Why do INTs minimize the effect of their behavior on others? [Archive]

trap

01-09-2008, 11:57 AM

Why do INTs in friendships & romantic relationships tend to be unaware of how their behavior, particularly lack of responsiveness, affects other people?

I know the quick answer is their detachment, weak Fe, etc. but I guess I want a more detailed explanation.

I know some INTs IRL that are notoriously bad at maintaining communication in their friendships, whether it has to do with a question, a joke/lighthearted thing, an invitation to a social event, a request for help, etc. There's just a black hole, even when the friendships are well-established & the non-INTs know they are valued.

In a romantic relationship, I have observed so much of this behavior, where the INT will back off from the person, probably to evaluate the person, but then expects the partner to show consistency of behavior toward them, & don't seem to realize that their unresponsiveness does not make the partner feel secure & the partner feels insecure or negative toward the INT. The INT seems baffled, like it does not enter their mind that their external behavior, the only data they're giving the other person is "no data". Many people will interpret lack of initiative or response as "no interest", not "I'm continuing to evaluate you, be patient!!":(

It seems odd that the INT views themselves in a vacuum & the other person in a vacuum, without much acknowledgement to the dynamic between them. Why is the external behavior of yourself not subject to analysis in your interpretation?

Pkz

01-09-2008, 12:24 PM

Well, we wan't people to make sense really. When I look at a calculator, a car, a hard-drive or a power-plant I can imagine inside my head how these things function. They are mostly partly mechanical, electrical or are driven by other really easily comprehensible means. Now these things make sense, people dont. When I am with people, I feel detatched in some way, because I in general cannot get them to make sense like for example a calculator. I will try to utilise logic in my actions, and hope that the other person is NT oriented and will grasp this. Now such "straightforward" actions might not seem straightforward to you, but they really are simple to me, and that how I attempt to communicate.

Now I really cant see how external behaviour has ever made any sense to me. I will generally attempt to rationalise, and this is not an easy problem, especially being introvertly focused, belive me. Now how will I, or any INT for that matter be able to implement a factor which doesnt make sense? Thats like when you see a math-formula but you don't really know in which context to use it, or even how.

trap

01-09-2008, 01:23 PM

I will try to utilise logic in my actions, and hope that the other person is NT oriented and will grasp this. Now such "straightforward" actions might not seem straightforward to you, but they really are simple to me, and that how I attempt to communicate.

I think they're straightforward if they're observable, I can't read your mind! So no disagreement here, I'm talking about a lack of observable social behavior.

Now I really cant see how external behaviour has ever made any sense to me. I will generally attempt to rationalise, and this is not an easy problem, especially being introvertly focused, belive me. Now how will I, or any INT for that matter be able to implement a factor which doesnt make sense? Thats like when you see a math-formula but you don't really know in which context to use it, or even how.

I don't understand what you're saying here.......you are analyzing the person in question by their observable, empirical behavior, are you not? So, it seems reasonable that you would respond to the person in an observable way back, right?

Santana28

01-09-2008, 01:33 PM

Pkz

01-09-2008, 01:42 PM

I don't understand what you're saying here.......you are analyzing the person in question by their observable, empirical behavior, are you not? So, it seems reasonable that you would respond to the person in an observable way back, right?
As if I was observing them? If so, this would be a fault on my side, or? At least as I see it I would need to remain neutral about it to prevent the person from knowing I was observing because this would make the person in questin act in another manner. Was this your point, because I didnt quite understand it, please rephrase.

But I dont try to analyse people exept for relatives and people I in general will have to stick with regardless. As Santana, I couldnt really care that much about other people that have no understanding.

errrzarrr

01-09-2008, 02:53 PM

well, for me there are two explanations. one - if the person does not understand me or is not capable of understanding me, then i have absolutely no concern whatsoever they feel about my actions. two - if this person DOES understand me and grasps the workings behind my actions, then they would understand why i do what i do and not judge my actions in ways that were not intended by me.

I agree! It is our personality and there's nothing to be ashamed about it. There are different people, different personalities/characters and is important to accept each one with their pros/cons.

Rohsiph

01-09-2008, 03:22 PM

In a romantic relationship, I have observed so much of this behavior, where the INT will back off from the person, probably to evaluate the person, but then expects the partner to show consistency of behavior toward them, & don't seem to realize that their unresponsiveness does not make the partner feel secure & the partner feels insecure or negative toward the INT. The INT seems baffled, like it does not enter their mind that their external behavior, the only data they're giving the other person is "no data". Many people will interpret lack of initiative or response as "no interest", not "I'm continuing to evaluate you, be patient!!":(

Not sure about the entirety of your question . . . but I want to take a shot at perhaps offering some insight particularly about the line I emphasized above--

life isn't secure. Security is a lie--a huge, massive, incessantly perpetrated lie that serves only to harm those who see it as anything near a "proof of safety" for example.

