SJ - The most stubborn temperament?

[Antares]

Sensing - They tend to gather information through their five senses, many a time not really considering what their eyes might not see. They rely on past experiences, but each situation tend to vary a little. They focus on short-term solutions more and sometimes miss the 'big picture'. Tend to do what they're told, and think how they're 'supposed' to think.

Judging - Can be unswayed by new information, planning, generally inflexible, fixed opinions, sometimes 'self-righteous', 'can't be wrong'.

With these two preferences, I tend to think of SJ's as the most self-confident type who just 'cant be wrong', even when they're proven, by cool logic, wrong. At least, the SJ people I know are like that. My ISFJ mother is a loud and opinionated woman who believes what she was taught (a classic traditional, obedient prep) and unhesitatingly impose them on others, frequently attempting to change me 'for the better'. My ISFJ friend is quiet and mild, but even when I pointed out some of the glaring inconsistencies and fallacies in her beliefs (astrology), she totally neglected any information or thought-provoking material that I gave to her and pretended as though the information doesn't exist. My ESTJ friend is convinced that Bush's IQ is only 80, even when I pointed out that it couldn't be, judging from his SAT score. She simply said: "That can't be. His IQ is no higher than 80."

I've reached the conclusion that many SJ's believe what they want to believe and it matters very little if it's untrue. Their motto might be: "It's just like that."

[Solaris]

Well I can certainly see how you may have arrived at this conclusion, but I disagree with it. I don't know that stubbornness is specifically correlated to type. I've known a fairly good cross section of MBTI types and some were stubborn, and some were not so much. I think it's just human nature to not want to be wrong. I know I am stubborn, too stubborn sometimes. I think NTJ types are probably a stubborn bunch, and it may or may not be inherent in our cognitive preferences. If you want to extend being stubborn to MBTI, I think that probably J types in general are more likely to be stubborn. While we can be flexible and adapt to situations, what we carry around in our heads tends to be a bit more fixed until we are clearly convinced otherwise. I think I'm just rambling now, sorry.

[thod]

How about this thread over at INTPc which speculates that its INTJs. To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.************************/showthread.php?t=28536

[Haphazard]

How about this thread over at INTPc which speculates that its INTJs. To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.************************/showthread.php?t=28536

Well, again, they say that INTJs can be changed once they screw up. Once catastrophic failure happens, they will not stubbornly stick to their system and will decide to change because they know they need it.

SJ doesn't seem that way. I'm not so well-researched in SJs, but the OP seems to mean that they're set in their ways even AFTER this point.

[Kotetsu]

People tend to think I'm stubborn and opinionated but I'm very much not so. My political views and moral/religious positions have changed completely in the last year or so, for example. However, I am dismissive of and condescending towards anything I perceive foolish or inane. One of my closest friends is an ISTJ who is somewhat opinionated but has become more open to influence with maturity. Most of the people I find frustrating are probably SJs, though.

[Solaris]

I've been thinking more about this. Perhaps NTs come across as stubborn because we can (and often do) state our opinions/beliefs/ideas with precision? However, we will relent to logic. Maybe SJs come across as stubborn because they just won't change, no matter what? Most people seem to have experienced that SJs close to them won't relent to logic. I'm still undecided, just thinking about another angle.

[Rohsiph]

Solaris, I think this is right--

others find NTs to appear stubborn because the methodology of giving explanations with fundamentally rational bases isn't natural to non-NTs. The coldness of such methods leads to an air of arrogance, unless the person has experienced dealing with NTs before.

I believe my current roommate is ISTJ. We usually have dinner every other night, often with a common ISFP neighbor. The ISTJ is a lot easier to deal with one-on-one--he'll be open to listening to my abstract ideas and offering details that often help out, and will share his painstakingly laid-out projections in interesting ways. However, when the three of us are together, it is nearly impossible to elevate any discussion beyond shallow small-talk or some kind of joking around.

Therein, the ISTJ will openly attack the majority of the things I say, often missing my point. The ISFP will back off, and often step in by saying something very simple that is completely unrelated to the argument trying to cool us off. I think I get under the ISTJ's skin by the fact that so-often my speculations actually make sense, such that I've gotten the impression since a few months ago that he enjoys every rare case where he can 'bring me down' to a more normal failure rate that he'll pursue doing so as often as possible even though he usually fails.

