Welcome to INTJ Forum

This is a community where INTJs can meet others with similar personalities and discuss a wide variety of both serious and casual topics. If you aren't an INTJ, you're welcome to join anyway if you would like to learn more about this personality type or participate in our discussions. Registration is free and will allow you to post messages, see hidden subforums, customize your account and use other features only available to our members.

All Activity

This stream auto-updates   

  1. Past hour
  2. Awesome... yeah im trying the same and welcome.
  3. Hey and welcome.
  4. If you have a look at the equivalent article for INTPs, you'll note that as INTPs get older, they develop their Si & Fe. INTPs develop their Si as more of an interest in things like history and traditions, which fills in the gaps of why some of their Ne ideas don't work, as they've usually been tried before by some people some time in the past, and which in turn allows them to select the Ne ideas that have a good chance of working. Then as they develop Fe, they start to work on understanding other people's feelings and how that motivates other people's behaviour. They start to change their Ti logical arguments into things that are more emotionally pleasing to other people and less likely to upset them. As a result, people become more comfortable listening to their Ti logical arguments and more willing to accept them. This results in their ideas being more accepted by other people, which means they can accomplish far more by the actions of the group than they usually accomplished just by themselves. This leads to INTPs becoming more confident and competent as they get older. INTJs have a similar trajectory. Usually, INTJs have good practical arguments. But as they develop their Fi understanding of their own desires, they come to realise that sometimes they are only focussed on their own goals, and not taking other people's needs and goals into account in their plans, which p*sses other people off as they feel like they are being run roughshod over. Then they start to ease up on other people, and are more open to other's suggestions to tweak their plans to make them acceptable to other people as well. Then when they develop their Se, they step back again and take a broader view of experience. Their Ni ideas and visions tend to be based on their own physical experiences, which tends to make them highly optimised for their own situation, but more and more disadvantageous the further and further someone gets from their own situation. So when they develop their Se, they start to notice other people's experiences that don't match their own , and start to either expand their Ni to take other people's situations into account, or they stop expecting that their Ni ideas and visions will apply to everyone. Either way, they become more easy-going, which allows other people the room to live their life, and so makes them much easier to get on with. This leads of INTJs being more easy-going and laid back as they get older.
  5. A narcissist supposedly is that way because he didn't get enough unconditional approval growing up. A snowflake supposedly is that way because he got way too much unconditional approval growing up. But they both act more or less the same - as raging assholes. Emotionally deprived, or emotionally spoiled... exactly opposite formative experiences lead to very similar results. This is why I never label someone a narcissist or a snowflake without knowing more about him than his current behavior pattern. Otherwise I could use exactly the wrong approach in handling him. Oh, and then there's legitimately angry people. They can also come across as raging assholes if you see their behavior divorced from context. When bad people give you shit and you have no role models to show you how to handle that with dignity, you handle it badly. Something to watch out for.
  6. I use #8 a lot. I don't use the others, because they're horrible, except for #9 - and that only in the service of truth and clarity. I also use a great many techniques that aren't on the list. This is mostly a list of evil, anti-truth and anti-rationality tactics. But why is threatening people on the list with the rest? It's a perfectly legit thing to do with those who don't respect anything but power. Speak their language to get through to them. How do else do you deal - for example - unruly children? But then, you could argue it's not a diversion tactic is used this way - but from the other's point of view, it IS a diversion. A counter-diversion from his own diversion. As for #9, if you can't call an idiot an idiot then we've got big problems.
  7. Do you meditate ? If not, it could only help your palm reading. If so, do you visit The Void, where the data 'is' that you 'supposedly' read ?
  8. Ironic. Out of 150, one guy on my maths degree said in the first month, that he'd chosen to do maths specifically to become an actuary. He was a recovering alcoholic. One of the few people in university who never touched a drop of alcohol, and I never saw in any of the pubs or clubs while we were there.