This isn't to say that security is entirely without worth . . . but I find it impossible to appreciate, to reap the benefits of its worth, without first understanding the world to be rooted more fundamentally in chaos.

Therefore, I am baffled--even alienated--when I make someone feel insecure and they get upset about it. It's the wrong interpretation, if it actually is friendship/love between myself and this other person, to assume that I have "no interest"--but I need that detachment to ground myself so I can return to interacting with a fundamentally chaotic world. It is proof of the fundamental chaos that I mean to get at here when considering examples of experiences in which someone reacts negatively to "insecurity"--because there is no real security.

My goal isn't to strike harmony in my relationships . . . my goal is to learn more, and to help the people I care about learn more, especially at the cost of harmony. Harmony is another lie--or, more accurately, a facade. Relationships are all-or-nothing for me (and, so I have read, also for most INTJ's): if I invest anything, I am willing to at least consider investing everything. Then, when I am misunderstood after my motivations are misinterpreted, it hurts me just as much (perhaps even moreso) than one acting on the basis of false concepts (security/harmony).

I used to interact with a lot more people who would become upset with me when I'd disappear . . . but with most of those people, one of two things happened: either they got too fed up with my "negligence" and stopped trying to hunt me down, or I lost all interest in thinking about them because they never offered me anything of value. The relationships I maintain often come with long periods of limited, or even zero, interaction . . . but the interactions we share are always meaningful, deep, rich, and insightful. Those are the things I want to offer, and that I think I am capable of offering--if I can't get at least some of those things in return, I won't waste my time unless it's clear that it won't be a complete waste.

Harmony & security be damned--if those things are really important to you, then you're probably not going to remain important to me for very long.

Uytuun

01-09-2008, 03:45 PM

Hmmm...I have to agree that I'm quite often not aware of how my behaviour affects other people...I think that in general I'm just less aware of my body...living in our minds etc. I sometimes ask my friends what annoys them about me...but they don't really seem to give me an honest reply. :p

The thing is that for the friends I'm really attached to, I will make the effort and keep in touch, for people that I feel absolutely no connection with, I won't make that effort. It's funny that you should ask, because just now I was replying to an e-mail by a friend and all of a sudden I realised that, yeah, it might be nice for her if I asked her how she was doing...that's something that just doesn't come to my mind automatically...it's not that I am completely disinterested in her status, but I'm quite sure that she's doing ok, so it doesn't really serve a purpose...it's that thing about not grasping the social rituals I guess. Nevertheless, I have to say that I'm always happy to see my friends happy. And since they've accepted my INTJ quirks, that works out well. They don't seem to be complaining about unresponsiveness too often. My mother (ESFJ) on the other hand does, repeatedly, and probably because she doesn't get me at all.

Well, my external behaviour is definitely subject to thorough analysis in situations such as falling in love, and in that situation, at least in my case, there tends to be quite some input too.

I'm not superstrong on the T, though.

Also, if you feel that you need a constant wave of response to ground your sense of self-worth, or the security of the relationship, you might want to consider going for another type.

danalaina

01-09-2008, 04:18 PM

It seems odd that the INT views themselves in a vacuum & the other person in a vacuum, without much acknowledgement to the dynamic between them. Why is the external behavior of yourself not subject to analysis in your interpretation?

it may be our natural tendency, but i think this might be something that changes either with age or with study.

can't speak for the rest of you, but my relationships have been under pretty constant scrutiny. i've learned not to bother the guy with the details of my examinations unless there's a big problem, though. if i do, either he thinks i'm mad for over-analyzing the inner workings, or his (generalization) male anti-relationship-talk gene kicks in, and he glazes over.

my scrutiny extends to both of us. the interrelation of action (or inaction) fascinates me.

danalaina added to this post, 3 minutes and 50 seconds later...

