Why INTPs Suck at Relationships

[PhoenixRising]

.. Sorry for deleting my original post.. On inspection, Fe said it was socially inappropriate =P

Mods can feel free to delete this thread.

 

[Ex-User (8886)]

People are just not interesting. It's an answer.

 

[Grayman]

.. Sorry for deleting my original post.. On inspection, Fe said it was socially inappropriate =P

Mods can feel free to delete this thread.

Give a warning....word it hte best you can...

After that they are responsible for their own feelings.

 

[BigApplePi]

Mods can feel free to delete this thread.

Why would they want to do that? Your proposal is legit.

Why INTPs Suck at Relationships:
1. Their thinking is internal. Who knows what they're thinking?
2. Their externality (Ne) is random and unstable. So it's hard to connect
3. Their sensuality is internal. Who knows how they take things?
4. Their socialiality works only if they explain their Ti favorably.

A relationship is time sensitive. It must last to be one. Anyone who leads with introversion must have a draw to others or else actively draw others to them.

 

[Architect]

If you watch "Curb Your Enthusiasm" you'll see the main reason why. In the series, Larry David (an INTP) plays an INTP. Because it's a comedy he exaggerates the character for effect. You see the best, or the worst in INTP's.

He analyzes every social situation, tells people things they do that are annoying, misses social cues, and pisses everybody off around him. He's said that his character is how he'd like to act, if he wasn't more socially aware (in real life). George Constanza (Seinfeld) was also based (and written by) on Larry David, so you see some of this there, but the Curb LD is the best example. I think Larry's ESTJ wife divorced him because of his INTP peculiarities.

Watch the show, it's like looking in a mirror. I see those characteristics in an INTP friend of mine, and have recognized how much I'm like that. Obnoxious ...

 

[PhoenixRising]

Why would they want to do that? Your proposal is legit.

Well.. because I had something specific in the OP, and I deleted it. So there's basically no content there >.>

But! since there seems to be an interest in the topic.. Here's what I had said before:

Spoiler

Because we approach things like this:

"I scared you away and made you feel unloved and stressed you out. I feel really bad for that and want to comfort you and show you how much I care."

"But on the other hand, there is this giant semantical argument in my mind about the reality of relationships, with so many details that haven't been logically deduced.. and I need to unravel the true causality of the human heart in order to complete my framework and decide how to approach interaction. And, I have a really hard time ignoring all that in order to give you a hug >.>"

"So.. wanna continue our argument? =D"

Why INTPs Suck at Relationships:
1. Their thinking is internal. Who knows what they're thinking?
2. Their externality (Ne) is random and unstable. So it's hard to connect
3. Their sensuality is internal. Who knows how they take things?
4. Their socialiality works only if they explain their Ti favorably.

A relationship is time sensitive. It must last to be one. Anyone who leads with introversion must have a draw to others or else actively draw others to them.

I think you have some good points, but the reasons seem a bit too general to me. There are INTPs out there that do succeed in social matters, but from what I've seen it's mainly because their Fe is more highly developed.

If you watch "Curb Your Enthusiasm" you'll see the main reason why. In the series, Larry David (an INTP) plays an INTP. Because it's a comedy he exaggerates the character for effect. You see the best, or the worst in INTP's.

He analyzes every social situation, tells people things they do that are annoying, misses social cues, and pisses everybody off around him. He's said that his character is how he'd like to act, if he wasn't more socially aware (in real life). George Constanza (Seinfeld) was also based (and written by) on Larry David, so you see some of this there, but the Curb LD is the best example. I think Larry's ESTJ wife divorced him because of his INTP peculiarities.

Watch the show, it's like looking in a mirror. I see those characteristics in an INTP friend of mine, and have recognized how much I'm like that. Obnoxious ...

Interesting, thank you for sharing this ^^ I watched the first episode, does remind me somewhat of Seinfeld's humor. I'm not sure how much I relate with the main character though, he definitely seems to have high Te. I've noticed a lot of what MBTI describes as INTP social awkwardness is actually underdeveloped Fi in other types.. I think that having one's ethical function underdeveloped tends to cause general social awkwardness, regardless of type.

 

[Amagi82]

INTPs can be incredibly good at relationships, especially over the long term. We do start off pretty crappy though- we have to learn a lot of things that other types get inherently, like an understanding of basic emotion.

Why INTPs are good at relationships:
1) We don't argue. Arguing is a waste of time.
2) We look for root problems and we fix them.
3) We avoid bullshit and focus on what is important.
4) We form intense intellectual connections.
5) We have an insatiable desire to learn and improve.
6) We like equality, and by default work toward it.

 

[manishboy]

This is right on

Why INTPs are good at relationships:
1) We don't argue. Arguing is a waste of time.
2) We look for root problems and we fix them.
3) We avoid bullshit and focus on what is important.
4) We form intense intellectual connections.
5) We have an insatiable desire to learn and improve.
6) We like equality, and by default work toward it.