  9. I suppose that you could use speech as a form of protectionism, such as by arguing that everyone in America should "Buy American" to be patriotic and to boost your country's economy. But I was just illustrating how your response was in context to your analogy. So it's not necessary to make that argument to make the point.
  10. For me (NJ) : 1) Reading/Writing 2) Visual 3) Auditory 4) Kinesthetic (I'm not really sure what Kinesthetic means though) But I definitely learn better when I see something than when I hear it.
  11. I can only sell you on avoiding marriage. Not being married myself, I can start and end relationships as desired with very few complications. I find that keeps life more interesting and my relationships more positive because we are in them by choice, not by obligation. And about the nearing death thing...I think people underestimate the negatives of being a couple for that. You don't just have to deal with your own negative dying experience, you may also get to deal with your dying partner. Maybe you'll have to watch them die first, which ensures you feel that sadness, while still giving you the experience of dying on your own. And even if you do die first, you'll be burdening your partner with that grief. In summary, dying sucks no matter who is involved.
  12. fake it til you break it. ppl will only see the brain slice from the side, and not see it's 2D. it's like how 4D is 2D you underwater seeing a 3D being's humanoid hand reaching in to smack you. all you see is 4 oblongs representative of fingers until the thumb breaks the surface and you see 5 oblongs that become a hand giving you a mental donkey punch. no one'll even know what hit them until it's too late and your brain slice has quickly slithered by.
  13. I am going to have the rest of the country style steak with some eggs tonight.
  14. Checking on some thing I ordered for my wife.
  15. Welcome to the forum.
  16. Eating and sleeping were examples. You still have legs. There's still a Sun in the sky. British people still speak English. Laissez-faire capitalism is still in play, just like it was in the eighteenth century and before. People still sit on chairs, sleep on beds, use knives, forks and spoons to eat with. A lot of things haven't changed that people take for granted. If a company holds a competition to promote a product, members aren't allowed to enter the competition, and if they do, they have to be disqualified. But on the internet, no-one is required to prove their identity before posting ratings. It's well-known by those that use internet ratings agencies religiously, that many of the favourable ratings are written by company employees. It's interesting that you mentioned Coke. Pepsi worked hard to compete with Coke. They even worked hard to make Pepsi taste better than Coke. But most people were still preferring Coke to Pepsi. So they came up with the Pepsi challenge. They'd ask random strangers in the street to taste both, and say which tasted better. Most people still tasted Coke. So then they added a blindfold. When people tasted them knowing which was which, the majority said Coke tasted better. When they were wearing the blindfold, the majority said that Pepsi tasted better. So after they'd found that Pepsi tasted better, they took off the blindfold, saw it was Pepsi, and then tried both again. They STILL found that Coke tasted better, even after they'd already have 100% proof that they preferred Pepsi. THAT is the power of advertising. Gas 'wall brackets' were used in place of the sconce (a candle holder that is attached to a wall with an ornamental bracket). Not usually, only to replace the candles that were already wall-mounted. Speak for yourself. I live in England. There were 10,000 homeless kids sleeping on the streets. Sean Connery said in an interview that when he grew up in the 1930s, he slept in a drawer at night. If you want to come see the slum housing, there's still plenty around from that era. Technological changes accomplished a lot. Thanks to scientific advances in feeds and cross-breeding, by the 1970s, milk production of cows had increased by 400%. It turned out to be double the demand. So cross-breeding and lower-quality feeds were used to reduce milk production of cows down to about half that. Yes, everyone in the know in the private sector knows about this. There's the Peter Principle, which was a big problem in the private sector in the 1970s, but is still a problem in the private sector. There's also the budget problem. If you don't spend your department's entire budget, management say "Oh, you obviously don't need it all then", and then cut next year's budget to what you didn't use, even if last year you had very few expenditures and this year your IT department need to upgrade your systems to keep them commercially compliant. So in order to ensure that their budget won't keep getting cut until they can't afford their needs, whatever a department doesn't spend during the year gets blown on anything they can in the run-up to the end of the fiscal year at the beginning of April, usually on incredibly stupid adverts. It's a known thing if you work in the private sector. Obviously you're intelligent. You just