'Someone elsewhere' made this argument that all types fall back on their dominant function under stress, which just happens to neatly support your notion to prove that INTJs are susceptible to ad hominem.
This all really hinges on the debatable notion that people fall back on their dominant when under stress and not the shadow functions or even inferior. To me this whole things sounds a lot more like Critical Parent than anything else - from all parties involved.
The idea was suggested by an ENFP who has had a lot of experience with INFJs. But the critical parent is another possibility, only if Ti comes out in INTJs under stress then why is it so irrational? Shouldn't it rather be logical? In any case, socionics is not a theory that has much if any scientific support and this idea doesn't explain the similar behavior observed in INFJs who have a different critical parent function. Also the idea of falling back on a function under stress may depend on the type of stress experienced. Under extreme or prolonged stress, we might experience more unusual reactions such as falling into the shadow. But under normal stress such as an online debate, it is more likely that we simply double-down on our normal strength and try to extricate ourselves doing what we are most familiar and comfortable with, that is, use our dominant functions.
I really can't be bothered analyzing some miscellaneous online argument to try and justify the merits of various ideas about a theory that I don't even think is worthy of the title 'theory'. Like I said I don't think ad hominem has all that much to do with type specifically.
You wanted to know why you get accused of Ni bashing and why you get attacked. Well just in this thread you started by making general comments and then implying other people are incompetent when they interpret those general comments the wrong way. At the same time you assume the mantle of intellectual superiority over others.
Then you implied that this behaviour makes it "more interesting a game". Your demeanour doesn't really exude a desire to have a discussion so much as it screams that you're either a troll or just plain obnoxious.
I've been told that I have a predilection for criticizing, or "bashing", Ni. In fact, I simply point out the weaknesses of introverted intuition and the same person who criticizes me has never contradicted my assessment, only chided me for making them. I actually don't refrain from telling Ni-doms and INTJs, in particular, what I think of them. And because I am often smarter than they are, they usually take it quietly like good little lambs. But should I criticize them to their faces? Should I instead be more compassionate and understanding? This is the view an imploring INFJ once expressed after I berated and ridiculed the INTJs on their forum. Was she right? Should I take pity on INTJs? Am I wrong to point out their shortcomings? Their irrationality? Their ineptitude in debate? Their penchant for using Ni to make ad hominem "arguments" in lieu of real ones? Or is this criticism a necessary corrective both to their own high opinions of themselves and to the high opinions held by some others?
And the rest of your OP deals with Ni users in particular, Ni itself is never mentioned again in its own right, only as a vehicle for how Ni users are wrong.
To me, your starting sentence sounds like “I’m not racist, but…”. It’s an attempt to circumvent allegations of prejudice while expressing precisely that. To be honest, I don’t think it’s entirely fair to label all criticism of a type as prejudice, as (assuming its veracity) type deals with real differences between people. But it’s still inconsistent to act that way.
Your OP also paints INTJ’s as ‘good little lambs’ who just sit down and take it, as well as vitriolic mud flingers who have high opinions of themselves but are fundamentally irrational. How are both these things the case? The only congruence these two claims have is they imply your position in the argument as dominant. It seems to me like you’re trying to depict yourself as the intellectual alpha. Which brings me to my next point ->
None of what you say in the OP is an argument for what you’re trying to ‘conclude’. I say conclude, but you phrase it as a question. However, I think I’m right to do this, because if you were genuinely after an answer, you would have provided the important details, like why you think Ni inferior for a starter.
***You haven’t stated why you think Ni is inferior***
If you were trying to discuss whether you’re right to think the thing that you do, wouldn't you try to justify your view? Doesn't that seem like a first-step that goes without saying? Instead, you craft an OP that depicts your flawless victory in the fight against Ni (users), then ask us, given your victory and their complete ineptitude, whether it was right for you to win by quite so much?
Now I’m not entirely sure about the happenings on the other forum, but your talk about people being ‘saved by the mods’ -> you were banned? You were banned for being overly aggressive to people, branded it a victory, then tried to continue the same argument in another forum? It sounds like you make a habit of crowd-sourcing aggression.
Now here’s my (albeit crude) response, with your responses tacked in.
I'm pretty critical of Ni, but not those that use it.
I find it funny that you criticise everyone of a specific type for using ad hominem arguments. Particularly when you use the alleged difference in intelligence between you and them as the reason you are right, or at least the reason you've got away with it.
Really? Where did I say I've argued with "every" INTJ?
INTJ's are not categorically bad at debate. INTJ's are not categorically stupid. INTJ's do not care for your pity. INTJ's are not irrational.
Again, doesn't it go w/o saying that I'm talking about the INTJs I've known? Especially when I mention ad hominem attacks I've personally been on the receiving end of?
