioritize them differently than I do. (Life, Happiness, Equality, Freedom) etc..

If you are arguing what laws should be based on I am assuming you are asking what our goals are. So if you say to promote 'rights'. I automatically assume that 'rights' is a system that defines your goals. I need more information of what those goals are in order to have a discussion with you.

To the fundamental core of all my values, my goals are to reduce suffering and this is the fundamental value that drives other values including freedom, equality, happiness, life. I also value this being done in a long term and sustainable way for peoples who exist and will exist in the future and therefor I will allow a lot of suffering to occur in order to promote an overall reduction of suffering long term. (Thinking about Haim's comment)


Is recognizing the value structure difficult for INTP vs INTJ?

 

[Analyzer]

Tell him to read Herbert Spencer, specifically Social Statics and The Man Versus the State. The individual is the central unit of any moral sense. Arguing against the individual in favor of the collective is an old, tribal mentality that will eventually be forgotten given some time(perhaps thousands of years if humans are still alive).

Utilitarianism is based on the premise that majorities are omnipotent, if not superior. Say two ethnic groups are living together somewhere, and one is more numerous and decides to make the other group slaves. Is this authority of this majority valid? What is the source of this authority? It's got to be based on some type of rights that a community agreed too. And then what is the source of rights in the first place? Self-ownership seems to be the axiom for which any sort of ethical system can be developed. Freedom has to be equal in order for it to be called justice. But of course it's expedient to argue against the individual for the sake of pragmatism and opportunism.

 

[ruminator]

What do you all think makes killing another human wrong? Do you think the wrongness is inherent in the nature of the act itself, or do you think outside circumstances (such as whether the person suffers, whether there is harm done, etc) are what makes it wrong?

 

[EyeSeeCold]

What do you all think makes killing another human wrong? Do you think the wrongness is inherent in the nature of the act itself, or do you think outside circumstances (such as whether the person suffers, whether there is harm done, etc) are what makes it wrong?

1. It's tyranny of the majority when used to apply justice. Everyone should have sovereignty over their own person.

2. Infliction of suffering and pain on another is indefensible because no sane human would wish it upon themselves.

3. It is antagonistic to having a predictable and safe society. There could be dueling between individuals or mass purging etc but that should be practiced in a society that was designed with those values in mind, when others didn't volunteer to participate in death.

 

[elliptoid]

Seems more like consequentialism. INTJs as far as I know aren't victims to deontological systems too frequently.

If you wish I can supply you with my foolproof description/user manual for INTJs as an INTP...just inside of this spoiler here.

Spoiler

1. INTJs are very smart and not easily confused.

2. INTJs will bow to logic however if you want it to stick and really hit home it's all about delivery: a public humiliation may be necessary.

3. INTJs prefer a combative position rather than synthesizing; they are so attached to their opinions that, to the outsider, it appears they put more effort into emerging triumphant than to discovering pure truth.

4. INTJs often have very authentic and genuine personalities which makes them very good friends, even if they are occasionally prone to acts of betrayal.

5. INTJs can be trusted to act in their best interests at all times.

 

[Brontosaurie]

Sounds like he is a step ahead of you in the argument and he's trying to bring you to where he is at the core of the argument. You are arguing that laws should be based on rights but he has moved past that to defining what rights should be based on. If he did so instinctively, he would have trouble definining the logical path from a to b and therfore would have trouble getting you both on the same track.

This is false because one may feel suffering based on anything (like a green sofa or a fluffy puppy) and that's bullshit. Suffering is not a reasonable basis for "rights".

 

[Urakro]

If law was based on 'rights' everything would initially have to be banned, and then a whitelist of exceptions would have to be created.

If law was based on 'suffering', anything would be initially allowable, with then a blacklist of exceptions which cause human suffering.

