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.


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Samueza

  • Rank


  • MBTI
  • Enneagram
  • Global 5/SLOAN
  • Astrology Sign
  • Brain Dominance


  • Location
    Amsterdam, Netherlands
  • Occupation
    Undergraduate student psychology
  • Gender
  1. I'm under the impression that you debated her on whether or not to make decisions based on fear was reasonable. In my experience (but I've never dated an ENTP), when a woman conveys that she's fearful of something, she just wants you to listen and to accept her emotion. She wants to be comforted and feel there is nothing to fear. When you're saying that acting based on her fear is unreasonable, you're in effect increasing the barrier for her to act on it (especially when she wants her decisions to be reasonable), but you're not doing anything about the fear itself. If she agrees with you, the conflict is solved, but the conflict is a symptom of something else - her feelings of fear. I could see this as manipulation, because instead of making it easier for her to be with you, you're making it harder for her to break up with you (which does lead to the same outcome, you two staying together). I understand that this is a natural reaction, though.
  2. That sounds like a wonderful reflection to me! I should say, though, that this is the kind of thing many INTJs aren't big on. I personally don't give out too much compliments, nor do I enjoy receiving them too much - especially if it's for really small things. I think compliments can easily come off as pedantic or condescending (Imagine something like "You did such a good job on that speech! You used verbs and adverbs, and some of the words even had multiple syllables!" - this is, of course, an exaggeration, but it helps getting the point across), and those can be used as a tool to control another person and assert your superiority. From my reading on here I feel safe to suggest that I'm not the only INTJ who is more aware of the mind games that go into complimenting than of other people's need to feel appreciated. I'm kind of surprised nobody else picked this up to give their take on it. In truth, it doesn't sound to me like he was thinking in terms of compliment - this woman being a babe must've been a factual statement to him. That's also a part of compliments INTJs may be uncomfortable with: thinking of their observations in a subjectively important way rather than objectively. The situation reads to me like this INTJ just thought the other woman was obviously babe-like, that he tried something with her, messed up (note: he didn't feel any kind of pressure to turn the situation around and pin the blame on her), and now it's all history. My hunch is that he'd be baffled if he found out that this bothers you at all. She's past, you're present, and the two don't have anything to do with each other. Of course, this does mean that I'm considering him to be displaying a severe amount of social naiveté. I may be wrong here, which is why I held back my read on his situation until some others would reply, but my suggestion to explain his behavior would be that he's extremely socially clumsy and unaware of how this affects you at all.
  3. That's about what I suspected. I think I understand his response to you, then. I don't think it has anything to do with a connection to that back-up singer girl. If I responded the way he did, it would be about me being a private person and being uncomfortable with the situation. This may be difficult for you to understand, but I'll try to explain. The thing is: if you ask someone you're not involved with to design a web site for you, you pay them and they design your site. If it's an acquaintance, you may be able to ask for a bit more in terms of personal preferences, but you still pay them and it's a done deal. You get your site, they get their money, and it's done. That's what we know. If someone comes along who does things differently, then it's confusing. I can imagine him wondering what it means if you just design a site for him. Does it mean he owes you, and if he does, then what? Because that's the way it normally works with products like websites, right? But it doesn't make sense in this situation, so that's confusing and uncomfortable. I think that something like this went through his brain. He didn't really know how to handle the situation at any point. I don't think he realized what it was about this situation that made him uncomfortable, but something held him back from appreciating your willingness to put in this effort. He feels that relationships are based on a different kind of exchange than are professional deals, which is expressed through him saying that he likes to keep his professional and private life separated. If he doesn't do that to a sufficient degree, he's going to end up confused. I should add that I've talked about things from what I presume was his perspective, but I do understand yours too. There's no reason why what you did had to be confusing or uncomfortable for him. It's a wonderful gesture, especially for someone whom you haven't been dating for that long. I hope this explanation doesn't discourage you from being supportive in other situations.
  4. In regard to this site you built for him: who took the first step? Did he ask you to do it, or was it your initiative?