The problem I have with him is his stubborn persistency: it used to be that he'd only attack the most nonsensical of my ideas, but now he attacks pretty much everything. It wouldn't be a problem except that he'll often take his attacks to such an extreme that he'll throw in personal attacks of my character cloaked within his attempted deconstructions of my ideas--and the annoying thing is I don't think he notices this. I try to make sure the attacks I make are generalized, even though he is pretty thick-skinned. He seems unable to see enough of the picture when going at me to make sure to pay me the same courtesy.

It's a strange dynamic . . . there's just enough in our friendship these days that I'm usually able to forgive him his transgressions, but I'm not sure I would have prior to the revelations reading about Jungian psychology gave me.

[Antares]

I didn't have the time to post it last night, but I'm also under the impression that SJ's tend to stop talking about whatever it is that they were being defeated in by indifference and anger. My mother would yell at me: "Now you're just nitpicking my words!" And my friend would say: "Well... Whatever. It doesn't affect anything." I mean, as long as they're winning, all is good, but once they start to lose, my mother turns to an emotional wreck and my friend stops talking. Unlike the NT's I know, they cannot admit that they're wrong.

[Brutananadilewski]

Every type is stubborn in its own way. When it comes to SJs, they may seem to be very stubborn to an NT because SJs stick to "this is the way it's always been, and that's how it will be." We lack that adherence to authority, tradition, and expectations, and often the SJ doesn't respond to the arguments which override their sense of duty. So to us, they seem stubborn because they insist of doing things "just because" whereas we want to make sure there's a good "why" to do something. It just so happens that this clash between thought processes occurs on such an overt level between Rationals and Guardians that it's easy to see stubbornness.

I'm sure that SJs see us as being just as stubborn. As well, other types are quite stubborn in their own way, you've just got to hit on that nerve. At the end of the day, I wouldn't say that SJs are the most stubborn, but that their stubborn tendencies tend to be the most salient.

[paradanmellow]

My mom is an ISFJ, one of my closest friends is an ESTJ so I can say I share the frustration. You can't prove them wrong so it's better to refrain from trying. I had a bitter experience with my ESTJ friend because she is a great companion and I wanted to help her on a personal issue she had. I was very surprised to see she took it too personal, accusing me of arrogance and disdainful attitude. It was not true and I am still disappointed and sad each time I meet her. I tried to conciliate with her but she's like "do whatever you wish" instead of the usual good practical advice she offered ("do that or that because of... ").
Also when I have these crazy or eccentric views (in their opinion, of course) and I share they promptly say: "No, [my real name here], it's not so!"
Based on that I think it's actually their conservative nature that irritates me most.

Oh, and guess what! My mom accused me of being stubborn! How wrong is that?


Well, again, they say that INTJs can be changed once they screw up. Once catastrophic failure happens, they will not stubbornly stick to their system and will decide to change because they know they need it.

SJ doesn't seem that way. I'm not so well-researched in SJs, but the OP seems to mean that they're set in their ways even AFTER this point.

:laugh: that would state the benefits of being a J N over a J S. Great observation.



The problem I have with him is his stubborn persistency: it used to be that he'd only attack the most nonsensical of my ideas, but now he attacks pretty much everything. It wouldn't be a problem except that he'll often take his attacks to such an extreme that he'll throw in personal attacks of my character cloaked within his attempted deconstructions of my ideas--and the annoying thing is I don't think he notices this. I try to make sure the attacks I make are generalized, even though he is pretty thick-skinned. He seems unable to see enough of the picture when going at me to make sure to pay me the same courtesy.

It's a strange dynamic . . . there's just enough in our friendship these days that I'm usually able to forgive him his transgressions, but I'm not sure I would have prior to the revelations reading about Jungian psychology gave me.