 

[QuickTwist]

You are confusing methods with goals. Human rights as a concept is used as a method or structure for promoting your goals by limiting the powers of government and authority and it based on a set of goals you are aiming for. It might make more sense to say that 'human rights' are based on a certain set of values that you hold dear to you and likely your prioritize them differently than I do. (Life, Happiness, Equality, Freedom) etc..

If you are arguing what laws should be based on I am assuming you are asking what our goals are. So if you say to promote 'rights'. I automatically assume that 'rights' is a system that defines your goals. I need more information of what those goals are in order to have a discussion with you.

To the fundamental core of all my values, my goals are to reduce suffering and this is the fundamental value that drives other values including freedom, equality, happiness, life. I also value this being done in a long term and sustainable way for peoples who exist and will exist in the future and therefor I will allow a lot of suffering to occur in order to promote an overall reduction of suffering long term. (Thinking about Haim's comment)


Is recognizing the value structure difficult for INTP vs INTJ?

Err.. I think we are more or less on the same page. limiting suffering is a goal and individual rights is a method of accomplishing A goal that has yet to be determined.

Basically I am saying that individual rights is the car and limiting suffering is the gas.

 

[QuickTwist]

What do you all think makes killing another human wrong? Do you think the wrongness is inherent in the nature of the act itself, or do you think outside circumstances (such as whether the person suffers, whether there is harm done, etc) are what makes it wrong?

The question to that question is "suffering for whom?"

 

[Brontosaurie]

What do you all think makes killing another human wrong? Do you think the wrongness is inherent in the nature of the act itself, or do you think outside circumstances (such as whether the person suffers, whether there is harm done, etc) are what makes it wrong?

No. Killing someone who done something that warrants such treatment isn't wrong. Killing someone who ain't done nothing is wrong.

Non-aggression principle. The one who started it is the wrong one.

 

[ruminator]

NEW INTJ EXPERIENCE:

I say something like: That was not a very good conversation, we both ended up feeling misunderstood at the end.
INTJ: I don't think its bad if the conversation was controversial.

WTF? Was I talking about controversy?? When did I say controversy is bad? I was specifically talking about MISUNDERSTANDINGS, and INTJ failed to respond to that, and instead responded to some point on controversy that I DIDN'T EVEN MAKE.

One possible explanation - maybe INTJ is thinking "the reason we felt misunderstood was because it was controversial, and I don't think it is bad to be controversial, so I don't think it is bad to feel misunderstood" ..... but instead of explaining that, he just spewed out the statement about "controversy" and didn't fill in the gap to actually CONNECT what I said with "controversy"

Is this a Ni thing?

That's just dumb, if you are so logical, you can't just leave out half of your arguments, you have to connect each premise.

 

[Grayman]

This is false because one may feel suffering based on anything (like a green sofa or a fluffy puppy) and that's bullshit. Suffering is not a reasonable basis for "rights".

How does your narrow perspective invalidate my larger perspective in regards to suffering? It isn't invalid because suffering is an invalid base for morals but because an individuals suffering is an invalid base for the rights of all mankind.

 

[TheManBeyond]

U chill down bro, u'r being way too picky. Reading too much into each of his words. Instead of telling us tell him.

 

[Grayman]

NEW INTJ EXPERIENCE:

I say something like: That was not a very good conversation, we both ended up feeling misunderstood at the end.
INTJ: I don't think its bad if the conversation was controversial.

WTF? Was I talking about controversy?? When did I say controversy is bad? I was specifically talking about MISUNDERSTANDINGS, and INTJ failed to respond to that, and instead responded to some point on controversy that I DIDN'T EVEN MAKE.

One possible explanation - maybe INTJ is thinking "the reason we felt misunderstood was because it was controversial, and I don't think it is bad to be controversial, so I don't think it is bad to feel misunderstood" ..... but instead of explaining that, he just spewed out the statement about "controversy" and didn't fill in the gap to actually CONNECT what I said with "controversy"

Is this a Ni thing?

That's just dumb, if you are so logical, you can't just leave out half of your arguments, you have to connect each premise.