won't fall for any simple ruse. Industries would need to spend millions on psychological studies to come up with extremely subtle techniques to manipulate the human brain. But industries make hundreds of billions of dollars every year. So paying for psychological studies on how to manipulate the human brain, and then applying these techniques, is chicken feed compared to the returns. http://www.investopedia.com/terms/t/tragedy-of-the-commons.asp The example of the Newfoundland fishermen is found in many places in Europe as well. In those cases, as you can read, the private sector fished as much as they could, which then depleted natural stocks to the point where the private sector could no longer catch enough fish to cover their overheads, which was why the industry collapsed. The private sector had killed the golden goose. In response, governments issued fishing quotas to ensure that the private sector don't kill their own fishing industry profits yet again. Some people fish no more than the reproductive cycles of the fish can cope with and stay within the quotas. Many capitalists feel those quotas are restrictions that they should not be forced to adhere to, because they are being denied the opportunity to make lots more money now. So the question is: Do you remove the quotas and let the private sector kill their own income? Or do you ignore those who are not thinking about their future, and keep them from making mistakes due to short-sightedness that will cost them their livelihood and leave them unemployed and demanding handouts from the government? I agree. But to make money, you have to invest. Planning ahead requires extra investment in the early days, which requires taxpayers to pay for those higher investments with higher taxes. Putting up taxes p*sses off voters. People are usually only willing to pay for things that they can already see are a problem, which is once the problem has already occurred, and so is purely reactive. Corporations have their own assets and are often more proactive. But they have shareholders, who also think short-term except for those things that will directly increase profits for their shares and thus that corporation alone. E.G. in the 1950s and 1960s, the government invested many billions building a system of motorways across the country. Since then, corporations have moved from using rail to using huge articulated lorries to transport goods to and from all over Europe. Driving on the motorway, these juggernauts are everywhere. I drive on the M25 to and from work. I can see the level of damage. There are serious cracks that stretch for almost a mile in some places. It's only a matter of time until the motorways collapse entirely and the whole system breaks down. But we aren't seeing British corporations banding together to take a small portion of the trillions they earn each year in total, to establish private repair crews to the toll their massively heavy lorries are doing to the motorways. They don't get a direct profit from it. So it's only a matter of time until they collapse. That, too, is a tragedy of the commons. Developers don't want to set up home-owners' associations before they sell the apartments, as it would put buyers off. After everyone bought the properties and started seeing their building get worse, some of them realised that if they didn't start doing something to stop the rot, then the market price of their apartments would take a serious nosedive, and so convinced the rest of the home-owners in their block to set up an association to pay fees for general maintenance and set regulations to keep the place nice. Not everyone was convinced. You can see the blocks which weren't convinced, because when they were built, they looked really nice, and now are horrible places that only the poor are willing to live in. Plenty of places like that, all over London and the UK. If it was a dictatorship, then you can kill the dictator and that's it. But when it's a government that the people want, and they are more interested in having a government than a particular person leading them, then even when the person falters and collapses, the people simply install someone else. An example is Britain in World War 2. The PM at the time, Neville Chamberlain, signed a peace treaty with Hitler. Then Hitler broke the treaty, which meant that it was only a matter of time until Germany would try to invade Britain. Chamberlain couldn't handle it and resigned. Churchill, who was rather a forlorn and ignored back-bencher, was willing to step up and take up the challenge of standing up to the Nazis. The people wanted someone to lead them. So they got behind him and Churchill became the head of the new government. After the war ended, Churchill turned out to be a great war-time leader, but a poor peace-time leader. So the people voted for someone else. Had the British seen government the way you do, then the government would have collapsed, and it was the government that organised everyone to hold off the Nazis until the Americans could use the UK as a staging area to launch their troops into Europe. If not for the Churchill government, we'd all be speaking German now. Easy to deal with. If there is one farmer