INTJ Existential Theory

[raconteur213]

OK my fellow INTJ goofballs,

After reading through a lot of these posts, it seems that many INTJs accept there weaknesses, as a side effect of their "crazy-smart" intelligence. (Yes I am smirking at you, hopefully with you dear reader). That said, I would like to know how many INTJs are trying to round themselves out? To paraphrase the great Maynard James Keenan, "Turning your imperfections into weapons".

As Mill asks in his little ditty UTILITARIANISM, “it is better to be a human dissatisfied than a pig satisfied; better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied,” . Hence, if most of us are going to carry the burden of genius IQ how do we deal with the frustrations that come with it? I'm not just talking about the obvious disagreements in Academia with pseudo intellectuals passing themselves off as authorities; here, I am speaking on more general terms i.e. dealing with incompetent/lazy and hypersensitive people in everyday life? How does an INTJ not go mad?

My thoughts:
I feel that a true INTJ has a little (read: a lot) Machiavellian theory in them. To obtain your goals is paramount to the manner in which you obtain them, it is just the nature of the beast. Thus, if your weakness is impairing you…why not work on it, the same way you would logically deduce everything else? Yes, I believe feeling and emotions can be honed just like vocabulary and theory, etc. Once you smooth out your emotional intelligence enough to rival your analytical intelligence, you ascend to a higher level of understanding; thus, you easier achieve your goals.

Is it as easy as the above paragraph? NO. Is it plausible? YES. Go get 'em tigers…:thumbsup:

NOTE: This is not meant to insult anyone, I'm just riffing…call it the thought of the day? I am interested in finding out how many INTJs agree with me? I am also wondering how many are in denial…kidding. I can appreciate all views.

[qwerty]

So at what point does being smart mean that you lose grasp of humanity? Maybe you can point me in the direction of a genius who wasn't interested in progressing the human race? I've always thought that clever people got their motivation to do well from the people around them.

Why is it that I get the feeling you have different motives for posting this question?

[raconteur213]

I just wrote that hastily...as you can see from the typo in the first line (there, instead of their) I thought it might be a delicious topic to kick off the day?

no motives, other than the alleviation of boredom...no malice intended.

[Doppelbock]

(snip...) i.e. dealing with incompetent/lazy and hypersensitive people in everyday life? How does an INTJ not go mad?


Start a humor blog and make fun of every stupid, incompetent, or hypersensitive F-type who pisses you off.

[raconteur213]

Start a humor blog and make fun of every stupid, incompetent, or hypersensitive F-type who pisses you off.

A worthy idea!

[TheLastMohican]

Is it as easy as the above paragraph? NO. Is it plausible? YES. Go get 'em tigers…

These "weaknesses" that we talk about are arguably not weaknesses, just abnormalities. The fact that most people are a certain way does not make that way good.
True, we have some weaknesses, like being drained by socialization. However, I much prefer that weakness over the alternative weakness, being drained by being alone. Nobody can possess all the perfect traits, but you can possess the traits that are less imperfect than the others.

[Theodoric]

I'm not just talking about the obvious disagreements in Academia with pseudo intellectuals passing themselves off as authorities; here, I am speaking on more general terms i.e. dealing with incompetent/lazy and hypersensitive people in everyday life? How does an INTJ not go mad?

As for the pseudo intellectuals it is quite easy to make them look like fools by dismantling their arguments with facts and research. Either that or ignore them because the bulk are merely a waste of time and pander to those unable to reason or think for themselves.

As for the incompetent/lazy and hypersensitive people in everyday life it is either easy to ignore them if they are not a significant part of your life. If they are it is even easier (and more fun!) to gain an understanding of how they operate, then manipulate them to achieve your own goals. Those that are ruled by emotion are easily swayed when confronted with something that ignites their feelings.

And yes, identifying a weakness and working to improve it or turn it to an advantage is what most rationals would do. Anything can be learned and improved upon. Even behavior is a learned trait just like any discipline. Some people may be more prone to certain disciplines, behaviors, and emotions than others but that does not mean they can be learned.