Misunderstandings can be intellectual or they can happen emotionally. Emotional misunderstandings often occur in controversial discussions due to conflicting value systems.

You said you 'feel' misunderstood instead of saying that he didn't understand what you were trying to convey.

 

[Brontosaurie]

How does your narrow perspective invalidate my larger perspective in regards to suffering? It isn't invalid because suffering is an invalid base for morals but because an individuals suffering is an invalid base for the rights of all mankind.

"All mankind" is inherent to the concept of "rights". Oterwise you're just saying people should be able to have a good time and be nice to each other, which is trivial.

I have no narrow perspective. How does your purple cantaloupe rotate my fork?

 

[Grayman]

"All mankind" is inherent to the concept of "rights". Oterwise you're just saying people should be able to have a good time and be nice to each other, which is trivial.

I have no narrow perspective. How does your purple cantaloupe rotate my fork?

If you understand that why did you base your argument on what one might feel instead of what is fundamental to reducing the suffering of mankind?

 

[Brontosaurie]

If you understand that why did you base your argument on what one might feel instead of what is fundamental to reducing the suffering of mankind?

I didn't.

A coherent rights concept will reduce suffering better than a suffering based rights concept, because it makes sense and is effective. Tending to all suffering will only cause more suffering, as is evidenced by the stupid left.

Why did you paint such a glorious dick upon my bedroom wall?

 

[Grayman]

What do you all think makes killing another human wrong? Do you think the wrongness is inherent in the nature of the act itself, or do you think outside circumstances (such as whether the person suffers, whether there is harm done, etc) are what makes it wrong?

It is immoral for me to kill them and would potentially damage myself but ethically it depends. If they are suffering and require my help to end their life and ending their life didn't cause extensive long lasting damage to others I would feel obligated to assist them while also feeling morally violated.

 

[Grayman]

I didn't.

A coherent rights concept will reduce suffering better than a suffering based rights concept, because it makes sense and is effective. Tending to all suffering will only cause more suffering, as is evidenced by the stupid left.

Why did you paint such a glorious dick upon my bedroom wall?

Bigot. Your views aren't welcome here.

 

[Brontosaurie]

Bigot. Your views aren't welcome here.

Yet nevertheless they preside, for everyone agrees.

 

[ruminator]

It is immoral for me to kill them and would potentially damage myself but ethically it depends. If they are suffering and require my help to end their life and ending their life didn't cause extensive long lasting damage to others I would feel obligated to assist them while also feeling morally violated.

why is it immoral

 

[Haim]

What do you all think makes killing another human wrong? Do you think the wrongness is inherent in the nature of the act itself, or do you think outside circumstances (such as whether the person suffers, whether there is harm done, etc) are what makes it wrong?

It is about balance of interests, the interest of wanting to live and to feel safe is kind of more important to society than the "I want to kill that asshole" interest.It is a thing that is needed for society to function, a system to divide the share of interests, to lower the conflict caused by conflict of interests.

 

[Grayman]

why is it immoral

It transcends reason. It is a fundamental wiring of who I am. Such a thing is like asking why you like the sensation of 'sweet'.

 

[ruminator]

It transcends reason. It is a fundamental wiring of who I am. Such a thing is like asking why you like the sensation of 'sweet'.

Yeah it is hard to explain. Such an explanation would probably be sufficient to claim it is unethical, but do you think it is sufficient to make it illegal? Or would there need to be a reasoned justification for making something illegal?

 

[Grayman]

Yeah it is hard to explain. Such an explanation would probably be sufficient to claim it is unethical, but do you think it is sufficient to make it illegal? Or would there need to be a reasoned justification for making something illegal?

My veiw of Ethics might have a place in the legal system but not my morals. http://www.diffen.com/difference/Ethics_vs_Morals

I dont think you fully understood my last two posts because you view ethics and morals as near the same thing instead of two different things.

