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.


Core Member
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About jndiii

  • Rank
    Core Member


  • MBTI
  • Global 5/SLOAN
  • Astrology Sign
  • Personal DNA
    Benevolent Leader
  1. There are a lot of tiny technical details I didn't address. Anyone care to name them all?
  2. It doesn't sound like you're aware. You're just posting the same stereotype of what a "religion" is that most non-believers promulgate. Religion is way more than just belief or faith in a God. Are you a believer? (That's not a trick question, and you don't have to answer.) If not, it's difficult to lend credence to your representation. I would agree, however, that the meanings aren't constructed. I never said they were. What I was saying is that the narratives hold the meanings, not so much the theology. A typical sermon takes the stories and explains the theology in terms of the stories. I didn't say it didn't make theological sense. I said it was weak, theologically speaking. It's one of the books that almost DIDN'T make it into the Christian Bible. It's one of the most difficult stories of the Bible to discuss. Personally, I don't believe that the "God character" invests it with meaning - Job does. Job is us, trying to make sense of everything. In a way, the "God character" is almost the opposite of "meaning" as most people would think of it, not even answering Job's questions. The "God character's" main message would appear to be, "You don't know what you're talking about." The message doesn't appear to be, "I'm in charge. Bow down to me or else," telling Job to submit to the authority of the Uber-Consciousness as you put it. The message isn't even telling Job that he is wrong. No, it's more like Pauli's famous quote: "Not even wrong." That's a far deeper message than submission to authority. My opinion on the meaning of Job is neither here nor there, however. The fact is that the text is a source of much theological debate. Nothing about it is as standardized as you make it out to be. Religion isn't as cut and dried as you characterize it to be. Anyway, twirling back to the discussion of the OP, the meaning of just about anything comes from the narrative, from the story, from the myths, from the legends. The archetypes play themselves out over and over. It's why anecdotal evidence is so much more persuasive than dry statistical facts. Only on places like INTJf will one find people arguing that meaning comes from facts and not stories. Our brains naturally favor stories over facts. There are too many facts to keep track of all of them; the stories organize them and give them meaning. This is standard psychology, btw, not just assertions I'm throwing around.
  3. Not all religious systems are monotheistic, never mind even theistic. Even in the case of monotheistic systems, the meaning doesn't come from the "Uber-Authority". The meaning comes from the stories. The narratives. Simple example: the book of Job. As a theological structure, it's one of the weakest in the Bible. As a story, it's one of the strongest of the Bible.
  4. I'm just pointing out where your logic goes, and why you find yourself chasing your logical tail on this topic. That feeling that you're lying to yourself comes from the logical circles in which you are traveling, especially those arising from "trying to create meaning". You wanna know how INTJs typically lie to themselves? They use logic. Lots and lots of logic. The conclusions they reach have nothing to do with logic, of course. Trust me, any opinion you hold that is based entirely on logic is a lie you are telling yourself. Heck, the opinion might even be correct, but whether or not the opinion is correct has nothing to do with the logical construct you have created to justify it. The logic is the lie. This goes for non-INTJs, too, but INTx types are particularly susceptible to this version of lying to oneself, because they're so good at creating self-serving logical constructs. This is kind of like noting that the only way to never make a mistake is to never do anything at all. Of course there is no nag or itch. You've just nullified the entire problem. You pretend that "meaninglessness" is some kind of ultimate answer, when it's a non-answer. You conscious question is about meaning vs meaninglessness. That's not your real question. I answered your real question. Your real question is, "What is meaningful?" That's not a question that you can answer with logic. You get very close to the correct answer here: Of course you hope for more. Why are you looking for meaning in the first place, if not to hope for more? It's not a trivial question. This is at the same level as "What is happiness?" You've made it as far as knowing that happiness doesn't derive from material wants or pleasures, that there is something more than that. You've got a notion that you're looking for meaning. I've answered that you're looking for responsibility. That is not your end goal. It's just the name of the street you need to turn onto. You need to travel down that street for a while to find the answers you're looking for. I don't mean "responsibility" merely in the sense of obligation or commitment, though that is involved. I'm talking about voluntarily chosen responsibility, about caring enough about SOMETHING that you choose to take action and care about it, things that you wouldn't normally do in the normal course of events. I'm not even talking about huge responsibilities in particular, though that's a small subset of what I'm talking about. I'm talking about all the little responsibilities that everyone has and everyone ignores to some degree or another. As a first step, take a moment to note all the different ways in which you should be taking care of yourself, but you aren't. Choose one, then do it. Then choose another and do that. And so on. This is like the Karate Kid's "wax on, wax off". It makes no sense at first. It doesn't appear to have anything at all to do with the question you are asking, never mind the question that you consciously think you are asking. But if you do it, you'll have your answer.