Another characteristic I would add is that I am really good at gauging what other people need in relationships with me and then morphing into that form. So I can get along with a wide range of people.

 

[Architect]

INTPs can be incredibly good at relationships, especially over the long term. We do start off pretty crappy though- we have to learn a lot of things that other types get inherently, like an understanding of basic emotion.

Why INTPs are good at relationships:

lol .. this is all right, from the INTP perspective! You've got to watch Curb, and remember that it's a gross amplification.

1) We don't argue. Arguing is a waste of time.

Right, that's a problem! Arguments are a healthy part of a relationship, they mean that a couple isn't talking through stuff enough so it led to a bottle up.

2) We look for root problems and we fix them.

Yeah, and we treat our spouses as problems to be solved. Except they aren't problems and don't want to be solved.

3) We avoid bullshit and focus on what is important.

What we think is important, which usually doesn't involve feelings.

4) We form intense intellectual connections.

And usually lack intense emotional connections

5) We have an insatiable desire to learn and improve.

Which is often difficult for somebody who wants a stable mate who isn't always on some Jihad

6) We like equality, and by default work toward it.

This is probably the one good thing.

 

[PhoenixRising]

Yeah, and we treat our spouses as problems to be solved. Except they aren't problems and don't want to be solved.

^ this >.<

I think this is one of the most difficult aspects of having a relationship with an INTP. If you're trying to fix your partner, it's inevitable that you'll be focusing on what you don't like about them. And time spent trying to resolve perceived incompatibilities takes away from time spent simply enjoying your partner's company.

 

[Architect]

I think this is one of the most difficult aspects of having a relationship with an INTP. If you're trying to fix your partner, it's inevitable that you'll be focusing on what you don't like about them. And time spent trying to resolve perceived incompatibilities takes away from time spent simply enjoying your partner's company.

Right, and not to keep harping on about Curb, every episode is about perceived flaws the main character sees in people around him, and how he tries to correct them (to disastrous, hilarious effect).

 

[Grayman]

^ this >.<

I think this is one of the most difficult aspects of having a relationship with an INTP. If you're trying to fix your partner, it's inevitable that you'll be focusing on what you don't like about them. And time spent trying to resolve perceived incompatibilities takes away from time spent simply enjoying your partner's company.

Not inevitable. I see issues and blessings. I am not willing to ignore either so yes my spouse is a problem to be solved. My spouse is also a blessing to be enjoyed and i am thankful for when I recieve what is not due me.

 

[BigApplePi]

6) We like equality, and by default work toward it.

This is probably the one good thing.

I would go with all of them but the last.
How about: 6) We like fairness, and by default work toward it.

I wouldn't want equality to be mistaken for uniformity. If someone excels, it might be good for society to give them a little extra. On the other hand if someone falls short, it might be good to protect them.

Does this seem not only fair, but beneficial? Check this out with any example you can think of.

 

[Grayman]

Does this seem not only fair, but beneficial? Check this out with any example you can think of.

Fair is also very subjective and too often claimed by the entitled.

 

[Spirit]

lol .. this is all right, from the INTP perspective! You've got to watch Curb, and remember that it's a gross amplification.



Right, that's a problem! Arguments are a healthy part of a relationship, they mean that a couple isn't talking through stuff enough so it led to a bottle up.



Yeah, and we treat our spouses as problems to be solved. Except they aren't problems and don't want to be solved.



What we think is important, which usually doesn't involve feelings.



And usually lack intense emotional connections



Which is often difficult for somebody who wants a stable mate who isn't always on some Jihad




This is probably the one good thing.

I was exactly these in most of my relationships. Not sure these are exclusive to INTP.

 

[Jennywocky]

Parts of relationships I was good at
1. Fairness.
2. Good at understanding other views.
3. Reasonable.
4. Pretty emotionally calm / patient.
5. Good at predicting outcome of choices/behaviors.

Things I was bad at
1. Sharing thoughts/emotions or proactively asking partners about theirs
2. Dismissing value of customs and routines
3. Neglecting opportunities for interdependence in the relationship
4. Not respecting/accommodating partners' emotional needs
5. Could be touchy if I felt pressured by presumed
6. Being proactive to resolve personal conflicts, I typically would try to sidestep or avoid.


The whole "fairness" thing for some people flies in the face of "loyalty." I won't take someone's side just because I'm close to them, if I don't think they are right after I analyze their position. Sometimes that is seen as betrayal.

I do typically view "equality" as important in the relationship, but I found if I'm dealing with someone who is more interested in fighting for their position, then that leaves me at a disadvantage.