  5. I have some good and some bad news for you. The good news: this is perfectly normal INFP behavior. Her pulling away is not an indicator of disinterest, but just an indicator of introversion. INFPs have very intense feelings and sometimes it scares them, and then they need to be just with themselves to do whatever it is they do to get back on their feet. The one thing about this behavior that's a good indicator of interest is whether or not she comes back to you after those moments she needed to be alone. If she always comes back, there's no reason to doubt her expressed interest. The bad news: you're going to have to understand that she's an introvert and that this isn't going away. From her perspective, she isn't withdrawing from you, she just needs to be alone to recharge. That's the important thing here: this isn't about you, it's just something she needs to do from time to time. I understand that it's difficult for you to accept that this is happening, especially when you have such strong feelings for her, but I can guarantee you that you'll make things much easier for the both of you if you can find a way to understand that you shouldn't take her behavior personally. That's the only advice I can give to you in regard to your intense feelings: don't let them blind you to her perspective. As for your other questions: INFPs are very loyal and committed. I've never met one who let anyone in quickly - and a month isn't really that long. Being careful with her is very good, and it's something which she'll probably notice and be appreciative of. Giving her space is always a good idea. You're an introvert too, right? We need our space too. If she notices that you don't claim her, but that she can have her little introvert moments, then she'll feel much more safe around you (this is actually pretty big for them). Letting her know that you notice this pattern is a great thing to do. The INFPs I know eat that stuff up. They enjoy analyzing people and their behavior in their own way, so that's always a good thing, and your INFP will feel cared for if you let her know you have been paying enough attention to notice that pattern in her behavior. It's also a good way to get to a conversation where you can bring up your own feelings about her behavior, when you're ready to talk about it. If she knows that you want to give her space, but that it's not always easy for you, she'll understand and she'll be all the more appreciative you do it nonetheless.
  6. I think a major problem is contained within this solution. You have formulated your standards in a polarized way: either hold on to your views of what relationships are supposed to be like, or lower your standard and date any girl. I don't think either option is particularly good, and thinking in a polarized fashion is only dragging you down (that's not just armchair speculation, there's clinical evidence linking black-and-white thinking to depression). Another issue here is that you're insecure about being too picky, but surely dating just any girl that makes herself available is not conductive to your self-respect. I think it's important to say "no" to some girls immediately, but don't rule out girls too soon. It's called "benefit of the doubt" for a reason. I had a feeling of surprise when I glanced over your list of girls you went out with, similar to what I described above. I found myself wondering if the issues you found with those girls are all equally bad. For instance, I like girly girls too, but tomboy is not even nearly the problem that golddigger is. This goes with saying "no" very quickly. It makes sense to me that you're quick to dismiss prospects if a girl is judged to be either relationship material or just any girl. So what I think is that this yes-or-no mechanism that I suspect you're applying is not very effective. I would suggest to add a category to that, something that works like yes-no-maybe. It's okay to be open-minded about people while maintaining your own standards as to what you really don't ever want to experience in a relationship. I think that will help you to have a more flexible mindset when it comes to dating and to feel better about it as well.
  7. The simple way I would put the dilemma is that is if you believe that your needs and your values are incommensurable, there are three ways out: the first would be by giving up your needs, the second would be by giving up your values, the third would be by giving up your belief. I would argue in favor of the third. I think that if you'd genuinely believe that there are plenty of girls who want to be in a serious relationship and have sex occur naturally, you have no problem. If you genuinely believe that, you have no problem with turning down an offer for something you're not interested in - even if some people think that turning down an offer for casual sex is the stupidest thing in the world. So all I can recommend here is: don't try to adapt to the different options available to you, but allow yourself to be selective based on your inner values. You're free to do so, even if there are other options out there.
  8. You're welcome, and I'm glad to be of actual help. Feel free to drop me a few pm lines whenever!

  9. Thanks a lot for your comment, Samueza! It was really accurate and helpful. I see that you are studying psychology and I feel I could learn a lot from you. Please let me know if you would be available to chat by pms. Best.