I agree! It is our personality and there's nothing to be ashamed about it. There are different people, different personalities/characters and is important to accept each one with their pros/cons.

maybe you didn't quite mean it this way, but i hate this idea...the idea that we're Type X, and that should excuse X behavior. MBTI is just a starting point, folks. it tells us what our weaknesses are not so we can glory in them but so we can try to compensate for or correct them.

people who are content with themselves have no impetus to improve, and people who aren't interested in improving themselves generally aren't very...interesting to me.

errrzarrr

01-09-2008, 04:48 PM

danalaina

01-09-2008, 05:04 PM

The first step to improve and be interesting to anyone is accepting yourself as you are, second step is not to try to impress and doing stuff to be "interesting". That's enough for making you happy with yourself and people accepting you.

yeah, gotta disagree with you there. i can be perfectly happy being me without being thrilled at my faults and while trying to improve them.

they are faults. INTJs aren't gods, nor is any other type. what does impressing people or doing things to be interesting have to do with this?

The Rose

01-09-2008, 06:39 PM

I think the lack of Fe IS the answer.
I'm not sure what else you want to hear.

elsdfr

01-09-2008, 07:00 PM

I grew up oblivious to the effects of what I said had on others. Once I started to see it I closed up almost completly until I thought I understood someone and their motives first. Neither of these is healthy in usual social environments so now I'm just trying to balance it when I can.... I guess this is why (for me anyway) people think I'm shy/reserved, when really I'm not. I like to think I'm just saving them ;D, plus I hate being judged on some of the flippant remarks I make.

rwyatt365

01-10-2008, 05:05 AM

In all relationships, whether friendly or intimate, I try to give an "introductory speech" – one where I attempt to let the person know what to expect of me (more or less). I tell them that I am not like most people that they know or have known; I am reclusive and introspective, I am not demonstrative or emotional, I think logically and rationally and like things to "make sense"…and on, and on. It's not a detailed manifesto but it does try to hit the high (and low) points of my psyche. This way, there is no confusion over the kind of person that they're dealing with. And, when the inevitable "why did you do that?" question comes up I can say, "Do you remember when we first got together and I told you about myself?"

Now, as to the "why". I (and I presume most INTJs) value my own personal integrity above all things. Who I am, and how I think I more important to me than any other person or thing. Without that, I am not "me" – I become "someone else" if I compromise my personal integrity. If I tell the truth about myself to someone, and they (claim to) accept that as someone that they wish to deal with, then I will do my best to accommodate their need for security. But I will not compromise who I am. If a person accepts the truth about me then they will have no reason to feel insecure because they will know that, once committed to a relationship, I am fully committed.

They will now that my "disappearances" are for personal, mental restoration and revitalization and not an escape from the relationship. They will know (in an intimate relationship) that I don't call 3 times a day because I am busy with something that requires my full attention and that calling is a distraction. They will know (in a friendship) if I don’t write them for 3 months that just means that I don’t have anything new to tell them. And they will both know that those things have no relevance to how I feel about them, or the relationship.

For me, any bafflement is because I did warn them ahead of time, and they agreed to continue the relationship knowing these things. It's like me telling you that the stove is hot and that you might get burned, and you acknowledging that fact – and then you put you hand on the burner…and act surprised that you got burnt! I am baffled that you are surprised that you got burnt! What did you expect? That is a quintessentially illogical act, of course I am confused and need to regroup (and, perhaps, rethink the relationship).

The Rose

01-10-2008, 08:15 AM

Very well said.
I feel the same way.

trap

01-10-2008, 12:33 PM

Not sure about the entirety of your question . . . but I want to take a shot at perhaps offering some insight particularly about the line I emphasized above--

Most of my question is with INT's analytical minds, why is the dynamic of the interaction in a relationship not explored, rather it seems the INT takes themselves out of the equation? Here's an illustration--the INT acts as if they're an audience member watching their partner on the stage & evaluating the person on stage that they're in a relationship with. They're evaluating a relationship in which they are a participant as a bystander which is not accurate, & therefore they are not as aware as how their actions or inactions influence the reactions & behavior of their partner. Does that make sense?

I think they should evaluate it as a system & acknowledge that detachment in a personal system will often have negative effects & influence their appraisal of the person (even in a INT x 2 relationship, the 2 still need to communicate & work out conflict, & spend time together to form a secure attachment--there will still be some following of social rules of 1 partner initiating, the other responding). I think they should learn how to influence the system, in a positive way, & then make their appraisal.

life isn't secure. Security is a lie--a huge, massive, incessantly perpetrated lie that serves only to harm those who see it as anything near a "proof of safety" for example.

This isn't to say that security is entirely without worth . . . but I find it impossible to appreciate, to reap the benefits of its worth, without first understanding the world to be rooted more fundamentally in chaos.

I'm talking about security in the attachment with the person, there is all sorts of research that insecure attachments are damaging to relationships, whether they are of the preoccupied/fearful or dismissive/avoidant variety.

trap added to this post, 7 minutes and 9 seconds later...

