Something Odd I've noticed regarding INTJs
SodaPop06
I am normally a lurker because I don't like to post. But there's something
I've noticed, and I was wondering if I could get some answers. INTJs are
supposed to represent 1% of the population, according the descriptions I've
seen. However, of all the communities I've visited that focus on this sort of
thing, there are many INTJs, far more than 1%. Are INTJs not as rare as has
been believed, or is there another reason?
- Also (related): Extroverts supposedly outnumber introverts approximately
2:1. But the majority of people I run into in these communities are
extroverts. Also, my entire immediate family (4 of us total) and most of my
friends (all female) tested as introverts. Are the statistics wrong and
introverts really outnumber extroverts, or is there another possible reason for
this?
Thank you for your time and answers.
-Confused 16 year old female INTJ
Bloodthirsty Ghoul
>From: soda...@aol.com (SodaPop06)
>Date: Mon, Oct 2, 2000 21:14 EDT
>Message-id: <20001002211437...@ng-fg1.aol.com>
>
>Hello.
>I am normally a lurker because I don't like to post. But there's something
>I've noticed, and I was wondering if I could get some answers. INTJs are
>supposed to represent 1% of the population, according the descriptions I've
>seen. However, of all the communities I've visited that focus on this sort
>of
>thing, there are many INTJs, far more than 1%. Are INTJs not as rare as has
>been believed, or is there another reason?
INTJs are one of the two rarest types, according to all the %s I've seen,
indeed @1 or slightly more %. But the people you know are probably not
representative of the general public at large. As, when it comes to friendship,
"birds of a feather often flock together" (or whatever), I would not be
surprised if the friends of an INTJ were overwhelmingly N and T...
>- Also (related): Extroverts supposedly outnumber introverts approximately
>2:1. But the majority of people I run into in these communities are
>extroverts
You mean introverts, right?
. Also, my entire immediate family (4 of us total) and most of my
>friends (all female) tested as introverts. Are the statistics wrong and
>introverts really outnumber extroverts, or is there another possible reason
>for
>this?
>
I personally believe extraverts outnumber introverts 2/1 or thereabouts...but
I've seen studies from 1/2-3/4+....Again, your sample may not be
representative...
>Thank you for your time and answers.
>-Confused 16 year old female INTJ
></PRE></HTML>
___________________________________________________________________
geno*cide (noun)
First appeared 1944
: the deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural
group
Drug Prohibition is Genocide
J and L Miranda
to the other poster's theory. As an INTJ myself, I've found that I can name
a few INTJs and dozens of NTs within my 'circle'. But then again, most of
these friends came about through university or work (I'm in a particularly
NT field) -- at a time when our interests defined our field of study. As to
why there seemingly are more INTJs here than percentages would lead you to
expect, well, perhaps it is because newsgroups and email allow the prep time
to think through a reply before it is posted -- perfect for Introverts I
would think.
Consider that you are probably most likely to be friends with people who
have similar interests and communication styles. It would not be unusual
then for your friends to share your tendency toward introversion -- I know
mine do, although my more E friends are great as well. And families are
started first by choice (a couple who might be attracted to each other
because of like interests -- my husband is an introvert, and I met him in
college in my department) and continued with not a little nurturing
(although I do not debate the role of nature as well). My son, having had
to deal with two introverted parents, can handle 'alone time' with ease --
and his preschool teacher tells me he needs a fifteen-minute 'sit back and
watch' period before he'll participate each morning in class. Another
introvert in the making? Perhaps.
If you're interested in meeting more INTJs, perhaps you'd be interested in
Yahoo's INTJ alternative board (the kinder, gentler INTJ board). I think
this link will work (registration is free):
http://clubs.yahoo.com/clubs/intjalternative
Lori
SodaPop06 <soda...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20001002211437...@ng-fg1.aol.com...