As RB established, your communication has been less than stellar, and it’s no surprise that I interpreted you this way given your predilection for using Ni, Ni users, INTJ’s, INTJ’s you know, and INTJ’s you met on the internet interchangeably in pursuit of your conclusion. However, if I wasn't supposed to interpret what you were saying as INTJ’s collectively, how do you justify gerrymandering the INTJ’s you like and respect from those you don’t? You completely omitted any evidence of INTJ’s being anything but what you need them to be in support of your Ni hate. That’s a pretty biased sample bro.
Now I understand that a lot of INTJ’s have a pretty high opinion of themselves, but what you've been pushing here is not that they don’t measure up to their hype, but that they are categorically functionally inferior, which is possible, but fucking unlikely.
Now I have a confession -
My alleged comprehension problem seems like someone else's communication problem.
RB is a shoe-in for INTJ btw (whether he likes it or not).
Was really lazy, it was meant to either cap off the conversation if you were flighty, or treat you with the same obnoxiousness you push on the INTJ victim class. It was cheap and you’ve demonstrated robustness.
Your response however…
Again, notice this poster doesn't refer to my counter to his original post but responds only to my very last "reading comprehension" line. These are the kinds of things the INTJs I have encountered online do when they have no real comeback. The post I quote here is another example of the "saving face" maneuver.
And I'd say RB looks more like a heel than a shoe-in.
RB had already addressed it, and I’m sure you don’t want to experience repeats. On the other hand, it’s the height of hypocrisy to accuse me of addressing only the non-essentials in a post when this:
I find it funny that you criticise everyone of a specific type for using ad hominem arguments. Particularly when you use the alleged difference in intelligence between you and them as the reason you are right, or at least the reason you've got away with it.
When did I say you’d argued with every INTJ? This entire thread is attacking the dominant function of the INTJ as an inferior process. The blind-spot for your own communication issues aside, *you* are the one that generalised the behaviour of a few to a function, and by extension certain types. See:
Their penchant for using Ni to make ad hominem "arguments" in lieu of real ones?
So when I say that you are attacking the arguer rather than the argument, and you somehow manage to take from this that I think you've had a deep and meaningful debate with every INTJ that’s graced this sweet earth, you are the one that is directing your responses to irrelevant or non-existent positions instead of addressing the actual criticism leveled at you. I won’t be so pernicious as to label it a ‘saving face’ manoeuvre however. Dick.
Which reminds me. You still haven’t addressed the idea that, without bringing a single argument to the table, you want people to accept that there is something intrinsically inferior in dominant Ni users, while at the same time you get butt-hurt about every ad hom thrown your way. You should probably get on that.
While on the topic, has a single part of you considered that whether it’s your intention or not, if you bring heat on someone for something that, within the context of a type forum, could be considered inseparable from their identity, that the arguer in this case is intrinsic to the argument, which means you've essentially given yourself ad hom privileges while denying them to the opposition? That’s actually sort of clever… if it was on purpose. Are you any sort of surprised that when attacked, they attack back?
Stupid Ni-doms with their predilection for ad homs… I wonder what would happen if you did the same to any other function on a forum for its respective type.
Now... a lot of what I've said here is precisely the sort of 'reading between the lines' stuff you consider nonsense. I'm not asserting that these things are definitely the case, only that that's what it looks like. If it's not the case, please give an explanation.
It kind of baffles me that you created this thread with the express purpose of clarifying why, in fact, you are NOT bashing Ni-dominants, but instead merely "stating the truth", when your entire OP is almost nothing but ad hominems directed towards Ni-dominants, and the rest of the thread is you trying to logically justify your inherently illogical biases. It is fine to point out the shortcomings of others, so long as you realize your own.
Also the idea of falling back on a function under stress may depend on the type of stress experienced. Under extreme or prolonged stress, we might experience more unusual reactions such as falling into the shadow. But under normal stress such as an online debate, it is more likely that we simply double-down on our normal strength and try to extricate ourselves doing what we are most familiar and comfortable with, that is, use our dominant functions.
Amidst all the arrows in this curious thread, the above strikes me as interesting. This seems more likely than the ideas that all stress provokes the inferior (or some other unvalued function) or that it provokes the dominant.
I know that I don't go into Fe mode when I'm facing a challenging and stressful situation; I hammer down with Ti (TiNe).
The times when I've seen myself in Fe mode are when I've felt helpless and un-anchored somehow.
This leads me on to my point. My thought on the matter is an extension of the OP's point above - that the function (mode of cognition) engaged in a stressful situation depends on the vector of the stress. It doesn't merely depend on the strength of it, but also on the nature of the stress.