I think this is one of the most difficult aspects of having a relationship with an INTP. If you're trying to fix your partner, it's inevitable that you'll be focusing on what you don't like about them. And time spent trying to resolve perceived incompatibilities takes away from time spent simply enjoying your partner's company.

I would see all the flaws in my partner but didn't necessarily want to fix him; it was more like a "live and let live" situation. The flaws were obvious, so I figured my partner saw mine, and we had a tacit agreement to be accepting and reasonable and constructive (in my head).

What got bad is when my partner was trying to fix me when I wasn't trying to fix my partner, and eventually things would come to a head due to the unfairness factor. I would get frustrated at the inequity, and if I was pushed too hard, since I was really aware of my partner's weaknesses, if I decided to take off the gloves, things could get bad.

I think many types of people view their partners as "fix-it" projects.

 

[Grayman]

1) We don't argue. Arguing is a waste of time.
2) We look for root problems and we fix them.
3) We avoid bullshit and focus on what is important.
4) We form intense intellectual connections.
5) We have an insatiable desire to learn and improve.
6) We like equality, and by default work toward it.

1) Not from what Ive seen. I don't argue about simple things if they only show up once. If I feel an issue will continue to occur I tackle it because I don't want to have to deal with this occurring over and over again.
2) Yes... We look for the root of the problem. I am sure you did not mean we look for problems...??
3) As stated in (1). I know that Architect mentioned feelings in his responses so I don't want to be too repetitive. I learned some lessons from a counselor. He was like a good book to me. Anyways, I see emotional necessities in people now and I know that they are issues just like any other issue that need addressing in order to get to solutions. I am a bit of a utilitarian so am willing to do many things in the path to get the needed results. Emotions are included in that even though they feel so insubstantial many times.
4) I suppose that is a positive. It is not always required in a relationship.
5) Good if we would just act on it.
6) I don't care much about equality. I see a relationship as an opportunity of two different people working together to add strength to the others weaknesses.

 

[Base groove]

Why INTPs suck at relationships??

They are distant, detached, hard to know, and totally, totally okay with having it end and turning their back forever.

They are reluctant to merge and prefer to maintain a barrier of me/you, meaning they are very slow to open up and quite difficult to trust.

Oh but this just came from my mind I actually haven't ever married an INTP so perhaps I have no clue.

 

[PhoenixRising]

Why INTPs suck at relationships??

They are distant, detached, hard to know, and totally, totally okay with having it end and turning their back forever.

They are reluctant to merge and prefer to maintain a barrier of me/you, meaning they are very slow to open up and quite difficult to trust.

Oh but this just came from my mind I actually haven't ever married an INTP so perhaps I have no clue.

ums.. I think perhaps this is a bit too harsh? From what I've experienced, we can be slow to open up, but once we get to know someone an INTP can be very loving and trusting. I don't think the majority of any type feels totally ok with breakups. Emotional attachment depends on specific individuals and situations more than types, I think.

 

[Grayman]

They are distant, detached, hard to know, and totally, totally okay with having it end and turning their back forever.

Easy to know once you get past the barrier. They will turn their back if the relationship is irreparable and what is the point of going back to an irreparable relationship?

They are reluctant to merge and prefer to maintain a barrier of me/you, meaning they are very slow to open up and quite difficult to trust.

Yes on the first part. Once you open it up they really open up. IMO
I think the trust thing is just you not really liking to trust other people.

Oh but this just came from my mind I actually haven't ever married an INTP so perhaps I have no clue.

Maybe in a different life then.

 

[Amagi82]

lol .. this is all right, from the INTP perspective! You've got to watch Curb, and remember that it's a gross amplification.

I watched some of it and found him highly unrelatable.

Right, that's a problem! Arguments are a healthy part of a relationship, they mean that a couple isn't talking through stuff enough so it led to a bottle up.

No, discussions are a healthy part of a relationship. In a good relationship, you discuss problems and fix them before they become arguments.

Yeah, and we treat our spouses as problems to be solved. Except they aren't problems and don't want to be solved.

We can learn to alter behavior in such a clever way that the other person doesn't even realize it. Confrontation is a crappy and inefficient way to change people. As an example, I am polyamorous and wanted to tell my parents about it, but I wanted them to have a positive reaction, so over a 6 month period, I fed them information and ideas, slowly and carefully opening their eyes to the subject, without them even noticing. When I finally told them, in a carefully engineered setting, they reacted positively and almost exactly how I predicted they would.

What we think is important, which usually doesn't involve feelings.

We have the ability to learn that too. It's harder for us, but it can be learned and mastered like anything else.

And usually lack intense emotional connections

True. You can, however, do a lot with awareness and comprehension.

Which is often difficult for somebody who wants a stable mate who isn't always on some Jihad

On the contrary, our emotional stability can make us exactly the sort of bedrock that many relationships need. Our desire to improve intellectually need not affect relationship stability. In fact, it can be a unifying force in the long term if the INTP has selected a partner with any significant intellectual merit, and not simply fallen blindly into a relationship with someone with the desired genitals.