  5. "The absurdity of creating meaning from thin air." The logical conclusion of this thought is that in order to be truly meaningful, meaning must pre-exist in some fashion or another. For example, requiring the existence of God to provide meaning. No, this isn't a new thought. Nietzsche already went there. Let me put it another way, then. It isn't about "meaning" at all. Well, it is, sort of, but not in an existential way. Logic won't get you anywhere. Logic will fail you utterly. Logic relies on axioms, on definitions, on premises. Of course, it is "absurd" to create "meaning from thin air": you must have an axiom or definition or premise of what "meaning" is. The absurdity isn't creating meaning from thin air. The absurdity lies in the attempt to apply logic. Humans are not logical creatures. Logic doesn't provide meaning. Logic only aids one in evaluating what is true or false based on certain premises. It doesn't aid at all in determining what those premises ought to be. The premises arise not from logic, but from being human. As a human being, you need reasons, you need motivations, you need purpose. You need "meaning". Where does that meaning come from? It comes from the essence of who you really are. If you don't know who you really are, you're stuck using logic on fallacious propositions, attempting to find meaning where none can possibly exist. That's why I mention "responsibility". Yeah, it's kind of tautological, but those things for which you feel "responsibility" are almost guaranteed to be the things that you believe in your deepest heart of hearts give life meaning. If you don't feel responsibility for anything, you're not going to find much meaning in anything. You don't "choose" the meaning. You don't create it "from thin air". It already exists within you. You already believe it. At worst, you just aren't in touch with it.
  6. Yeah, you're going to have to have that discussion. That's the hard part. The worst thing you could do is to avoid that discussion indefinitely. That will cause drama. That will take whatever you have and just make it all disappear in a puff of wishful thinking. A good rule of thumb is that if a discussions starts off with "we need to talk about our relationship", it will never, ever end well. That isn't how relationships work. Instead, go for having an ongoing discussion, instead of putting things off for a "big discussion". Say exactly how you feel, being as honest as you can, and hopefully he'll be as honest as he can. Talk about what you want, where you both think you are in your lives. It's OK if you're both uncertain. Just saying that to each other is huge. As your feelings for each other change and evolve, keep each other apprised of them. Want a label for that ongoing discussion? It's called a "relationship". This is what people do. Don't bottle it up. Don't put things off. Just be open with each other. You owe each other that much, at the very least. Shit. I know. You're an INTJ. It doesn't work like that for you, you think. It doesn't work like that for me either. Not easily. Except. Except except except ... when I see it work right, that's how it works. Emotional honesty without inflicting emotional burdens on each other. Pick up a copy of The Four Agreements, while you're at it. Yeah, it's full of new-agey spirtual stuff, but the core principles are well-founded.
  7. "The secret to your existence is right in front of you, and it manifests itself as all those things you know you should do but you're avoiding." - Jordan Peterson The attraction of nihilism, of "meaninglessness", is that if nothing you do has any meaning, then you can pretty much do whatever you want. If your actions have no effect on anything or anyone in any meaningful way, you have no responsibilities to maintain. Responsibility is what gives life meaning. The corollary is true, too. If someone is feeling angst about life having no meaning, you know for a fact that they haven’t gotten over the habit of avoiding most of their responsibilities.