 

[ruminator]

My veiw of Ethics might have a place in the legal system but not my morals. http://www.diffen.com/difference/Ethics_vs_Morals

I dont think you fully understood my last two posts because you view ethics and morals as near the same thing instead of two different things.

So to be more precise, in my last post, I meant to ask whether you think it is unethical as well as immoral.

 

[green acid]

People ask why I don't get along with INTJs, so this is a place for me to collect my experiences (and those of others). This isn't limited to negative things, I'll put good things too if I come across them.

Okay first one:

I had a ridiculous debate with an INTJ the other night about morality, which boiled down to him thinking whether something is illegal/unethical should be decided based on suffering, while I think it should be based on rights. This is basically a utilitarianism - deontology debate.

But anyhow, my qualm was not his viewpoint, I was just so frustrated at how the conversation went in circles and circles and circles. It felt like he was not trying to understand my position, and was just arguing against everything I said. And when I tried to object to his position, instead of directly addressing my critiques, he just kept re-explaining it over and over again in different ways, and I would have to keep re-explaining my objections, and we made no progress.

It just felt like we were talking through different lenses, I was talking about apples and he was talking about oranges. I mean, when this happens I generally try to narrow down what the core underlying disagreement is, and agree to disagree on that. But that didn't happen in this convo. The core disagreement (which I explained above) wasn't addressed, and instead he just kept trying to convince me about oranges.

And worst of all, his tone was just rude to me. I always try to be friendly, and acknowledge that I understand what the other person is saying, while also giving my own opinion. But him, it felt patronizing, and he made little passive aggressive remarks that attacked me on a personal level.

At this point, I still feel like I did not get a fair opportunity to make my case, and I do not know how to do so without him sidestepping my criticism and writing long essays re-explaining his talking points again and again.

I've had discussions with INTJ's before that went just like that. If I have a question they can't answer, or if were digressing from each other, an INTJ will always get irritated. It will come out in the tone of their voice, and act like they think I'm a jerk. If I bring up the point again, they will say they simply disagree with me, because they don't have more reasons for their philosophical position. One thing I noticed about these INTJ's is that they seem to have a high horse they get up on, and they'll never relinquish it. I never take arguments like that in #1 all that seriously. I remember being in a similar situation with a guy who is INTP, and he just said "I have no idea", and just looked bored.

 

[PmjPmj]

I remember being in a similar situation with a guy who is INTP, and he just said "I have no idea", and just looked bored.

Your INTP was probably an INTJ, and your INTJs are probably INFJs, INFPs and other INTPs.

I don't really do stereotypes, but I read somewhere that INTJs know what they know, and (more importantly) know what they don't. This is true of myself and thew few other confirmed INTJs I know. We will discuss anything of interest at length, and happily have our thinking corrected if it is somehow flawed.

However, ask us about something we really couldn't give two shits about (and therefore have nothing intelligent to say) and we'll just say "I don't know, sorry". If it's a previously undiscovered area which sounds interesting, we may ask for it to be bottom-lined.

Ti and Ni are totally different beasts. The Ti users I know are argumentative to a fault. Even when I know my logic is sound, they will badger me to explore it again, and attempt to poke holes in it utliising subterfuge in conversation. They will attempt to tell me what I'm thinking (:/) and poke me for more clarity, even though I was perfectly clear the first time around. Admittedly, this is more true of lesser Ti users, not Ti dominants - but Ti dominants can also be accused of this (to me) puerile behaviour.

Ni does't give that much of a shit about mind games. Such things tend to infuriate us. Like it or not, we can see you coming a fucking mile off. It's boring. You're boring.

But we love you anyway ^_^




>_>

 

[green acid]

I was thinking of three INTJ's in particular, actually one of them probably is an INTP. I talk with people to find what inspires them, especially if I learn something completely novel. This usually comes from intuitives of one stripe or another. INTJ's like to slam the door on this sort of endeavor, even my sister ,who is one. Some brilliant INTJ's strike me as bored Ubermenschen, who have been misplaced in a world of Neanderthals. We have gone from ape to man, and much that is in us is still ape.