Same with my brother who seems to be an ISfj. When he’s really troubled he starts these abstract debates with me cause he knows I can handle it but soon he looses the big picture (very easy) and gets lost in trivialities each time, to a level he brings the whole ‘friendly talk’ to a mess of: "You're always like this! You're so superior! Unless you lose that smart ass attitude I have nothing to talk to you of." Urghh! That makes me go wild. He's my brother for f*'s sake, he could do better with that brain of his! I am not trying to prove him wrong, I am trying to make him reason! (rant alert, yes)

[Richard0612]

I would say that everyone has the ability to be stubborn, but SJs seem more stubborn than other types because of their 'stick-to-tradition' mentality. For example, I once tried to convince an SJ friend that a recent school event [some student-organised disco or other, I didn't go, but I heard /saw enough about it] had been so badly organised/planned that they might as well have not bothered. He seemed to always give the response 'but that's how all discos are' or 'they tried their best', and when I said that the project could have had better leadership, he was like 'OMG, UR CRITICIZING TEH LEADER. U NEED TO DIE OMGOMGOMG!' *exaggeration off*

Obviously not all SJs are like that, but I seem to have a harder time making them see sense!

[SShack]

Well, apparently there are biochemical components to stubbornness. By pure coincidence, I stumbled across this piece (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) this morning that explains that diehard political partisans' brains give off chemicals to make them feel better when they reject evidence that runs counter to their biases.

[Antares]

Same with my brother who seems to be an ISfj. When he’s really troubled he starts these abstract debates with me cause he knows I can handle it but soon he looses the big picture (very easy) and gets lost in trivialities each time, to a level he brings the whole ‘friendly talk’ to a mess of: "You're always like this! You're so superior! Unless you lose that smart ass attitude I have nothing to talk to you of." Urghh! That makes me go wild. He's my brother for f*'s sake, he could do better with that brain of his! I am not trying to prove him wrong, I am trying to make him reason! (rant alert, yes)

Ugh. I tell my mom: Unless you keep yourself under control in debates, then we have nothing to talk about. She's waaaaaaay too emotional. Everytime I ask her why she's emotional during debates, it's always "Because you're wrong and can't see it! You're my daughter! Of course I'd be distressed!"

[meanlittlechimp]

I think NJs would give them a run for their money. Depends on what context though.

[umop_3pisdn]

I think NJs would give them a run for their money. Depends on what context though.

Yes, but the NJ stubbornness strikes me as a bit more honorable, since it's more individualized, by nature. Life is a solitary experience, perceptually, and we experience life through a closed, singular consciousness. Reality is a manifestation of our consciousness and sense perceptions. I think more can be gleaned, in self-focused analysis/philosophical examination, by following the guidance of one's inner self, rather than external standards.

Especially if it is an idea that one finds that it somewhat substantiates, philosophically, one's happiness and/or tranquility of mind, despite or in light of the things one finds difficult to accept about the world. I tend to defend these ideas ruthlessly, because truth be told, a large part of my identity hinges on them. I define myself by my world view. What I view to be I humanity's place, and my place in the world. These ideas, I feel, give me a sort of philosophical clarity. It sort of becomes a sort of philosophical compass. I always pick the things that resound most strongly with me, and I try to look at it from every angle, but if suddenly the entirety of my belief structure was nullified, I'd basically be lost or cut adrift, philosophically.

I'm not opposed to having these ideas questioned, but if they are merely dismissed by those unwilling to listen, then I can get very annoyed. I have spent lots of time and effort trying to analyze things from every angle, and as objectively as possible, while still primarily following my hunches and intuitions, and listening when my Fi should tell me something. I've been individually working on assembling my world view for a while now, and my life experience has yet to disprove my views, and (generally) has substantiated and refined them. I'm more than willing to test them. If they cannot be tested, then they cannot be trusted. Generally, if an idea is proven false, a reasonable alternative explanation is offered at the same time.

Though on a side note, I think Ni types, especially, must be cautious of being overly self-referential or solipsist. It's also good to keep the balance with reality, as it serves as a good delusion/insanity-check.

Most of the critics I find most annoying, are unwilling or unable to test the ideas I hold in a more objective way. Many people seem uncomfortable with logically dissecting religious beliefs and social systems. If a competent individual comes about with a somewhat eccentric or iconoclastic world view, perhaps they feel the need to disprove his competency, thus placing them securely in the place of the "moral high ground" once again, with their infallible, socially sanctioned belief systems. That, or it is generally less strenuous, mentally, to not bother fully examining such ideas, and most SJ's do not have the patience or tolerance to go to such lengths, and would rather just fall upon their established world view. Someone also brought up the biochemical basis for stubbornness. That I find very interesting, I hope more is published on that topic.