I mean really, self improvement is the only logical next step when confronted with a weakness.

[raconteur213]

These "weaknesses" that we talk about are arguably not weaknesses, just abnormalities. The fact that most people are a certain way does not make that way good.
True, we have some weaknesses, like being drained by socialization. However, I much prefer that weakness over the alternative weakness, being drained by being alone. Nobody can possess all the perfect traits, but you can possess the traits that are less imperfect than the others.

The point I'm trying to make comes from the Ancient Greek concept of perfection to be the pursuit of a "sound mind & sound body"...throw in a bit of emotional intelligence and you get true balance.

Sometimes, we use "weakness"/"abnormality" as a crutch. I refuse to believe that; although, I am a solid INTJ, I can't work on my emotional capacity to become more well rounded. My personal goal is to strive for the ultimate understanding of the human condition...

...then fuck that human condition (that is a joke)

[acyckowski]

The last couple of responses remind me of a stock job-interview answer I love to throw out there, whenever asked, "What are your weaknesses?"

Well, hell. Am I stubborn, or perseverant? Am I unfeeling, or objective? Point is, it depends on POV whether a trait is a strength or a weakness.

For the record, I think there's a whole lot of Machiavelli in us. If we didn't need to interact with people (means) to get the job done (ends), we'd let the fools suffer along.

[TheLastMohican]

The last couple of responses remind me of a stock job-interview answer I love to throw out there, whenever asked, "What are your weaknesses?"

Well, hell. Am I stubborn, or perseverant? Am I unfeeling, or objective? Point is, it depends on POV whether a trait is a strength or a weakness.

For the record, I think there's a whole lot of Machiavelli in us. If we didn't need to interact with people (means) to get the job done (ends), we'd let the fools suffer along.

Sort of what I was getting at. These weaknesses can be seen a number of ways depending on who you ask.
I would say most of the things other types consider "weaknesses" are actually strengths, or at least the lesser of the two weaknesses.

[raconteur213]

Sort of what I was getting at. These weaknesses can be seen a number of ways depending on who you ask.
I would say most of the things other types consider "weaknesses" are actually strengths, or at least the lesser of the two weaknesses.

I'm talking about building a weapon, as opposed to, applying for a job for Michael Scott at "The Office"...using his, "Job Interview Techniques for Dummies" manual.

I'm addressing the obvious, as opposed to, the subjective. I'm not saying one characteristic is better than another, or weaker for that matter. I am saying that balance is the goal. Balance builds the perfect weapon.

I shall strive for balance - no crutch shall slow me down...

...you dig?

[TheLastMohican]

I'm talking about building a weapon, as opposed to, applying for a job for Michael Scott at "The Office"...using his, "Job Interview Techniques for Dummies" manual.

I'm addressing the obvious, as opposed to, the subjective. I'm not saying one characteristic is better than another, or weaker for that matter. I am saying that balance is the goal. Balance builds the perfect weapon.

I shall strive for balance - no crutch shall slow me down...

...you dig?

I dig.

Some balances might be unattainable, though. For example, in theory you could have a perfect balance between introversion and extroversion, in which you draw your energy equally from both inner and outer sources. That would mean you would never become emotionally drained, since you could just go back and forth between the sources depending on which was more plentiful at the time.

In real life, though, could this be?

[sriv]

Balance smalance. I can live a thriving life without a balance. (Wow this must sound arrogant)

Sure I will not be completely healthy, but I really would rather learn facts than learn emotions and better communication.

[raconteur213]

I dig.

Some balances might be unattainable, though. For example, in theory you could have a perfect balance between introversion and extroversion, in which you draw your energy equally from both inner and outer sources. That would mean you would never become emotionally drained, since you could just go back and forth between the sources depending on which was more plentiful at the time.

In real life, though, could this be?

Yes!





raconteur213 added to this post, 7 minutes and 48 seconds later...

Balance smalance. I can live a thriving life without a balance. (Wow this must sound arrogant)

Sure I will not be completely healthy, but I really would rather learn facts than learn emotions and better communication.

Denial?