 

[PmjPmj]

Misplaced in a world full of neanderthals? You don't need to be brilliant to feel that. I had a very poor education, and even I seethe at how fucking idiotic most people are. But it's all hot air. I'm pretty sure that these people are vastly more intelligent than myself in a plethora of ways.

I think Ni is largely the culprit there, mind. Dominant Ni makes you all but completely disconnected from this reality. I've had dreams far more 'real' than waking life. It's like a really shit game. I'm just waiting for the day 'I' finally remove the VR headset and rejoin the real world.

 

[green acid]

I always like to hear explanations of Ni. I can't figure it out myself. It's not as cut-and-dried as extraverted Thinking, which goes from A to B to C and watches the bottom line. Ni seems much more mysterious, even though I may have some. As for a world full of Neanderthals, is it like that in the UK? In the US of A, stupidity is so rampant that many who aren't INTJ or even that smart feel like they are surrounded by idiots. us Yanks (those who even think about the UK) have this image of Britain as being more sophisticated and (probably) decadent. Neanderthals who are more intelligent than us in some ways? I think a minority are. Half of them are a complete waste of space.

 

[scorpiomover]

It just felt like we were talking through different lenses, I was talking about apples and he was talking about oranges. I mean, when this happens I generally try to narrow down what the core underlying disagreement is, and agree to disagree on that. But that didn't happen in this convo. The core disagreement (which I explained above) wasn't addressed, and instead he just kept trying to convince me about oranges.

INTJs tend to focus on achieving goals. Even when they are trying to learn something, they see it as a goal to be reached. When they are debating, they also see it as a goal to be achieved, usually, to win the debate.

INTPs tend to prefer to focus on perceiving, on learning what is going on. The goal for INTPs is to learn something new, to be taught new things, to have one's mind changed. If one wins the debate, then that means that one's original views, that were based on what one already knew, were right. So if one wins the debate, then one has not learned anything. So the "goal" for INTPs is to "lose" the debate.

And worst of all, his tone was just rude to me. I always try to be friendly, and acknowledge that I understand what the other person is saying, while also giving my own opinion. But him, it felt patronizing, and he made little passive aggressive remarks that attacked me on a personal level.

INTJs want to also share their good fortune with others. As INTJs are goal-oriented, letting others new useful things also becomes a goal. So INTJs become magnanimous, showing how wonderful they are, and how deserving they are of praise and honour, by being willing to share their ideas with others.

At this point, I still feel like I did not get a fair opportunity to make my case, and I do not know how to do so without him sidestepping my criticism and writing long essays re-explaining his talking points again and again.

INTPs in turn, want to share what they have learned with others. INTPs thus perceive others as learning, in the same manner as INTPs do, by admitting that they didn't know it before, which requires that their minds have been changed, and thus, they would have "lost" a debate over such a matter, which is moving away from the focus of INTJs.

 

[EyeSeeCold]

INTJs tend to focus on achieving goals. Even when they are trying to learn something, they see it as a goal to be reached. When they are debating, they also see it as a goal to be achieved, usually, to win the debate.

INTPs tend to prefer to focus on perceiving, on learning what is going on. The goal for INTPs is to learn something new, to be taught new things, to have one's mind changed. If one wins the debate, then that means that one's original views, that were based on what one already knew, were right. So if one wins the debate, then one has not learned anything. So the "goal" for INTPs is to "lose" the debate.

Hi scorpio. I would disagree that INTJs are focused on winning, I think it is a not-unfounded mis-characterization of INTJs. I think people are seeing the extent of Te's influence and are missing or forgetting that INTJ is still guided by Intuition.

This appearance of wanting to win is in my opinion actually a matter of the INTJ being strongly led by Ni convictions(when they have one, which is uncommon) which they trust more than any cursory external info. The desire to debate their position then does not come from the goal of winning but to convince and be convinced (yes they are trying to convince themselves). When they have been totally proven wrong with incontrovertible evidence they will not resist to see the light and accept new facts.