RJ Bull
general are more prone to be on computers and the Internet, and since they
are rare they tend to seek others like themselves, so... the online
personality communities tend to be filled with 'em. "Them." I say it as if
I'm not one myself... strange.
Oh, the percentages are right, too, though it my not seem like it at times.
RJ Bull
"SodaPop06" <soda...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20001002211437...@ng-fg1.aol.com...
Peter Lobley (aka - Tony Soprano)
when writing in ANY walk of life, ANYWHERE if you are going to use an
abreviation tell people what it means (usualy in brackets)
"SodaPop06" <soda...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20001002211437...@ng-fg1.aol.com...
Alain Figer
>
> what the hell is an INTJ??
>
> when writing in ANY walk of life, ANYWHERE if you are going to use an
> abreviation tell people what it means (usualy in brackets)
LOL. :-)
At the same time, you are asking for help ("child" position) AND you are
severely judging ("father" position) calling attention of people to
strictly follow YOUR rule ("tell people what it ..." !!).
Just a suggestion : you may simply type "INTJ" on any motor such as
ALTAVISTA or YAHOO, to learn what you ignore. And please, don't tell us
what to do ! ;-)
Alain Figer
INTJ-INFP
Xenia Lang
rjb...@home.com (RJ Bull) wrote in
<YOYC5.7751$Y6.19...@news1.mntp1.il.home.com>:
>I've read things concerning this, and supposedly INTJs and introverts in
>general are more prone to be on computers and the Internet, and since they
>are rare they tend to seek others like themselves, so... the online
>personality communities tend to be filled with 'em.
True, IMO. I had my boyfriend (who is the absolute "nerd" prototype) take the
Keirsey Test the other day, and he turned out INTJ as I expected. Considering
that, I realised that most of his mates at university (computer science, of
course) would probably fall into that type as well. It seems quite logical if
you think about it - introverted people, who do not feel a huge need to be
around others, may be "naturally" drawn to computers from a young age; and it's
not surprising either that rational types (NT) should be more interested in the
basic side of things (writing code etc.) than, say, NFs. I at least, as an
INFP, am typically (IMO) more on the user side because the whole technical
thing is just tiresome and unfulfilling to me. But I still like to stick around
behind the computer for hours sometimes and not talk to anyone, and I guess it
may be because using computers allows you to take a very quiet, passive
approach that is very relaxing for (some) introverts. So yes, I can imagine
that the internet is full of INTJs - so is my flat, when my boyfriend's mates
hang out ;) I guess the definition of "geek" is somewhat based on that type of
character (shy, quiet, deep rational thinker)?
Just my 0.2cents anyway.
Xenia
Bloodthirsty Ghoul
Keirsey Test the other day, and he turned out INTJ as I expected. Considering
that, I realised that most of his mates at university (computer science, of
course) would probably fall into that type as well. It seems quite logical if
you think about it - introverted people, who do not feel a huge need to be
around others, may be "naturally" drawn to computers from a young age; and it's
not surprising either that rational types (NT) should be more interested in the
basic side of things (writing code etc.) than, say, NFs. I at least, as an
INFP, am typically (IMO) more on the user side because the whole technical
thing is just tiresome and unfulfilling to me. But I still like to stick around
behind the computer for hours sometimes and not talk to anyone, and I guess it
may be because using computers allows you to take a very quiet, passive
approach that is very relaxing for (some) introverts. So yes, I can imagine
that the internet is full of INTJs - so is my flat, when my boyfriend's mates
hang out ;) I guess the definition of "geek" is somewhat based on that type of
character (shy, quiet, deep rational thinker)?
Just my 0.2cents anyway.
Xenia<<
So, how d'you like romancing an INTJ? I think one would have me occassionally
screaming "emote!" "emote!" from the top of my INFP lungs....
Xenia Lang
<20001008003711...@ng-cj1.aol.com>:
>So, how d'you like romancing an INTJ? I think one would have me
>occassionally screaming "emote!" "emote!" from the top of my INFP
>lungs....