with a gun, you send 10 soldiers to his door. If there are 2 farmers with guns in the home, you send 20. You don't send them all at once to every home. You go to each village and each door, one by one. No-one has the chance to inform anyone else about what is going on, because you've already overpowered them. You'll lose a few soldiers here and there. But the odds are always 10-to-1 in favour of the farmers being shot. They don't stand a chance. The primary asset is the land that can grow food and its natural resources. If you can't conquer the people, they'll hold the land, and you can't gain anything. Worst comes to worst, you kill the majority, and send some of the poorer people in your own country there. They are now able to become land-owners and become much wealthier than before. So many want to go. Then they have lots of kids to have more people to maximise use of the land and to thus make as much profit off the land as much as possible. Been done before in Northern Ireland. World War 2 had a horrendous cost. It took 4 1/2 years to subdue Germany and Japan. Half a million British people died. Half of London was blown to bits by bombs. The British incurred such costs, that they had to borrow millions from the Americans. They only paid the debt off after over 40 years. Food was rationed for about 14 years, because the country was still in dire straits for 9 years after the war ended. Marching to Berlin and smashing the Nazi regime was incredibly difficult, cost millions of lives, and cost in today's money, probably on the region of 4 trillion dollars just for the USA, and about 1.5 trillion dollars to the UK in today's money. Afterwards, Germany and Japan were smashed to pieces. America had to institute the Marshall Plan, and rebuild them. As to whether or not Germany and Japan was obedient, I suggest that you take a look at the car market as an example: people buy Japanese and German cars, not American. Nissan, Honda, Mitsubishi, Toyota, Suzuki, BMW, Mercedes-Benz, Volkswagen, Audi and Porsche are extremely popular car brands that sell well all over the world. Which American car makers sell well outside of the USA and in the rest of the world? Ford. That's it! ONE American car manufacturer has significant sales outside of the USA. You don't see cars from Chrysler, GM or any other American car manufacturer outside of the USA other than Ford. So who exactly is being obedient here? ...... added to this post 16 minutes later: In summary: So we are all in favor of homeowner's associations that are binding indefinitely. We may or may not all be opposed to Genghis Khan invading most of Europe and exacting tribute or enslaving the inhabitants. We may or may not all be opposed to Genghis Khan institutionalizing his power by declaring all land in his ownership and posing yearly demands for the right to remain living in the territory. So, assuming you are opposed to Genghis Khan and Viking attacks, what distinguishes a large homeowners association from Viking raids? What underlying moral principle draws a distinction between these two types? Easy enough to figure out what distinguishes the Vikings, Saracens and Genghis Khan from a home-owner's association. The Vikings were originally traders. The Viking raiders were private sector companies that discovered there was more profit to raids than trade. Some of the Vikings traded with British people. Some of the Vikings decided they'd make more money by raiding. Some of the Vikings decided they'd make more money by invading and conquering part of Britain, and did. That was it. It was pure capitalism. Home-owner's associations are unpaid organisations that hold elections to decide their president and representatives of their members. The president and representatives then enact and enforce regulations on the members, including mandatory fees on all members that go towards services that are used free of charge for all members. If you buy an apartment in the block, you have to follow the regulations and pay the charges that the association sets. If you build a new apartment, same thing. Everyone has to. You don't get a choice. It doesn't matter that you didn't sign anything. You have to follow the regulations and pay the fees.
  17. What is an abstraction without the object it abstracts? Isn't a perception but the abstraction of that which is perceived?
  18. Today
  19. I'm composing music just as well. Wouldn't say I'm doing a godly job at it, but after one year, I can do that quite decent I guess. Just doing classical (piano only in those terms), a little orchestral, cuz I like it very much and a lot of electronical stuff. For anyone who wanna take a look, link to my soundcloud on my profile. I'd love to hear what you guys have created. Would you mind sending a link or something like that?
  20. It doesn't matter to me, but most of my friends are near the middle. It the I is too high, I never really feel close to them, as they don't initiate contact or reach out to me when I need help. If the E is too high, It's actually a little easier. They have more friends to spread it out across. As long as they understand that life takes me away sometimes, and that I get exhausted too, I/E is no big deal.