Now, as to the "why". I (and I presume most INTJs) value my own personal integrity above all things. Who I am, and how I think I more important to me than any other person or thing. Without that, I am not "me" – I become "someone else" if I compromise my personal integrity. If I tell the truth about myself to someone, and they (claim to) accept that as someone that they wish to deal with, then I will do my best to accommodate their need for security. But I will not compromise who I am. If a person accepts the truth about me then they will have no reason to feel insecure because they will know that, once committed to a relationship, I am fully committed.

I don't know what that means, or how that would only apply to you. Doesn't every type have to compromise to some degree in their relationships with others? How is it any different for me, with Se & Si as my weak functions, to say I'm compromising my integrity if I make any compensations or allowances for people in my life to accommodate them, especially the SJs in my life? Do I just say, "this is who I am, I find organizing & planning draining & against my nature, so if you're friends with me or live with me, I will only do things spontaneously & keep my house in complete chaos"? Would that be in conflict with my "personal integrity"?

Is it only personal integrity because it relates to your social/interpersonal function, which is perceived as a less strong function that it gets dicey?

Don't all types that are healthy, compromise & compensate for their weak functions & find in their dynamics with others, who they get along with best?

Solaris

01-10-2008, 01:29 PM

Rohsiph

01-10-2008, 05:19 PM

Most of my question is with INT's analytical minds, why is the dynamic of the interaction in a relationship not explored, rather it seems the INT takes themselves out of the equation? Here's an illustration--the INT acts as if they're an audience member watching their partner on the stage & evaluating the person on stage that they're in a relationship with. They're evaluating a relationship in which they are a participant as a bystander which is not accurate, & therefore they are not as aware as how their actions or inactions influence the reactions & behavior of their partner. Does that make sense?

I think they should evaluate it as a system & acknowledge that detachment in a personal system will often have negative effects & influence their appraisal of the person (even in a INT x 2 relationship, the 2 still need to communicate & work out conflict, & spend time together to form a secure attachment--there will still be some following of social rules of 1 partner initiating, the other responding). I think they should learn how to influence the system, in a positive way, & then make their appraisal.

Ah . . . this makes sense, and I think I agree with the second paragraph. It sounds a lot like something I've been trying to work on . . . so maybe there's some bias, but it's like-minded :)

I'm talking about security in the attachment with the person, there is all sorts of research that insecure attachments are damaging to relationships, whether they are of the preoccupied/fearful or dismissive/avoidant variety.

Another "Ah" . . . though I think my point still stands. Maybe "lie" was too strong & negative a word to use, but I assert then that security/harmony is an illusion. It's important for me to transcend perceived notions that are illusory . . . not at every moment, but certainly when I take time to check-in with my metaphysical health.

On compromise: it actually is important to never give up anything perceived internally as "integral." If someone forces my hand and I have to choose to either avoid the person, or change something about myself that I value, I will almost always follow according to my values.

The concept that intimate relationships are built on compromise . . . is unsettling. I acknowledge that compromise will occasionally have to arise for the sake of whatever kind of relationship, but I think it's a language problem--when I think "compromise," I immediately think of nearly-impossible situations involving opposite value-systems. Having discussed the "relationships are built on compromise" thing with various types, in my experience smaller situations come to mind to those who believe in the concept.

Big compromise is very rare. Small compromise . . . usually happens every day, regardless of relationship type.

The Rose

01-10-2008, 05:29 PM

Most of my question is with INT's analytical minds, why is the dynamic of the interaction in a relationship not explored, rather it seems the INT takes themselves out of the equation? Here's an illustration--the INT acts as if they're an audience member watching their partner on the stage & evaluating the person on stage that they're in a relationship with. They're evaluating a relationship in which they are a participant as a bystander which is not accurate, & therefore they are not as aware as how their actions or inactions influence the reactions & behavior of their partner. Does that make sense?Taking ourselves out of the equation is what we do. That's who we are. It's how we make decisions and come to conclusions. Granted. I can see why that would be frustrating for people.

I used to be this way. I was too far out of touch with my own feelings. I had attachment issues - I think I still do and I've been married 25 years!

If you're in a relationship with someone who is like this, you're going to have to accept them for who they are and give them some room to grow while assuming they may never get very far.