  10. You're actually talking yourself out of a relationship here. The thing is: while I understand that you're afraid, if you're saying that you will only engage in a relationship with a woman you can trust with your life, you're essentially increasing the price of a relationship for yourself enormously. Prospects would have to meet a very high standard. It's very well possible not to be a "I just want to have fun!" kind of person (I'm not one either) without slipping to the other extreme and expecting to meet anyone you can trust with your life. Apart from raising the bar enormously I think it's also a catch-22 kind of situation: you're not going to find out if anyone can be trusted to such a degree before you can engage in a relationship with her. All you can do is screen out the ones that obviously can't be trusted. And that's actually what you're doing when you're writing about what you're looking for. You're not listing positive traits you want your future gf to have, you're listing negative ones you don't want her to have. This is so because you're looking at the world through fear and you're more acutely aware of what you don't want to see happening to you. My advice would be, though: focus on the positive. Describe to yourself how you would want a relationship to be, what you want it to look like, what kind of girl you may experience that with. That way you'll get into the habit of not only seeing things that can go wrong, but also seeing perspectives for yourself. I think that this in itself will help you to feel more positively about your dating prospects.
  11. I can definitely see the merit in that explanation. Toffler suggested in 1970 that even the notion of career path is very new. The idea is that in a more traditional society people would generally keep a job for the rest of their lives, while transition between jobs rarely occurred. The development of career paths to him was in itself symptomatic for increasing rates of change in society. He believed that rate of change was a key factor in inducing feelings of anxiety. It's possible to see how adapting to more rapidly changing circumstances and confidence level would be related, although direction of causality is an issue here. I think a common denominator here is differentiation. If there are more organizations competing, then the niche each of those will try to obtain will be smaller, which results in increased specialization. This also means that fewer people are similar to you in the sense that they understand your specialization. If knowledge increases in this sense, then the gap between blanket statements in your field and discussions on your level of knowledge increases. An ironic corollary is that it's easier to talk about things you don't know much about because you'll have more people to talk to. So yes, finding people similar to you would under such circumstances also be more difficult. ---------- Post added 04-03-2013 at 03:51 AM ---------- I don't believe ignorance is bliss. If it were up to me it would be replaced by "innocence is bliss", but that's an aside. However, I strongly doubt that even if people seem ignorant in public and appear to go through life without worrying too much, this is actually the person they are in the privacy of their own homes. I don't think self-awareness is only for the elite. We tend to live without some of the things that would make us happy. That's simply how motivation works. If those things become more difficult to attain, anxiety may rear its ugly head, and we may doubt if we can meet our needs. We don't face the practical problems that most other civilizations had to contend with, but it's well possible that we have actually made our lives more complex emotionally if we have more complex needs to meet - and possibly have an increased 'low' in confidence when we realize the gap between our abilities and the requirements to meet certain needs. I should add that talking about psychological problems as if in actuality, there is nothing wrong, is both demonstrably false and offensive. Even if their problems can't be traced back to life-threatening conditions, people are psychologically burdened will not only be less happy but also perform poorer on the job. In terms of net results there is definitely something going on here.
  12. To me, the problem seems to be that your personal needs on the one hand, and social standards and judgments on the other hand, have gotten mixed up. You don't seem to care about sleeping around, but then two things happen: 1. you seem to feel this is expected of you, and 2. you are aware of your own physical needs. Somehow 1. and 2. are conjoined, not because this resonates with you, but because you feel you have no other option. Basically, the way I read your post, it seems to you like you want to have sex and you believe that you have to behave the way your friends do in order to get it, even though you detest that behavior. So here is what I would like to propose: the situation you are in presents a genuine moral dilemma. To spell it out extremely bluntly: your options are to either not have sex or to become a disgusting person. It's not at all strange that such a situation would make you feel horrible, both are undesirable options if you want to have sex and feel good about yourself. There's no concrete action that can get you out of such a dilemma, and this would be severely troublesome - if reality would mirror this perception, that is. Now, I can see why someone else would use the term Nice Guy Syndrome and read your behavior as disingenuous. One way you can understand the point here is by considering making sexual moves on a woman. Do you instinctively believe that women have sexual desires as much as we do? I'm not looking for a rationalization, but an instinctive awareness of the fact that women sometimes simply are turned on. The problem with guys with NGS is that they don't have that instinct that tells them women want to enjoy sex as much as men do. This is why they feel guilty over their sexual needs and are hesitant to make moves of a sexual nature - they don't want to 'bother' a woman with it. So ask yourself: provided you can do it in a way that feels natural to you and not like you're following some kind of pick-up artist script, do you feel guilty over making sexual advances on a woman? If you see merit in my suggestion that you're facing a moral dilemma here, I would suggest to do away with society's standards and stop caring about what 'everyone' does. Going against your own ethical sense in order to meet your physical needs would only serve to create a further split in your personality, which in term exacerbates the problem. To find a sense if unity and personal integration, what I think you need to do is to reach some kind of understanding of how *you* want the process leading up to sex to go, and then to look around while you adopt that perspective. When you look at women believing you have to be someone else than who you are, you will be attuned to finding the wrong ones who confirm your belief that you have to act like your friends in order to "get some". On the other hand, if you know who you are and what you're looking for, you may just find those people who are willing to play the same game as you do - and I think the end result will be much more satisfactory to you.