I've met plenty of cool SJ's, but I do tend to butt heads with them most, on avg. They also tend to be really annoying to butt heads with. Although balanced SJ's aren't bad, if they haven't been really sheltered from other ways of viewing things.

Bleh, sorry, that's somewhat of a rant. Truth be told at times I just enjoy writing for the sake of it.

[meanlittlechimp]

Bleh, sorry, that's somewhat of a rant. Truth be told at times I just enjoy writing for the sake of it.

What's the point of participating in a forum if you can't rant!

The reason I said in context, is that I find SJs more stubborn when it comes to breaking pre-established norms or rules to a system. I find NJs much more willing to challenge a bad system, or protest or ignore the rules in light of a good argument/data proving this (thus less stubborn). I also find SJs, being stubborn because they don't find any point in debating the issue to begin with, so they never even really gave the counter point any real chance at all, because they see it as useless theoretical nonsense.

NJs on the other hand get much more attached to an idea, they've invested time thinking through. They can often be irrationally stubborn with overwhelming evidence or compelling argument to the contrary. SJs because they are less attached to theory, I find, more likely to concede to a better argument when they're interested or it's relevant to their daily lives; because they have a more pragmatic view and less emotional attachment to a theory or stance to begin with. Furthermore, if I use slightly derrogatory or insulting metaphors as a rhetorical device, it's over - there is usually no chance they'll see the point. SJs, on the other hand, tend to have less overall ego, so they don't see it as such a big failure for arguing vehemently on the wrong side.

I'm not saying NJs will never concede to a good point and an SJ always will. I have met plenty of SJs that are worse than NJs in this respect, but it's the one area they can definitely give the SJs a run for their money.

[umop_3pisdn]

I'm not saying NJs will never concede to a good point and an SJ always will. I have met plenty of SJs that are worse than NJs in this respect, but it's the one area they can definitely give the SJs a run for their money.

Yeah, IME you're definitely right on that. NT's in general are more prone to intellectual egoism. INTJ's are also probably some of the worse offenders of this sort of stubbornness. I hear if we feel defeated in argument, we'll often not concede defeat, and silently adopt the new mode of thinking as our own. I can admit to doing this a few times. I've recognized some signs of egoism in myself, and it can be kind of a repulsive thing. Though I've distanced myself more from my ego, lately. It is a very narrow frame of mind to be in, and tends to be somewhat stifling. I tend to be a bit more cautious of such conceits than I was when I was younger, although I'm still not as humble as I'd ideally like to be.

INTJ's also tend to avoid admitting to any weakness, and are also prone to taking themselves and their intuitions a bit too seriously. I definitely take myself too seriously, it's only recently that I've learned to have a sense of humour about myself. And I still can't laugh at everything. Some stuff just makes me feel kind of worthless. It tends to shake our entire belief system when we're proven wrong :rolleyes: It's kind of ridiculous when I think about it, but I feel subject to similar ways of thinking. Plus, we tend to kind of suck at substantiating our intuitions. I'd say all of these traits, and some others I have failed to identify (a weak/unbalanced tertiary Fi?) could lead to us being pretty horrible to argue with. I've seen it, in myself and some others. It can be pretty ugly, so if purely for vanity I try to avoid going to such irrational lengths, as I was prone to in my adolescent years. It is not a trait I admire seeing in others, so it seems wrong to tolerate it in myself.

[Antares]

I'm not saying NJs will never concede to a good point and an SJ always will. I have met plenty of SJs that are worse than NJs in this respect, but it's the one area they can definitely give the SJs a run for their money.