 

[PmjPmj]

I always like to hear explanations of Ni. I can't figure it out myself. It's not as cut-and-dried as extraverted Thinking, which goes from A to B to C and watches the bottom line. Ni seems much more mysterious, even though I may have some. As for a world full of Neanderthals, is it like that in the UK? In the US of A, stupidity is so rampant that many who aren't INTJ or even that smart feel like they are surrounded by idiots. us Yanks (those who even think about the UK) have this image of Britain as being more sophisticated and (probably) decadent. Neanderthals who are more intelligent than us in some ways? I think a minority are. Half of them are a complete waste of space.

A lot of Ni dominants can't figure Ni out. Or, should I say, find it hard to elaborate upon. Language can't adequately convey what it's all about. It's a shame we can't yet see thoughts (well, we can - but the tech is in its infancy) because then you'd be able to understand it far better.

The UK is no different to anywhere else. We have areas of incredible beauty and wealth, and areas of utter shite. Where I'm from is nice in terms of scenery and the like (Cheshire) but it's also full of shit old mining towns, which are largely populated by the miners of old and their spawn. Levels of education are typically poor - myself included; fortunately, (and perhaps because of my being an INTJ) I have some kind of innate aptitude for intellectual growth, rather than plateauing / stagnation. In my area, I'm probably one of the smart ones, but in the grand scheme of things? I'm pretty bloody stupid. Get me in a room with an educated INTJ and the disparity will be extremely noticeable. People tell me that I'm highly intelligent, but I'm not. Debate with me on something - you'll soon see how inept I am when confronted with true intellect. As it is, I get by.

As for our view of the US, yeah. You do have the stigma of being a nation of complete spacktards. It's a shame, because it isn't at all true in my experience.

I would say "Y'all got a problem with yo' fat asses", but then so do we these days. I've been saying for years that the UK is becoming mini-America. Your influence on our youth culture is phenomenal. I think that probably started with me (I'm 30) back in the 90s/00s with stuff like Friends, Buffy and other sitcoms. You taught us a new style of humour. One which the older generations still don't get

 

[onesteptwostep]

I always like to hear explanations of Ni. I can't figure it out myself. It's not as cut-and-dried as extraverted Thinking, which goes from A to B to C and watches the bottom line. Ni seems much more mysterious, even though I may have some. As for a world full of Neanderthals, is it like that in the UK? In the US of A, stupidity is so rampant that many who aren't INTJ or even that smart feel like they are surrounded by idiots. us Yanks (those who even think about the UK) have this image of Britain as being more sophisticated and (probably) decadent. Neanderthals who are more intelligent than us in some ways? I think a minority are. Half of them are a complete waste of space.

Ni is just a dominating thinking style that holds a meta-narrative. It's not about articulate and orderly execution of thoughts like Te, it's the domination of thoughts. Basically it's just a lot of blabbering to drivel down a certain belief into someone else, (I mean, if they open their mouths).

 

[ENTP lurker]

Ti and Ni are totally different beasts. The Ti users I know are argumentative to a fault. Even when I know my logic is sound, they will badger me to explore it again, and attempt to poke holes in it utliising subterfuge in conversation. They will attempt to tell me what I'm thinking (:/) and poke me for more clarity, even though I was perfectly clear the first time around. Admittedly, this is more true of lesser Ti users, not Ti dominants - but Ti dominants can also be accused of this (to me) puerile behaviour.

Yes but Fi users tend to think that I want/need/desire something and it is just stupid if we think about all of those potential variables. I don't understand it. Why!???!!?

 

[DIALECTIC]

INTPs tend to prefer to focus on perceiving, on learning what is going on. The goal for INTPs is to learn something new, to be taught new things, to have one's mind changed. If one wins the debate, then that means that one's original views, that were based on what one already knew, were right. So if one wins the debate, then one has not learned anything. So the "goal" for INTPs is to "lose" the debate.