  8. You are in what is colloquially known as a "relationship". You're not being entirely honest about it with each other, but that comes with time. You're being honest enough. "Relationship" doesn't mean dating. It doesn't mean boyfriend/girlfriend. It just means that you enjoy each other's company very much. It might end up being "just" a friendship. (Let me tell you, a real friendship is never "just" a friendship.) It might end up with starting a family. It could end up anywhere. People relate with each other. It's what they tend to do in life when not going about practical things like earning money or going to school or work. You're both worried about where it will lead. You both think that avoiding the labels will avoid the problems. It won't. The problems come with being human, not from whatever labels you apply. Oh, there is one way in which labels cause problems: people tend to apply labels without understanding what they really mean for themselves, and start relating in terms of labels instead of terms of each other. This can cause all sorts of drama, and both of you are wary of starting that level of drama again. Drama arises from putting all sorts of unreasonable expectations on each other, and those expectations arise from the labels. Just let things develop between the two of you naturally, without trying to force anything. Yeah, it's WEIRD, as you put it, because it doesn't fit into a story. The labels try to fit things into a story, but the labels aren't YOUR story. The weirdness comes from the fact that you're writing the story as you go. You don't know what the whole story is, yet. You can't label it yet. You only get to label it with hindsight, when you know what your story is. So, just keep on enjoying each other's company very much. This is what living life is all about. :)
  9. Your logic is a bit off. Just because one factor is an advantage does not imply that other factors cannot also be advantages. Breeding like bunnies is also an evolutionary advantage. Which one is more of an advantage depends on specific circumstances.
  10. People who don't have messed-up relationships don't go asking for relationship advice. The kind of people who are naive enough to ask for relationship advice on a typology forum, never mind an INTJ typology forum, are going to have really messed up relationships. And the typical advice that INTJs give about relationships is awful, leading to really disastrous threads. Not that other internet venues regarding relationship advice are especially good. It's just that on an INTJ forum it's going to be especially bad. What would good advice look like? Maybe something like this. Yes, you have to argue with each other. No arguing results in a breakup, because you'll have no practice arguing when a truly serious issue comes up. Too much arguing ends in a breakup because you're too busy fighting each other to get the kind of value out of a relationship that most people need. You need to have occasional arguments to resolve the tensions that inevitably arise from being close with another person. You are responsible for each other. This is not a denial of autonomy, it's a declaration of interdependence. Caring for someone implies taking care of them, of supporting them, of having their back, and it goes both ways. If you don't have this, you're pretty much just friends or friends with benefits - a sexual relationship based on selfish needs, not on love. Relationships are not about happiness. Happiness is a terrible goal to have. No matter what happens, you will be unhappy with everything in your life at one point or another. That's normal human psychology. Having meaningful, fulfilling responsibilities, however, is the kind of goal that maximizes happiness. This ties into relationships involving responsibility for each other. You have to aim at the responsibility in order to be happy in your relationship. That's a broad-brush version. The devil is in the details. Love is simple; people are complicated. No, this isn't stuff I figured out on my own. It's stuff I've learned ever so slowly from other people, sifting out the good advice from the crappy advice. My criterion for good advice: it's simple and elemental, involving truths of human psychology. My criterion for bad advice: bad advice is logical. It's extremely logical. Don't ever trust logical advice about relationships, because it ignores all the emotional assumptions that underlie what a relationship ought to be. INTJs typically give extremely logical advice about relationships.