I think they should evaluate it as a system & acknowledge that detachment in a personal system will often have negative effects & influence their appraisal of the person (even in a INT x 2 relationship, the 2 still need to communicate & work out conflict, & spend time together to form a secure attachment--there will still be some following of social rules of 1 partner initiating, the other responding). I think they should learn how to influence the system, in a positive way, & then make their appraisal.Of course, you are right, but what INTJs "should" do and what they "can" do might be 2 different things. Sure, what you're suggesting sounds like a good idea, but it's possible the person you are referring to is not mature enough to do that, or has been too badly emotionally damaged to do that, or may remain incapable of doing that for the rest of their lives, for some other reason. Yes, we can mentally agree with you, you're right, but being able to DO it is not as easy as saying it.

To me it's like you're saying, "I'm a body builder. I weigh 300 pounds and I can bench press 250 pounds. I think everybody should be able to bench press 250 pounds." While bonding may be something you are good at, it's not something everyone is good at.

I don't know what that means, or how that would only apply to you. Doesn't every type have to compromise to some degree in their relationships with others? How is it any different for me, with Se & Si as my weak functions, to say I'm compromising my integrity if I make any compensations or allowances for people in my life to accommodate them, especially the SJs in my life? Do I just say, "this is who I am, I find organizing & planning draining & against my nature, so if you're friends with me or live with me, I will only do things spontaneously & keep my house in complete chaos"? Would that be in conflict with my "personal integrity"?Are you compromising your personal integrity? Have you ever experienced what that feels like?

Don't all types that are healthy, compromise & compensate for their weak functions & find in their dynamics with others, who they get along with best?Yes. Perhaps you are not dealing with a healthy person.

You're not expecting your friend to be a mind-reader, are you?
INTJs are terrible at that.

elsdfr

01-10-2008, 05:40 PM

I immediately think of nearly-impossible situations involving opposite value-systems. Having discussed the "relationships are built on compromise" thing with various types, in my experience smaller situations come to mind to those who believe in the concept.

How is it a "smaller situation" when one type admits to compromising their inate responses/beliefs in order to maintain harmony in a relationship?

Are you saying in a relationship you would be yourself all the time and so should they and if thats so and you're happy the relationship can continue or exist?

Rohsiph

01-10-2008, 07:09 PM

How is it a "smaller situation" when one type admits to compromising their inate responses/beliefs in order to maintain harmony in a relationship?

Thanks for illustrating my point--

when "compromise" comes to mind, I (and, it seems, you as well) immediately start thinking about situations which would indeed compromise "innate" beliefs . . . however, when discussing the "relationships are based on compromise" idea with others, the kinds of "compromise" they illustrate most often include situations like, "What do you want to watch tonight?" or "Could you come with me to visit my family? You haven't seen them in six months" kinds of things . . . situations where one's initial reaction might prove negative to the request, or where the final decision might not be the most desired choice, but that don't fundamentally undermine the things that make someone who/what he/she happens to be.

Are you saying in a relationship you would be yourself all the time and so should they and if thats so and you're happy the relationship can continue or exist?

Um . . . I think so? Are you challenging this understanding in some way? If you're trying to confirm with me an understanding of what I describe above . . . well, I said it; I think so.

elsdfr

01-10-2008, 08:04 PM

Thanks for illustrating my point--

when "compromise" comes to mind, I (and, it seems, you as well) immediately start thinking about situations which would indeed compromise "innate" beliefs . . . however, when discussing the "relationships are based on compromise" idea with others, the kinds of "compromise" they illustrate most often include situations like, "What do you want to watch tonight?" or "Could you come with me to visit my family? You haven't seen them in six months" kinds of things . . . situations where one's initial reaction might prove negative to the request, or where the final decision might not be the most desired choice, but that don't fundamentally undermine the things that make someone who/what he/she happens to be.

Um . . . I think so? Are you challenging this understanding in some way? If you're trying to confirm with me an understanding of what I describe above . . . well, I said it; I think so.

I agree with the everyday compromises but yes, how much are we willing to compromise of ourselves in order to get something we need or want? Without it I've found the chances are slim.

I'm trying to think of an example of other types but can only see them changing their habits as a form of compromise. Whereas myself I've always felt like I'm having to learn how not to be myself in order to fit in as it has never just happened (with the non-freaks anyway) as it seems to for other types. So I'd like to know if others felt to need to change core personality traits, or even other types? Am I on a deluded quest to perfect what I see as a flawed type? Do others find this out and want change in order to fix something in their lives? Or is it more of a case of I'm an INTJ, so what, they can deal with it... just learn the basics and move on?

Solaris

01-10-2008, 09:19 PM

I agree with the everyday compromises but yes, how much are we willing to compromise of ourselves in order to get something we need or want? Without it I've found the chances are slim.