Your idea of losing the debate being in fact the real win for a (mature) INTP since he is being changed as a result, is very very interesting and i have been thinking deeply about it since i read you last night !

I would add that Judgers move from cause to effect, hence the reason why they are celebrated in society as they obtain definite results in the external reality ; on the contrary, Perceivers move from effect to cause, hence why we end up obtaining definite results in our internal reality and therefore usually are late bloomers in external reality as a direct result of having changed first (you know, the famous Ghandi's quote :"you must be the change you want to see in the world").
Often, unlike Judgers, we started from wrong premisses (maybe because Judgers, in our youth, tried to forcefed their worldview we totally rejected in reaction to their perceived / imagined aggressiveness ; searching therefore for our own worldview), hence our failures / disasters in the external reality, BUT as we learnt from such failures, we changed our principles in the long run.
I might well be wrong but it seems to me that the most productive / successful Judgers to impact external reality in fact unconciously use principles (causes) mature Perceivers developped in the first place thru their own trials and errors ?

I also think that the hefty price most judgers pay to make such a deep impact on external reality is to fail to evolve their internal reality...

 

[PmjPmj]

This didn't warrant another thread, but I was just reflecting on the nature of my feeling.

It's no secret that I'm likely to cast aside any unnecessary emotion / sentimentalities when I'm conversing / debating / whatever with someone. I'm not the kind of person you come to for a back-rub or a fluffle if you've fucked up. Rather, I'm the person you come to if you want something breaking down and spelling out. I see very little validity in tears (not always; some are warranted - but not many) and I will shit all over your parade if you start playing the victim.

So, it'd be fair to say that I come across as 'hard', or cold, or any other adjective which basically sidesteps what everyone wants to say: cunt.

But I'm not. There are things I take very seriously, and they usually revolve around the times I've let people down. I won't go into detail here, because I'm not that open, and I'm sure nobody really gives a shit either way, but this is how my feeling operates:

"I will take this to my grave".

^ I've said that a few times in my life. So, whilst a great many things slide off me like teflon, certain things stick with me and gnaw at me. They weigh me down; they burden my being. These are the things I will take to the grave - the things I take seriously, grow from and reflect on. They are few and far between, but they are substantial.

You'll never see it written on my face or through my interactions, but you may catch a brief glimpse of 'the weight of the world' on my shoulders if you know me well.

INTJ insights, bros and bro-esses.

 

[viche]

... But anyhow, my qualm was not his viewpoint, I was just so frustrated at how the conversation went in circles and circles and circles. It felt like he was not trying to understand my position, and was just arguing against everything I said. And when I tried to object to his position, instead of directly addressing my critiques, he just kept re-explaining it over and over again in different ways, and I would have to keep re-explaining my objections, and we made no progress.

It just felt like we were talking through different lenses, I was talking about apples and he was talking about oranges. I mean, when this happens I generally try to narrow down what the core underlying disagreement is, and agree to disagree on that. But that didn't happen in this convo. The core disagreement (which I explained above) wasn't addressed, and instead he just kept trying to convince me about oranges.
...

These kinds of conversations that run in circles and achieve zero understanding are typical of quasi-identity relations.

The thing is that because the other person (your quasi-identical type) has completely different functions and in different order, you can never persuade them of your viewpoint - and at the same time you can never accept theirs. This is what happens between INTJs and INTPs.

It becomes very frustrating if you cannot separate from your quasi-identical (suppose they are a parent or your roommate for the year) and have to see them and talk to them on daily basis.

And since you can't persuade each other, both try to argue harder and the conversation may become rude and unpleasant for both. It's best to avoid such engagements.

 

[OmoInisa]

These kinds of conversations that run in circles and achieve zero understanding are typical of quasi-identity relations.