 

[Amagi82]

The whole "fairness" thing for some people flies in the face of "loyalty." I won't take someone's side just because I'm close to them, if I don't think they are right after I analyze their position. Sometimes that is seen as betrayal

I hadn't thought about it from that angle. Interesting. This is probably part of the reason why I don't have any friends who are big into the concept of loyalty. I've noticed I often have to be very very careful about how I word things when this issue arises.

 

[Minuend]

I don't see it as one type being worse in a relationship than others.

Pretty much all people bring with them attitudes, beliefs, values, reaction patterns etc that can be potentially destructive in a relationship. What is more essential than a certain trait alone, is the compatibility with the other individual/s involved.

Just like some people would shy away from the stereotypic INTP behavior, the INTP would steer away from another set of behaviors. There is no rule that says the INTP behavior is the less preferably one.

It's not like social norms where you have a shitload of people who conform to certain acceptable rules (though, you will also find large differeces in what's acceptable there). In a relationship, you only need to find compatibility with one or a few persons.

It's just about finding a person who either share traits that are fundamental to one's person, or who can accept them (or both, I guess).

The OP's ability to recognize behavior that can potentially lead to or enlarge conflict is more important than whether one is INTP or not. If you have that insight and can find a partner on equal intellectual level, she will eventually find herself with someone who either shares problem solving approach, or who is able to understand this trait and not take it personal. And thus she isn't badder at relationships than other types who had to compensate for their potential problems.

 

[Jennywocky]

I hadn't thought about it from that angle. Interesting. This is probably part of the reason why I don't have any friends who are big into the concept of loyalty. I've noticed I often have to be very very careful about how I word things when this issue arises.

I noticed it most dealing with an SiFe significant other -- there were a lot of expectations of how I was "supposed" to respond to things I didn't necessarily agree with, just because we were hitched, and it really put me in a spot because not supporting an SO's argument / position for me was more a matter of criticizing the position being held, not the person holding it; but it wasn't read that way. "YOu are supposed to agree with me, to support me, as part of being my SO!"

I've seen it show up in some similar friendships as well, though not as intensely.

It was really a bind for me. I'm not a disloyal person, and I tend to hold some affection (through familiarity) with people who I don't even see anymore or where the relationship ended in some way... but I can't lie and say support an idea that I think is false either. It makes sense if you'd gravitate towards those who didn't put you in that kind of bind by nature.

 

[Grayman]

I noticed it most dealing with an SiFe significant other -- there were a lot of expectations of how I was "supposed" to respond to things I didn't necessarily agree with, just because we were hitched, and it really put me in a spot because not supporting an SO's argument / position for me was more a matter of criticizing the position being held, not the person holding it; but it wasn't read that way. "YOu are supposed to agree with me, to support me, as part of being my SO!"

I've seen it show up in some similar friendships as well, though not as intensely.

It was really a bind for me. I'm not a disloyal person, and I tend to hold some affection (through familiarity) with people who I don't even see anymore or where the relationship ended in some way... but I can't lie and say support an idea that I think is false either. It makes sense if you'd gravitate towards those who didn't put you in that kind of bind by nature.

It seems to be a matter of when and where you correct them as well.

 

[Jake]

1) We don't argue. Arguing is a waste of time.

Since when?

 

[Jennywocky]

It depends on whether the arguing leads to important discussions that are needed to fix the relationship, or slowly at least change people's attitudes towards the other POV. Sometimes iron sharpens iron.

But it ain't a lot of fun and can also result in scorched earth.

 

[Amagi82]

I noticed it most dealing with an SiFe significant other -- there were a lot of expectations of how I was "supposed" to respond to things I didn't necessarily agree with, just because we were hitched, and it really put me in a spot because not supporting an SO's argument / position for me was more a matter of criticizing the position being held, not the person holding it; but it wasn't read that way. "YOu are supposed to agree with me, to support me, as part of being my SO!"

I've seen it show up in some similar friendships as well, though not as intensely.

It was really a bind for me. I'm not a disloyal person, and I tend to hold some affection (through familiarity) with people who I don't even see anymore or where the relationship ended in some way... but I can't lie and say support an idea that I think is false either. It makes sense if you'd gravitate towards those who didn't put you in that kind of bind by nature.

This is why I date people who are very intelligent, then expand their minds and groom them to come to the right conclusions.

What I do do when someone puts me in a situation where I cannot agree with them, is sorta smile and nod, and later, pull them aside and explain my viewpoint on the matter. It's almost always easier to explain yourself and change someone's opinion when you do it privately, not in the company of others where they must try to save face.

I think this is also a gendered issue, culturally.