Why not learn both...Successful Communication is the best use of knowledge gained. Emotions exist and affect communication; therefore, why not master both?

Persuasion is the weapon of successful communication that feeds off of emotion. Great orators are very powerful people. They use the strategy of emotional communication to effectively drive home there point.

Think of all of this as honing you JEDI skills (i.e. JEDI MIND TRICKS).

I rest.

[sriv]

Sure they are powerful, but I would rather read off a list of facts then make a moving speech with lies and deception in it. Is the truth not powerful? Too much articulation can be considered deception of the common person at some level. A point should not need to be driven and pounded at. It should be given bluntly and then allow the other person to understand, analyze, and apply the point. Then one can reinforce with facts or examples.

[TheLastMohican]

Yes!

That's bold. Have you seen any examples of this? Does it describe you?

[DeadSpace]

Is it as easy as the above paragraph? NO. Is it plausible? YES. Go get 'em tigers…

Personally, dismantle everything, at least once a year, sometimes more often if a behavior isn't working. Examine everything, find flaws, that i feel are there, or that others have pointed out in some fashion. Modify, repair, or discard. Easy? No, some take constant observation (internal checks) to completely weed out. Running comparisions against what i want and what i'm doing.

I call them watch dogs, little constructs that sit in the back of my mind and do only one thing, watch what i do, what i think, and what i say. They watch for reactions without thought, stifle them. Until that reaction can be studied. Alerts when i say or do something i've desiginated as a habit or thought pattern i want changed. Allowing me to use the new path i want, rather than the old.

Heh, might sound somewhat insane...but works for me. The process becomes automatic, requiring no more thought than breathing. Until the next review. Weaknesses i work around if they can't be eliminated. That also becomes automatic. Internal thought patterns, external interaction, all modified. Core values do remain the same. Everything else is subject to modification. Social interaction/emotional interaction section...one of the most heavily modified, and is under constant active modification, ~~>watch dogs.

[HousesOfApollo]

What usually happens with me is that I end up having to work with someone who is almost my complete opposite. Hopefully, this opposite person will understand and respect my very different outlook on life and between us there should be a balanced interference pattern. I personally believe that I developed this personality simply to compensate for the people around me.

I feel the need to try and understand things that I don't understand about how the rest of humanity lives, but I do not desire to fundamentally tinker with my personality. I had this done to me with medicine to make me happy and sane and it was a disaster I barely recovered from. An unfortunate miscalculation on my part, but I learned a lot from that mistake.

Who I am now is who I need to be.

[sriv]

Personally, dismantle everything, at least once a year, sometimes more often if a behavior isn't working. Examine everything, find flaws, that i feel are there, or that others have pointed out in some fashion. Modify, repair, or discard. Easy? No, some take constant observation (internal checks) to completely weed out. Running comparisions against what i want and what i'm doing.

I call them watch dogs, little constructs that sit in the back of my mind and do only one thing, watch what i do, what i think, and what i say. They watch for reactions without thought, stifle them. Until that reaction can be studied. Alerts when i say or do something i've desiginated as a habit or thought pattern i want changed. Allowing me to use the new path i want, rather than the old.

Heh, might sound somewhat insane...but works for me. The process becomes automatic, requiring no more thought than breathing. Until the next review. Weaknesses i work around if they can't be eliminated. That also becomes automatic. Internal thought patterns, external interaction, all modified. Core values do remain the same. Everything else is subject to modification. Social interaction/emotional interaction section...one of the most heavily modified, and is under constant active modification, ~~>watch dogs.

I follow a similar process, but I have not been consciously aware of it and conceptualized it like you did. Maybe it is an automatic INTJ thing.

[raconteur213]

That's bold. Have you seen any examples of this? Does it describe you?

Your obvious disdain is quite emotional. I have to question your self awareness. For an INTJ, you sure get "upset" a lot. ;)

[TheLastMohican]

Your obvious disdain is quite emotional. I have to question your self awareness. For an INTJ, you sure get "upset" a lot. ;)

I probably sound upset because I don't mince words. I see now that my post sounded confrontational; actually, I was rather impressed by your bold statement, and I want to know more about how you know that it's possible. If you yourself are an example of this occurrence, then I want to learn all about the dynamics of that kind of balance.