*giggle*
You hit the nail squarely on the head there.
In fact, it's not *that* bad - at least no worse than my frequent eruptions of
nagging self-doubt/ melancholy/ crying fits for no particular reason must be
for him :-P Plus, I'm pretty good at interpreting his various degrees of
silence. But yes, it is a problem for me that INTJs don't seem to feel any
great need to talk about how they feel, or how their day was and all that. And
it took me ages and a lot of fights to figure out that when he's doing
something (ie on the computer) and you start talking to him, he's not wilfully
ignoring you but actually *not hearing* you. Amazing.
Xenia
J and L Miranda
Xenia Lang <xl...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:8FC823F7xl...@195.114.228.38...
> But yes, it is a problem for me that INTJs don't seem to feel any
> great need to talk about how they feel, or how their day was and all that.
And
> it took me ages and a lot of fights to figure out that when he's doing
> something (ie on the computer) and you start talking to him, he's not
wilfully
> ignoring you but actually *not hearing* you. Amazing.
From a female INTJ regarding not needing to talk about feelings, and also
'not hearing':
There are some times that I'll share my feelings with my husband
(obviously). I suppose I have it easier than men do since, despite my
INTJ-ness, as a female I have had some conditioning in feelings-sharing.
Even though my husband is more F than I could ever be, I do seem to be in
charge of initiating these types of exchanges. [FYI, I score in the
95-100-percentage range on preferences for I, T and J -- the N is usually
around 75-percent.] I'm not sure I could deal with a full-blown male
INTJ -- I rely on my husband's nature to remind me to focus on him
occasionally.
When I am extremely emotional about something, I'd really rather not
share -- if I came totally unglued, it would take a long time to 'put
everything back together again'. When my mother had cancer, and after she
died, I only spoke about it a few times, and only to very close friends.
You must understand, to me as a person who is essentially a problem solver,
airing feelings merely to air them seems like self-gratification, although I
do not include loving feelings toward a partner in this statement. If I've
said something once, saying it a second or third time is not helpful, just
repetitive. Even in something as difficult as death, I was quite capable of
mulling over my thoughts and feelings within myself. No one could cure the
cancer or, later, bring my mother back from the dead. It must sound dry and
rational -- certainly the situation needed to be dealt with, but no amount
of problem-solving would change the facts. Better to move on. I had a
small but smart support group of friends and family that have a long history
of understanding me, and that helped. What didn't help were a few 'extreme
emoters' as I'll call them who would constantly air their own sad feelings
of loss (sort of in invitation for me to air my own). Unfortunately, it
started to feel like I was not only supposed to work through my own grief
(which was happening, just not in public -- for some reason, if they
couldn't SEE it, it wasn't happening), AND help them through theirs -- very
heavy work. Either that, or I wasn't grieving in the socially acceptable
way and needed to be reminded of this. I realize that you are talking about
basic conversational exchanges, and not necessarily such serious topics, so
this is an extreme example.
Since my husband seems to have that male preference to solve problems as
well, I try to preface my remarks when appropriate and let him know that I'm
not looking for advice, just a listening ear in those rare cases when I
really must talk things out. He listens differently then, and I can just
air my grievances looking for a little 'tea and sympathy' without him
feeling like he has to take up whatever cause I'm going on about.
Regarding the selective hearing, well, I have to laugh. I got the message
big time when my 2 year old son pointed to a coloring book page with a woman
curled up in a chair, nose stuck in a book and her head barely visible over
the top and said MOMMY! Actually all three of us in this family are like
this. With me, it's reading or Internet -- for my husband, it's football or
a computer game, and for my son, it's Legos or whatever he's absorbed in at
the moment. You're right -- if anyone would talk to any of us in the midst
of this concentration, the sound would just not register.