The thing is that because the other person (your quasi-identical type) has completely different functions and in different order, you can never persuade them of your viewpoint - and at the same time you can never accept theirs. This is what happens between INTJs and INTPs.

It becomes very frustrating if you cannot separate from your quasi-identical (suppose they are a parent or your roommate for the year) and have to see them and talk to them on daily basis.

And since you can't persuade each other, both try to argue harder and the conversation may become rude and unpleasant for both. It's best to avoid such engagements.

Very true. It's particularly apparent between thinking quasi-identicals I believe. They're more disposed towards argument. There's nothing more ultimately frustrating than my arguments with my INTJ friend.

The extroversion should make it even more so between ENTPs and ENTJs. But I don't know any such pair involved in a personal relationship to observe the effect.

 

[viche]

Very true. It's particularly apparent between thinking quasi-identicals I believe. They're more disposed towards argument. There's nothing more ultimately frustrating than my arguments with my INTJ friend.

The extroversion should make it even more so between ENTPs and ENTJs. But I don't know any such pair involved in a personal relationship to observe the effect.

I had a "quasi-identical" friend in high school so I've experienced this type of relationship firsthand. This wasn't my only "quasi" friendship but this one was the most telling one.

Our friendship started on positive ground. We had similar social lifestyles in high school and many shared interests (as I think is true of many quasi-identicals), like our common interest in art. These seeming similarities prompted us to start getting closer and try to make friends. After a while knowing each other, casual school chit-chat started turning into more serious conversations (philosophy, religion, morality, politics, etc). This is where we started clashing hard. Her arguments always seemed to be beyond the point and somehow skewed. When I tried to persuade her otherwise or add to her arguments, I felt like she won't agree on anything or accept any additions from me. I've interpreted it as stubbornness on her end back then. I realized that we're nothing alike, and on top of that, I felt like she would pick the opposing point of view to mine almost on purpose. Hidden animosity started to crawl into our friendship, and into the second year, our friendship has really taken a nosedive due to these discussions.

So these quasi-indetical relationships go - at first the attractive similarity in lifestyles and interests turns into disappointment, frustration, and estrangement between the two people. I can't imagine many romantic relationship surviving in conditions of these exhausting arguments that go nowhere.

I think extraverted types like ENTP-ENTJ feel the "quasi" effect sooner than a pair of introverted types like INTJ-INTP because they will talk to each other more often.

 

[OmoInisa]

So these quasi-indetical relationships go - at first the attractive similarity in lifestyles and interests turns into disappointment, frustration, and estrangement between the two people. I can't imagine many romantic relationship surviving in conditions of these exhausting arguments that go nowhere.

Exactly. I always find it amusing when supposed INTPs claim on forums to be in happy, functional relationships with INTJs (admittedly not that common). It's rather likely that, especially in the case of a male, the INTP is actually an INFP. Or an ISTP. Or the INTJ could well be INFJ. Any of these 'minor' deviations would dramatically alter the psychological dynamics of the relationship.

Quasi relationships are usually very healthy and successful though when interaction comes in small doses and battles are picked. This obviously rules out a marriage. At least a modern one.

 

[PmjPmj]

I'm basically hearing "We fell out because we disagreed on a lot". I can therefore infer that either one individual was overbearing to the point of unreasonableness, or the both of you are somewhat lacking in perspective / development.

I can only comment on my own experiences, and I can say that very rarely the INTP will argue to the point of myself getting somewhat irritable, because I like to bottom-line something and move on, and they want me to be exacting and fully back my claims. This is perfectly acceptable, but can be hard when I'm not fully invested in the subject. I think Enneagram has a lot to do with this, too. I can see an INTJ E1 being far more argumentative than a 5 like myself. Typically, I just want people to go the hell away. The avarice around time and energy is real (but I'm generous to a fault in matters of money etc.)

It's a shame that you've had such bad experiences with INTJs. The ones I have met are pretty cool people. But then most of them are 40+ and therefore (hopefully) better developed.