[sriv]

Maybe it is just easier to show confrontation on the net than face to face. If you were looking at his face, you may or may not see emotion. Picking emotion out of words is rather difficut.

[TheLastMohican]

Maybe it is just easier to show confrontation on the net than face to face. If you were looking at his face, you may or may not see emotion. Picking emotion out of words is rather difficut.

Quite true. They say that only about 20% of our communication is performed through our words (although I think that percentage is a lot higher for INTJ's).

[raconteur213]

My initial purpose in begining this thread was to illustrate the ability for an INTJ, to capitalize on all traits (inate, as well as, learned) in order to build a better tool belt for problem solving.

EXAMPLE: I tend to shun public groups and what I see as timewasting events or illogical arguments; however, if I need to embrace these things and "Act" in order to achieve a goal, I will. Thus my reference to machiavellian traits.

There is a need for the understanding of emotions and how other perceive them. You could argue that we either need this to "coexist" or "Use for advancement" in a society where {E}'s sometimes have something we need or desire.

[Sylvanus]

...
My thoughts:
I feel that a true INTJ has a little (read: a lot) Machiavellian theory in them. To obtain your goals is paramount to the manner in which you obtain them, it is just the nature of the beast. Thus, if your weakness is impairing you…why not work on it, the same way you would logically deduce everything else? Yes, I believe feeling and emotions can be honed just like vocabulary and theory, etc. Once you smooth out your emotional intelligence enough to rival your analytical intelligence, you ascend to a higher level of understanding; thus, you easier achieve your goals.

Is it as easy as the above paragraph? NO. Is it plausible? YES. Go get 'em tigers…:thumbsup:

NOTE: This is not meant to insult anyone, I'm just riffing…call it the thought of the day? I am interested in finding out how many INTJs agree with me? I am also wondering how many are in denial…kidding. I can appreciate all views.

I guess it all depends on what your goals are. Many of my goals require me to have good interpersonal skills. While I do very well with one on one conversation, the more people thrown into the mix the more I clam up (especially if I'm not familiar with the people). Sometimes I feel that I'm a very well rounded person, then I start talking to others and I realize I'm an aberration and there's a huge disconnect in communication because we have a completely different frame of reference and no common ground. Perhaps because I am all analysis, no emotion, I can't connect because I can't empathize on any level.

I definitely agree with the Machiavellian thing. The word has become a pejorative, because so few realize that The Prince was all about how a pragmatic ruler should act, not how an everyday individual acts on a personal level with others. But NT's are all about pragmatism, especially INTJ's, so I definitely agree we all have fair amount of Machiavelli in us.





Sylvanus added to this post, 3 minutes and 4 seconds later...

As for the pseudo intellectuals it is quite easy to make them look like fools by dismantling their arguments with facts and research. Either that or ignore them because the bulk are merely a waste of time and pander to those unable to reason or think for themselves.


These people tend to appeal to people on an emotional level, and they do so quite well. Dismantling their arguments tends to be simple, but they always argue until the bitter end, and most of the time the damage has already been done (like the Global Warming farce).

[sriv]

Wait. You are assuming a lesser emotion function is an impairment. I can understand why poor communication is undesirable but lesser emotion improves self-control which is a strong Machiavellian trait.

[Sylvanus]

Wait. You are assuming a lesser emotion function is an impairment. I can understand why poor communication is undesirable but lesser emotion improves self-control which is a strong Machiavellian trait.

It can be an impairment if you actually have a desire to have a meaningful relationship with other humans. But when it comes to other aspects of life like work and politics it can be a bonus.

[sriv]

When I do use emotions more freely just for social communication it feels like I am conforming to society, not like I am mastering an art.

[sriv]

You have a good point, but I am not going to use emotion more freely just for influencing or bending people. I want people to reflect on what I say, not the way I say it. It would still feel like conformity no matter the result.