If the stress is not extreme, regardless of the type of stress, it will likely be handled by the primary mode of cognition. If it is extreme, it will likely be met by the most appropriate function (Fe if it is feeling-related stress, Si if sensing-related, etc)
In the same way, if the feeling-related stress happens to be highly specifically Fi-related stress, then there comes a point that even for an INTP, Fi would be the most appropriate function to engage.
Using a function further down the stack leads to poorer results in general. But using a totally unsuited function is perhaps even worse.
The wiser the individual, the more likely she is to attempt to employ the assistance of someone else who uses that appropriate mode of cognition as his fundamental mode.
Apologies if necessary for derailing a thread that was in dire need of a derail.
Notice how you’ve talked about criticising Ni and Ni-doms as if it’s the same thing?
Specifically, you go straight from
to
And the rest of your OP deals with Ni users in particular, Ni itself is never mentioned again in its own right, only as a vehicle for how Ni users are wrong.
To me, your starting sentence sounds like “I’m not racist, but…”. It’s an attempt to circumvent allegations of prejudice while expressing precisely that. To be honest, I don’t think it’s entirely fair to label all criticism of a type as prejudice, as (assuming its veracity) type deals with real differences between people. But it’s still inconsistent to act that way.
Your OP also paints INTJ’s as ‘good little lambs’ who just sit down and take it, as well as vitriolic mud flingers who have high opinions of themselves but are fundamentally irrational. How are both these things the case? The only congruence these two claims have is they imply your position in the argument as dominant. It seems to me like you’re trying to depict yourself as the intellectual alpha. Which brings me to my next point ->
None of what you say in the OP is an argument for what you’re trying to ‘conclude’. I say conclude, but you phrase it as a question. However, I think I’m right to do this, because if you were genuinely after an answer, you would have provided the important details, like why you think Ni inferior for a starter.
***You haven’t stated why you think Ni is inferior***
If you were trying to discuss whether you’re right to think the thing that you do, wouldn't you try to justify your view? Doesn't that seem like a first-step that goes without saying? Instead, you craft an OP that depicts your flawless victory in the fight against Ni (users), then ask us, given your victory and their complete ineptitude, whether it was right for you to win by quite so much?
Now I’m not entirely sure about the happenings on the other forum, but your talk about people being ‘saved by the mods’ -> you were banned? You were banned for being overly aggressive to people, branded it a victory, then tried to continue the same argument in another forum? It sounds like you make a habit of crowd-sourcing aggression.
Now here’s my (albeit crude) response, with your responses tacked in.
As RB established, your communication has been less than stellar, and it’s no surprise that I interpreted you this way given your predilection for using Ni, Ni users, INTJ’s, INTJ’s you know, and INTJ’s you met on the internet interchangeably in pursuit of your conclusion. However, if I wasn't supposed to interpret what you were saying as INTJ’s collectively, how do you justify gerrymandering the INTJ’s you like and respect from those you don’t? You completely omitted any evidence of INTJ’s being anything but what you need them to be in support of your Ni hate. That’s a pretty biased sample bro.
Now I understand that a lot of INTJ’s have a pretty high opinion of themselves, but what you've been pushing here is not that they don’t measure up to their hype, but that they are categorically functionally inferior, which is possible, but fucking unlikely.
Now I have a confession -
Was really lazy, it was meant to either cap off the conversation if you were flighty, or treat you with the same obnoxiousness you push on the INTJ victim class. It was cheap and you’ve demonstrated robustness.
Your response however…
RB had already addressed it, and I’m sure you don’t want to experience repeats. On the other hand, it’s the height of hypocrisy to accuse me of addressing only the non-essentials in a post when this:
Happened.
When did I say you’d argued with every INTJ? This entire thread is attacking the dominant function of the INTJ as an inferior process. The blind-spot for your own communication issues aside, *you* are the one that generalised the behaviour of a few to a function, and by extension certain types. See:
So when I say that you are attacking the arguer rather than the argument, and you somehow manage to take from this that I think you've had a deep and meaningful debate with every INTJ that’s graced this sweet earth, you are the one that is directing your responses to irrelevant or non-existent positions instead of addressing the actual criticism leveled at you. I won’t be so pernicious as to label it a ‘saving face’ manoeuvre however. Dick.
Which reminds me. You still haven’t addressed the idea that, without bringing a single argument to the table, you want people to accept that there is something intrinsically inferior in dominant Ni users, while at the same time you get butt-hurt about every ad hom thrown your way. You should probably get on that.
While on the topic, has a single part of you considered that whether it’s your intention or not, if you bring heat on someone for something that, within the context of a type forum, could be considered inseparable from their identity, that the arguer in this case is intrinsic to the argument, which means you've essentially given yourself ad hom privileges while denying them to the opposition? That’s actually sort of clever… if it was on purpose. Are you any sort of surprised that when attacked, they attack back?