I'm trying to think of an example of other types but can only see them changing their habits as a form of compromise. Whereas myself I've always felt like I'm having to learn how not to be myself in order to fit in as it has never just happened (with the non-freaks anyway) as it seems to for other types. So I'd like to know if others felt to need to change core personality traits, or even other types? Am I on a deluded quest to perfect what I see as a flawed type? Do others find this out and want change in order to fix something in their lives? Or is it more of a case of I'm an INTJ, so what, they can deal with it... just learn the basics and move on?

I tried compromising myself for years. Yes, that indicates that I view compromising innate beliefs and habits and functions as compromising oneself. I never felt I quite fit in anywhere (sounds familiar right?), so I figured I must be the one who was so strange. This led to poor decisions, some poor relationships, and, eventually, a decision that this was foolishness. I realized that I want for others what I want for myself -- to be accepted and appreciated for exactly who I am. I will not ever settle again for anything less in a SO. Friends, well, I'd like the same, but am willing to make more exceptions. Some people think I was probably hurtful for divorcing the man I married, but we didn't understand each other, and didn't truly appreciate each other. We weren't helping each other grow, and couldn't effectively communicate. Where's the happiness for either party in that? So I left.

On another part of this thread. I read "compromise" as changing huge parts of myself, or making extreme exceptions in another -- not the small stuff like what to have for dinner, or what to watch on TV, or even what pattern the sofa should be (or should it have one?).

elsdfr

01-10-2008, 09:41 PM

I think what I was referring to was a tendency to be too critical. And yes, accepting oneself is just as important as being able to accept others...

I think Denis Leary put this mood well.. "Life sucks, get a fucking helmet!" ;D

The Rose

01-11-2008, 05:05 AM

I tried compromising myself for years. Yes, that indicates that I view compromising innate beliefs and habits and functions as compromising oneself. I never felt I quite fit in anywhere (sounds familiar right?), so I figured I must be the one who was so strange. This led to poor decisions, some poor relationships, and, eventually, a decision that this was foolishness. I realized that I want for others what I want for myself -- to be accepted and appreciated for exactly who I am. I will not ever settle again for anything less in a SO. Friends, well, I'd like the same, but am willing to make more exceptions. Some people think I was probably hurtful for divorcing the man I married, but we didn't understand each other, and didn't truly appreciate each other. We weren't helping each other grow, and couldn't effectively communicate. Where's the happiness for either party in that? So I left.

On another part of this thread. I read "compromise" as changing huge parts of myself, or making extreme exceptions in another -- not the small stuff like what to have for dinner, or what to watch on TV, or even what pattern the sofa should be (or should it have one?).Sorry about all the pain you have suffered, but I know what you mean about never settling for less. I came to that same decision, too. I met my husband shortly after that and put him through the ringer! Poor thing! It's pretty funny, looking back. Let me encourage you to hold on tight to your standards.

rwyatt365

01-11-2008, 05:23 AM

I don't know what that means, or how that would only apply to you. Doesn't every type have to compromise to some degree in their relationships with others? How is it any different for me, with Se & Si as my weak functions, to say I'm compromising my integrity if I make any compensations or allowances for people in my life to accommodate them, especially the SJs in my life? Do I just say, "this is who I am, I find organizing & planning draining & against my nature, so if you're friends with me or live with me, I will only do things spontaneously & keep my house in complete chaos"? Would that be in conflict with my "personal integrity"?
I said that because I didn’t want to imply that anyone else, or all INTJs (or any other type) behave identically to me.

It's one thing to "make allowances" or to adjust to another person for the sake of a relationship. It's another thing entirely to insist that someone modify their innate behavior for the sake of a relationship. To your example; yes, if cleaning and organizing are antithetical to you and clutter is draining to me then I should "take on the mantle" of keeping order (or, we should part company if I don’t care to clean your clutter).

Is it only personal integrity because it relates to your social/interpersonal function, which is perceived as a less strong function that it gets dicey?

Don't all types that are healthy, compromise & compensate for their weak functions & find in their dynamics with others, who they get along with best?
"Personal integrity" relates to those things that are primary drivers in my psyche – the primary and secondary functions in MBTI-speak. These are the things that make me tick (for the most part), the things that make me a unique individual. Things that, if you take them away or change them, transform me into someone other than "me".

Compromise (to me) is reaching some middle ground between two opposite desires (messy room, or neat). One party demanding their desire (no matter how beneficial, or "right") is not compromise. Both parties finding a result somewhere in the middle (instead of throwing your clothes on the floor when you get undressed, throw them in this basket – I'll take care of the rest) that both parties can agree to. Neither get exactly what they want, but both get something they can live with.