NJ is definitely stubborn compared to the rest (except SJ). The types I find 'irrationally stubborn', however, are the NFJs and the SFJs. Being an NJ myself, I'm more than ready to admit that I'm wrong, if indeed I am, proven by logic. I think we appear stubborn because we're not entirely convinced. I'm very willing to say, if the situation demands, "That's a good point there, and it disproves mine." Or "Yes, my point was illogical." Where as the SJ's I know would not admit it even if they are convinced (at that point, they're probably in denial, even if they know my logic to be valid). The closest admission I ever got from an SJ was "Ok. Maybe you're right." Come on, mate. What's with the maybe? It's redundant. It's clear what he meant. Later, he adopted my view because 'maybe' I'm right. It's like they have an ego to protect or something. Or an illusion to nurture. We were discussing something, then I told my mother: "That's not a rational view." And she asked: "Oh, so you're more rational than I am?" "From what I observed, yes." And then she insisted that she's more rational. However, last week, she said herself: "Well, you're the rational of the family, not me."

[acyckowski]

It seems to me that, as a whole, the SJ's are far more stubborn, but NT's are far more likely to be miscontrued as stubborn.

I agree with the above consensus that SJ's tend to cling to their established beliefs well past the point of reason. In this sense, they are truly stubborn. They get off the hook, though, in situations where obedience to authority or expected social graces are involved: whether they are told by the boss to do something, or politely avoid conflict, they have still not changed their minds.

In my case, and I assume the rest of you, I often find myself in a position where I simply know that I'm right, but haven't the faintest idea of how to explain it to somebody in a way they can follow. Besides, since we tend not to let authority or social conventions get in the way of The Right Answer, we tend to be more vocal and vehement in defending our position. Thus, we get labeled as stubborn.

[Antares]

In my case, and I assume the rest of you, I often find myself in a position where I simply know that I'm right, but haven't the faintest idea of how to explain it to somebody in a way they can follow. Besides, since we tend not to let authority or social conventions get in the way of The Right Answer, we tend to be more vocal and vehement in defending our position. Thus, we get labeled as stubborn.

Well, my SJ mother labeled me as stubborn on the grounds that I was completely unconvinced by her 'concrete' arguments. My reason for that is they're not logical enough, but of course, telling her would piss her off and make her cheat ("We don't do everything the logical way! This isn't a debate! I'm sick and tired of your debate attitude." Right. This is an argument so we can be as illogical as we want to be.). She's perfectly fine with my 'debate attitude' when she has the upper-hand, but when I start beating her, she always uses her 'No Logic' card.

[umop_3pisdn]

Well, my SJ mother labeled me as stubborn on the grounds that I was completely unconvinced by her 'concrete' arguments. My reason for that is they're not logical enough, but of course, telling her would piss her off and make her cheat ("We don't do everything the logical way! This isn't a debate! I'm sick and tired of your debate attitude." Right. This is an argument so we can be as illogical as we want to be.). She's perfectly fine with my 'debate attitude' when she has the upper-hand, but when I start beating her, she always uses her 'No Logic' card.

I know very well what you're describing. It can be so infuriating. You can even tell them something like: "Funny how you only have trouble with my method of debating when you're on the losing end of the argument", and it still doesn't make much of a dent in their armor! I don't understand this at all. You can literally call them out, and say "I know exactly how you're trying to manipulate this situation, and it's not going to work" and they're still generally un-phased! If someone said something like that to me, I'd get really embarrassed and make a complete 180, no second thoughts. Something like that would make me stop dead in the midst of a debate, because if it was said to me, and I knew they were right, that's basically like an instant trump card, right there. Calling one on their biases or "selective" attitude towards debate can nearly completely invalidate one's future arguments. Yet most of the time they don't even seem that put off by it! The way I view it is, if it's apparent enough that other people notice, and call me on it, then I have something to be embarrassed about! Even if it just amounts to me not concealing my true motives as well as I should, to maintain the illusion of integrity, or whatever.

[Darkmist]

INTJ's think outside the box, so even if certain of something, if cornered, we adapt to new ways of doing things or thinking. I know I am very good at the 'uh oh, here is a dire problem what now?" I can stand back, analyze and reach a conclusion quite quickly. To me this isn't arrogant, it is simply fact. Stubborn though, man oh man if you can't prove me wrong with logic, I do not budge.

SJs are because I said so types of stubborn with no logic involved. (from my experience, SPs raised by SJs are even worse, aarg!) So to me if stubborn is logical it has a place, if not, sweep that crap away and find something better.