Stupid Ni-doms with their predilection for ad homs… I wonder what would happen if you did the same to any other function on a forum for its respective type.
Now... a lot of what I've said here is precisely the sort of 'reading between the lines' stuff you consider nonsense. I'm not asserting that these things are definitely the case, only that that's what it looks like. If it's not the case, please give an explanation.
Ever heard the expression, brevity is the soul of wit? Quantity is not quality, especially when it rambles. Aim for the latter next time--it will serve you better.
My take on Ni from another thread in this subforum, posted before this thread was created:
I really can't be bothered analyzing some miscellaneous online argument to try and justify the merits of various ideas about a theory that I don't even think is worthy of the title 'theory'. Like I said I don't think ad hominem has all that much to do with type specifically.
You wanted to know why you get accused of Ni bashing and why you get attacked. Well just in this thread you started by making general comments and then implying other people are incompetent when they interpret those general comments the wrong way. At the same time you assume the mantle of intellectual superiority over others.
Again, the context of my comments was perfectly clear on a close reading. Anyone can confirm this for himself.
Then you implied that this behaviour makes it "more interesting a game". Your demeanour doesn't really exude a desire to have a discussion so much as it screams that you're either a troll or just plain obnoxious.
Amidst all the arrows in this curious thread, the above strikes me as interesting. This seems more likely than the ideas that all stress provokes the inferior (or some other unvalued function) or that it provokes the dominant.
I know that I don't go into Fe mode when I'm facing a challenging and stressful situation; I hammer down with Ti (TiNe).
The times when I've seen myself in Fe mode are when I've felt helpless and un-anchored somehow.
This leads me on to my point. My thought on the matter is an extension of the OP's point above - that the function (mode of cognition) engaged in a stressful situation depends on the vector of the stress. It doesn't merely depend on the strength of it, but also on the nature of the stress.
If the stress is not extreme, regardless of the type of stress, it will likely be handled by the primary mode of cognition. If it is extreme, it will likely be met by the most appropriate function (Fe if it is feeling-related stress, Si if sensing-related, etc)
In the same way, if the feeling-related stress happens to be highly specifically Fi-related stress, then there comes a point that even for an INTP, Fi would be the most appropriate function to engage.
Using a function further down the stack leads to poorer results in general. But using a totally unsuited function is perhaps even worse.
The wiser the individual, the more likely she is to attempt to employ the assistance of someone else who uses that appropriate mode of cognition as his fundamental mode.
Apologies if necessary for derailing a thread that was in dire need of a derail.
Yes, I agree with you. Exposure to stress is normal and under normal stress you'd expect people to act normally and try to reduce the stress by using their dominant-auxiliary functions.
Yes, I agree with you. Exposure to stress is normal and under normal stress you'd expect people to act normally and try to reduce the stress by using their dominant-auxiliary functions.
Maybe you should try to back off the arguments for a while. It seems to be raising your blood pressure. I mean, you made three threads in like 30 min and all of them were negatively focused. I don't want to pry but it looks like you just need to vent some more.
Maybe you should try to back off the arguments for a while. It seems to be raising your blood pressure. I mean, you made three threads in like 30 min and all of them were negatively focused. I don't want to pry but it looks like you just need to vent some more.
I made those threads a couple of days ago. I've also reacted calmly and rationally to all the posts in these threads, even when they've attacked my person. So I disagree with you.
I agree my first post was motivated in part by venting. I disagree that I have continued to be moved by the same motivation. By making this accusation, you are just repeating the same mistake the Ni-doms I talked about made.
I reframed my OP by asking several questions in one post above (#32). You've chosen to bypass those questions and continue to make off-topic and meaningless comments. If you have something to add to this thread, please do. If you don't, then please refrain from further comments. You're not adding value.
Ni is a gut feeling or intuition. What is paranoia but a gut feeling rooted in negativity? A basless assumption about someone or something...
Ni individuals seem more attracted to conspiracy theories which infer that others have intention or commit planned malicious action against systems.
The question I ask myself...is Ni more susceptible to such paranoia of intentions or do such people wbo are suffering such paranoia identifying with Ni more often...?
There's now close to ten people who've tried to tell you in some form or another that you could stand to adjust the way you interact and phrase your writing, if you want to get your points across constructively.
Not an attack on you so much as the demeanour you project. It's only an attack on you if you interpret it that way. The thing is, this thread is about you and the way that you have issues with certain people.
Pointing out that the reason you have all these problems is likely to do with how you communicate is indeed personal - but it's not an attack.
@op why are you still here? You arent going to convince anyone of anything because your initial post set you in a certain light that everyone will forever be blinded by.
This site uses cookies to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies. We have no personalisation nor analytics --- especially no Google.