  21. I think that theory can only be found to hold mostly true when you look at people who had parents that they liked. Most people with parents that they didn't get on with, will usually try to find someone that absolutely isn't like their parents. In my younger years I did end up with men that were similar to my parents, but then I discovered some self worth and realised that I'd been choosing those men because I didn't think I was worth any more than being abused. Not repeating that again, I know my worth now and I want someone similar to myself.
  22. Undecided. My most stable, deep relationships in the past were with other introverts. On the other hand, the extraverts were far more exciting and leading to memorable good times. I've asked this question to an ENFJ life coach, saying that I assume the best fit for me would be ENTJ / ENTP. He strongly disagreed with me, saying that it would be far too much energy and cold to the relationship. He favored INFJ, and I've since experimented going out on dates with INFJs. The F is problematic. I've experimented with INTP: the P eventually drives you nuts. No follow through whatsoever and comes across as childish, with childish tantrums. My relationship with ISFJ broke down over hurt emotions. ISTP was awesome but could neither empathize (requires an F) nor understand my line of thinking (requires an N). Aside from another INTJ I've run out of introverts. ENTJs feel like they really 'get' you, but their constant need to be top dog gets annoying fast. They make great friends, but would be challenging to date one. I personally really like ENTPs. They are argumentative, but that at least is something I can live with. And like cats, they bring home random things they caught that day: people, ideas, etc. Constantly brings in fresh material for your Ni mind to ponder on. Good symbiosis.
  23. So fellow INTJs, I'm composing music for almost a year now, as a hobby. And I've made an electronic song dedicated to "our kind" (you will understand those ""). I'd like you to give me some feedback. As you may be able to imagine, I'm not quite sure if it transposes the right feelings. Maybe there even are some musicians and/or composers here, who'd like to give me some tips for the future? Anyway, here we go: I'm pretty much prototyping everything before I'm totally sure I like what I've made. So this isn't the entirely final version. I can and will change it if proper feedbacks come in! (are we even statistcly the rarest kind? In any case, we're at least pretty close to it..)
  24. Left BrainRight Brain 63%37% You are more left-brained than right-brained. Your left brain controls the right side of your body. In addition to being known as left-brained, you are also known as a critical thinker who uses logic and sense to collect information. You are able to retain this information through the use of numbers, words, and symbols. You usually only see parts of the "whole" picture, but this is what guides you step-by-step in a logical manner to your conclusion. Concise words, numerical and written formulas and technological systems are often forms of expression for you. Some occupations usually held by a left-brained person include a lab scientist, banker, judge, lawyer, mathematician, librarian, and skating judge. Your complete evaluation follows below: Your left brain/right brain percentage was calculated by combining the individual scores of each half's sub-categories. They are as follows: Your Left Brain Percentages 54%Verbal (Your most dominant characteristic) 40%Reality-based 37%Linear 31%Sequential 25%Symbolic 25%Logical (Your least dominant characteristic) Your Right Brain Percentages 36%Holistic (Your most dominant characteristic) 25%Nonverbal 24%Intuitive 23%Random 10%Concrete 8%Fantasy-oriented (Your least dominant characteristic)
  25. Yes, I think that life would suit me very well, maybe actually better than living with someone and/or have a family. I think I could be very happy living single life but I am currently in a happy relationship.
  26. hmm, first question... how can you be a single person and have a SO simultaneously? but that aside... yes, its highly unlikely that a pua would be willing to spend months going after a single woman... but pua aren't the only manipulators out there, amirite? im just trying to work out whether or not you believe, based on your own admissions of having been hoodwinked in the past, in conjunction with your admission of having no control over whether or not you find someone physically attractive, it is possible that a sufficiently subtle and sufficiently motivated manipulator could exploit this dynamic? and on top of that... would a manipulator who showed that sort of persistence (or commitment if you prefer) be granted a higher degree of lenience because of his persistence?
  1. Load more activity