  11. Because being stupid (lack of intelligence) is clearly an evolutionary disadvantage. People always seem to point out how smart people can be so stupid in so many ways, in an effort to show how intelligence is not really that big a deal, but that's just sophistry. True stupidity (as opposed to the stupidity of cognitive biases and basic ignorance) is a huge disadvantage. A person with low IQ can't learn nearly as fast as other people, AND their IQ, that rate of learning, cannot be increased. (Caveat: the IQ of populations can be increased as their socioeconomic status improves, but it doesn't improve indefinitely. Combined with strong evidence that individual IQ cannot be increased, we have to attribute that to things like better nutrition and health and so on, thus minimizing penalties to IQ due to environmental effects.) So high IQ does not guarantee that you'll do well, but it correlates very highly with doing well (at just about everything, not just academics) pretty much because low IQ pretty much guarantees that you won't do well at very much if anything at all.
  12. There is a good case to be made that it is, using the Five Factor model as a basis: Also: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TJQuHWwGxzw A significant aspect of intelligence is that it is one of the most predictive of psychometric measures, more predictive than the Big Five in general. I find it interesting that it fits under "Openness" as an aspect of that factor. The point being made in the video, if extended to MBTI, is that N types (which correlates to Openness) are more intelligent than S types, statistically speaking. Thoughts?
  13. That's because you don't understand BUSINESS. INTJs tend to think that they understand everything about everything, but ESFJs understand everything about business that INTJs don't, and vice versa. The part of business that INTJs don't tend to get is that a lot of it is predicated on building relationships with other people, and it's been that way for thousands of years. ESFJs (and even ESTJs) tend to excel at that, building bonds with other people that tend to be invisible to INTJs. Those bonds tend to be very stabilizing for a business, keeping people in line without having to threaten punishment and so on. INTJs on the other hand are excellent and problem-solving and execution. They're the Swiss Army knives of the workforce, and you can send them to tackle just about any problem in a business other than sales and other very people-oriented things. But sales and people-oriented things are at the core of every business. Without other people wanting to buy your stuff, without other people wanting to do business with you, there is no business. So what can happen is that ESTJs and ESFJs have a very different idea of what "doing work" means than INTJs, and that can be a source of conflict. In these situations, I try to set expectations. I'll say things like, "I appreciate your concerns, but the same things that make me good at my job also make me kind of bad at dealing with people. I don't mean to be rude, but I can be oblivious. On the other hand, you can give me the absolute worst problems that your business has, the ones that seem to have no solution, and I'll go work by myself and figure out a range of possible solutions for you to choose from." As long as they can be assured of your good intentions, they'll just regard you as "a bit weird, but a good person" and get along with you fine. Yeah, she probably doesn't think she is being rude to you. She believes she is being considerate. And you know what? She is. For 90% of the population, what she is doing is being considerate. A bit over-the-top considerate, but considerate nonetheless. That's why everyone at your workplace is OK with her behavior (or can at least tolerate it) except for you. The answer is to figure out how to be considerate in your own way. Heck, even if you show consideration to other coworkers and not her, she'll see you as a good person even if she doesn't get along with you as well as she would like. My usual approach is to put on a mask that isn't really a mask. It's just a part of me that I don't show people very often because it isn't where my mind is at most of the time. I'll actually chat with the ESFJ, talking about chit-chat and small talk. As long as I don't let myself feel frustrated that the discussion isn't "deep and meaningful", it works. I think of it kind of like music. The chit-chat is "her song", it's what makes her feel understood and accepted. Without it, she feels lost. I can "play that music" and engage because even though I don't care what the words mean, it's an essential means of connection. Cuz, when you get right down to it, people can't connect at that deep and meaningful level right away. Even INTJ to INTJ, it does not happen. Just look at most of the threads in this forum. The INTJs don't talk to each other so much as pontificate on the OP. (I'm guilty of this, too, at times.) We crave deep and meaningful conversations, but having those conversations requires building connections, and INTJs positively HATE doing the kinds of things that build the connections that lead to the deeper, more fascinating conversations in life. You can even do that with ESFJs. You just have to figure out how to manage the connections. I wish I had figured a lot of this out back when I was married to an ESFJ. We got along great, but our approaches to problem-solving were antithetical, so our disagreements slowly disintegrated our feelings of connection with each other.