  13. Average life span is not a great measure here. Even when the average life span was thirty years (which, to my best knowledge, is a statistic for life expectancy in prehistoric times), this did not mean that the typical life span was thirty years. The number is skewed by high child mortality rates, and increase in average life span is in part due to decreases in child mortality rates. To bring things closer to our age, the term 'midlife crisis' was used to describe men between the ages of 38 and 45 - people who, in the 1930s, were considered to be in the middle part of their lives. This antedates the notion of QLC by at least thirty years (and probably more because of the issue below). Another thing to keep in mind is that QLC is a difficult term to investigate. Like the midlife crisis, it was originally proposed as a developmental stage, but became widely used in a completely different context. The original QLC, as proposed by Eriksen, was due to a struggle to build intimate bonds with others - something which in a sociological sense was related to the age at which people on average left their parents' homes and started living in their own houses. Today the term is used in a much wider sense (for instance, to describe anxiety over the transition from student life to "the real life", or being employed), but it's hard to pinpoint when this started and what brought it on.
  14. There's one thing about INTJs that might be helpful here: we want our understanding of everything around us to be comprehensive. INTJs are called big picture people, and mostly this is because we want to have a complete mental picture of a situation before we feel we understand it. Usually the completeness is deceiving ourselves, but the need to process everything comprehensively and come up with big pictures is no less real. This means two things. First of all: in general, it's going to require quite a bit of effort to put the pieces together. Since the energy that's being spent to put that picture together has an inward focus (or, in cognitive-psychological terms, it's an introverted function), and since this is the most natural way for INTJs to process everything, all other activity comes on top of building these big pictures. So as a result INTJs would be spending a lot of energy if they'd be talking to someone the whole time. This is especially true if the person says things that are interesting. In that case I can personally get a real kick out of examining their points and seeing its value from several perspectives. So sometimes it's not for bad or even neutral reasons that INTJs want to withdraw, but because they're fascinated and overwhelmed. Of course that doesn't mean that all silences are good, even from the INTJ's point of view, but they can be comfortable and even positive. Another thing is that INTJs apply their comprehensive thinking in all situations, even when they probably shouldn't (read: relationships). Most young INTJs are completely clueless when it comes to reading signals. I find that I naturally don't even believe in signals per se: behavior is understood in the context of other behavior and conclusions are drawn from consistent patterns of behavior. I don't know if other INTJs are as extreme in this as I am, but even if they 'get there' differently, consistency in behavior is pretty huge. That's where we read your intentions from. For at least some INTJs including myself behavioral inconsistency is very scary, and I still have a tendency to tune out emotionally if I read someone as inconsistent. How does all of this relate to your post? When I was reading your post and wondering what 'your' INTJ wanted, I was repeatedly wavering between "he just thinks the silence is comfortable" and "he doesn't know what to make of your behavior and is afraid to get hurt". So I can relate to what both Zibber and Underachiever said.
  15. I think the biggest problem for your hypothesis is trying to explain how the QLC phenomenon has been unfamiliar for so long while the life cycle you describe has been unchanged for quite some time. It's very well possible that the Dunning-Kruger curve maps confidence levels for people who are in their mid- to late twenties now, but the question is if it holds equally for those in different age categories.