I'm trying to think of an example of other types but can only see them changing their habits as a form of compromise. Whereas myself I've always felt like I'm having to learn how not to be myself in order to fit in as it has never just happened (with the non-freaks anyway) as it seems to for other types. So I'd like to know if others felt to need to change core personality traits, or even other types? Am I on a deluded quest to perfect what I see as a flawed type? Do others find this out and want change in order to fix something in their lives? Or is it more of a case of I'm an INTJ, so what, they can deal with it... just learn the basics and move on?
Most of the population does not understand or believe that how "we" think is real. The majority opinion is that we are either "broken" in some way, or "faking it" because we're too lazy to play by the rules. Consequently, when we insist on private time, others suspect that; we're trying to avoid them, we're having an affair, we're afraid of commitment, or some other fantasy created in their own minds.

Now, I can force myself to not seek out that private time and be "in the mix" all of the time. I can train myself to smile all of the time and learn how to make small-talk. I can read books and school myself on how to sweet-talk my wife. And in the eyes of the world I will be "fixed", I will be "normal" – and the people will rejoice. But inside I will be miserable because I will know that my whole life is a charade.

I know, because I did this. For 7 years I tried this grand experiment. And I was hugely successful at it (but wouldn't an INTJ be successful!). And I was hugely miserable. I got up in the morning and put on my smile like I did my clothes. I joked and schmoozed my way through the work day. I came home and was caring and loving and immensely "touchy-feely" with my wife. And I went to bed wondering when I could be "me". When would I be able to not talk when I didn’t want to talk? When would I be able to put on "that weird music" and just zone out? When would I be able to take my camera and sit and wait for the perfect sunset?

I hated that life and I vowed never to do it again.

Solaris

01-11-2008, 06:41 AM

I hated that life and I vowed never to do it again.

How many people thought you'd had some sort of psychotic break when you reverted? I'm sure people would think I'd finally gone off the deep end if I suddenly changed on the outside, though nothing else had changed around me.

rwyatt365

01-11-2008, 08:01 AM

How many people thought you'd had some sort of psychotic break when you reverted? I'm sure people would think I'd finally gone off the deep end if I suddenly changed on the outside, though nothing else had changed around me.
None (except maybe my parents), because I left everyone and everything from that lifestyle behind; I got a divorce, I moved to another city, I ceased contact with those acquaintances (I won't call them friends) and basically dropped off the face of theearth as far as they were concerned.

For me, it was "house-cleaning".

Solaris

01-11-2008, 08:12 AM

None (except maybe my parents), because I left everyone and everything from that lifestyle behind; I got a divorce, I moved to another city, I ceased contact with those acquaintances (I won't call them friends) and basically dropped off the face of theearth as far as they were concerned.

For me, it was "house-cleaning".

I understand that, did similar things myself, though in a different order.

trap

01-11-2008, 12:10 PM

It's one thing to "make allowances" or to adjust to another person for the sake of a relationship. It's another thing entirely to insist that someone modify their innate behavior for the sake of a relationship. To your example; yes, if cleaning and organizing are antithetical to you and clutter is draining to me then I should "take on the mantle" of keeping order (or, we should part company if I don’t care to clean your clutter).

I think the challenge is to figure out what degree of compromise can be attained between 2 different people & figure out the costs-benefits of the relationship. I'm just curious as to how to determine "innate behavior" of a person that they will be touchy about modifying.

How do you determine when certain functions are overtaking your nature, & you're out of balance? I get self-punishment when I fail in a Se task, I lose something valuable & have to pay to replace it, for example. Or I disappoint my child when I'm late getting them to a party, & that bothers me & motivates me to improve. With an INT, if they damage a relationship inadvertently due to "living in their mind" & not being responsive, isn't the partner's dissatisfaction a "check" as missing the mark in a Fe task? Why do INTs get defensive about it, & say "they just can't expect me to respond", instead of just owning up to it as a failure of using Fe effectively?

For me, of course Se/Si tasks are draining & are against my nature, but I have a family now & there are certain overarching things I want that will force me to develop my Se/Si functions. Does this apply to INTs? That they desire deep bonding relationships, so they will have to develop their Fe, & talk to their partner about what's important to them, & how to communicate with them?

Compromise (to me) is reaching some middle ground between two opposite desires (messy room, or neat). One party demanding their desire (no matter how beneficial, or "right") is not compromise. Both parties finding a result somewhere in the middle (instead of throwing your clothes on the floor when you get undressed, throw them in this basket – I'll take care of the rest) that both parties can agree to. Neither get exactly what they want, but both get something they can live with.

I agree too. Do you ever negotiate your needs for space & time alone in a relationship & still maintain communication that's regular, responding to your partner?

Most of the population does not understand or believe that how "we" think is real. The majority opinion is that we are either "broken" in some way, or "faking it" because we're too lazy to play by the rules. Consequently, when we insist on private time, others suspect that; we're trying to avoid them, we're having an affair, we're afraid of commitment, or some other fantasy created in their own minds.

yes, I think your social behavior is largely misunderstood, but if your friend or partner made an effort to understand you, & was willing to give you leeway that you probably wouldn't expect you to follow all the social rules, would you be willing to bend on a few of them that were important to the partner?

elsdfr

01-13-2008, 10:52 PM

For me the innate nature I spoke about was a failure to understand others needs or motives. An ability to see "a game" and be callous in either showing that I will always win or just dismissing them off hand. Almost trying to test someones resilience first before I will be willing to submit on any level. This unfortunately drives most people away before it even begins.

not being responsive, isn't the partner's dissatisfaction a "check" as missing the mark in a Fe task? Why do INTs get defensive about it, & say "they just can't expect me to respond", instead of just owning up to it as a failure of using Fe effectively?

Bingo. I don't understand... I can't win... shutdown or leave. Try admitting that I will fail and this just makes you look defective as rwyatt pointed out. This is where I think the ESFPs Se Fi main functions draw an INTJ out rather effectively, they ooze empathy.

Hdier

01-14-2008, 12:48 PM

(I haven't followed the thread, just read the first few post, so sorry if what I'm saying seems outdated)

My answer is twofold: first, why you (I am using 'you' generally, no specifics) tend to do that, and second, why you don't notice when it bugs people (and remember that this is just a hypothesis, I am not saying that it is true, universally or otherwise):

One: I think that you do that mostly the reason that you tend to observe people (from Trap's example) is because, as was stated, you want to understand people, know how they work. You therefore observe them, and attempt to piece them together like a jigsaw puzzle. As you see more interconnections, you grow to understand them more and feel more comfortable around them. Then, you can approach them and expect a reasonable amount of predictability.

Two: Simply put, you don't see anything wrong with this. This is something that comes naturally to you, and it is what you expect. When you think about it, it may become painfully obvious as to why it bugs people (or it may not depending on the situation). However, you are not stopping and thinking 'if I do this, what how will factors A-AAFSPZ react?' No one has enough time to do that! Therefore, you act as you naturally would, which causes misunderstandings.

Thanks for reading,

BF

Cyrus

01-17-2008, 09:47 AM

hello all,

Read through a good bit of the thread.

I relate very strongly to your experiences, though I am sick of being misunderstood all the time, and proposing a solution that works on the social aspect of INTJ.

Started a new thread here inspired by reading your posts:
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Social interactions is a blind spot to us and with enough eyes, we can see it clearly. With all our brains, we'll put together a pretty darn good solution i'm sure. (like the INTJ handbook =)

Please take a read and feel free to contribute.

Cy

Brutananadilewski

01-17-2008, 05:07 PM

With an INT, if they damage a relationship inadvertently due to "living in their mind" & not being responsive, isn't the partner's dissatisfaction a "check" as missing the mark in a Fe task? Why do INTs get defensive about it, & say "they just can't expect me to respond", instead of just owning up to it as a failure of using Fe effectively?

For moi, the big thing is that I just don't care about other people enough to want to make me work on it. I think a large part of where you're coming from is a result of your extroversion; you're seeing the world in terms of others, whereas for myself, my introverted side looks at the world through myself only; other people are either secondary or irrelevant (some of us can be the ultimate dehumanizers). I therefore don't look upon these relationship "checks" or "defects" as anything worth consideration since I simply see me being myself.

Is it selfish/ego-centric/self-centered? Of course it is. Do I care that it is such? Not at all. I'm perfectly happy admitting I'm a prick, and I enjoy seeing the world in terms of me, and have no desire to change that. I'll be darned to change my marginalized world view to appease anyone else. Can this resistance to change be detrimental to the feelings of others? Very much so, which is why before any relationship, I sit down and have a huge chat concerning who each other is, any expectations they may have, and what will/will not fly, thus alleviating unexpected hurt down the road.

In a perfect world, a partner wouldn't need me to work on my Fe anyway - which is what I'm holding out for. They'd understand and let me be me, and know that my differences are what make me unique, and that I demonstrate my caring and commitment through other means. I'll probably never find that person, but I just can't let go of that idealistic vision.