L
Bloodthirsty Ghoul
>From: xl...@yahoo.com (Xenia Lang)
>Date: Sun, Oct 8, 2000 19:16 EDT
>Message-id: <8FC823F7xl...@195.114.228.38>
>
>pisc...@aol.commiessuck (Bloodthirsty Ghoul) wrote in
><20001008003711...@ng-cj1.aol.com>:
>>
>>So, how d'you like romancing an INTJ? I think one would have me
>>occassionally screaming "emote!" "emote!" from the top of my INFP
>>lungs....
>
>*giggle*
>
>You hit the nail squarely on the head there.
>
>In fact, it's not *that* bad - at least no worse than my frequent eruptions
>of
>nagging self-doubt/ melancholy/ crying fits for no particular reason must be
>for him :-P Plus, I'm pretty good at interpreting his various degrees of
>And
>it took me ages and a lot of fights to figure out that when he's doing
>something (ie on the computer) and you start talking to him, he's not
>wilfully
>ignoring you but actually *not hearing* you. Amazing.
>
I know what you mean about the latter----as introverted Ns, INJs have a very
low tolerance for external data entering their field of focus and perhaps
"distracting" them from whatever was percolating in their heads---which makes
them completely unlike we INPs who enjoy all sorts of new and odd ideas
barraging us...
Right now I'm involved with a fellow INFP (or semi-involved, she lives in
another state)...On the very big plus side, we understand each other perfectly,
seem to have a virtually psychic connection (I'll have a dream she's been in a
car accident, the next day she gets plowed into while driving and barely
escapes serious injury, etc), get each other's warped humor, and get off on
lots of gooey emotionally luvey-dovey stuff...On the down side, we're both
disorganized, neurotic, moody, yada yada yada, though (fortunately) I'm usually
up when she's down and vice versa...
Bloodthirsty Ghoul
>Date: Sun, Oct 8, 2000 21:58 EDT
>Message-id: <39e12...@206.30.194.5>
>> great need to talk about how they feel, or how their day was and all that.
>And
>> it took me ages and a lot of fights to figure out that when he's doing
>> something (ie on the computer) and you start talking to him, he's not
>wilfully
>> ignoring you but actually *not hearing* you. Amazing.
>
>'not hearing':
>
>There are some times that I'll share my feelings with my husband
>(obviously). I suppose I have it easier than men do since, despite my
>INTJ-ness, as a female I have had some conditioning in feelings-sharing.
>Even though my husband is more F than I could ever be, I do seem to be in
>charge of initiating these types of exchanges. [FYI, I score in the
>95-100-percentage range on preferences for I, T and J -- the N is usually
>around 75-percent.] I'm not sure I could deal with a full-blown male
>INTJ -- I rely on my husband's nature to remind me to focus on him
>occasionally.
>
>When I am extremely emotional about something, I'd really rather not
>share -- if I came totally unglued, it would take a long time to 'put
>everything back together again'. When my mother had cancer, and after she
>died, I only spoke about it a few times, and only to very close friends.
>You must understand, to me as a person who is essentially a problem solver,
>airing feelings merely to air them seems like self-gratification,
I think this is a huge area of possible miscommunication between INTJs and
INFPs (I have no idea what your husband's type is, aside from the F)...For many
INFPs (and related types) airing feelings is *not* designed to elicit practical
problem solving behavior but reassuring/soothing behavior which in turn helps
restore the INFPs self-image to a positive state...If one INFP tells another
her ex-boyfriend has been an asshole to her in some small way, the most
"constructive" approach might be for the listener to agree, that yes, he *is*
an asshole, and yeah, his poetry is shit, he's ugly, sucked in bed, I don't
know *what* you were thinking when you dated that troll, and maybe we can use
my scanner to post those embarassing pix of him (with name and phone number
included) on alt.sex.farm-animals....
Does that "solve a problem?" No, but we'll both be laughing our asses off and
she'll feel better...
although I
>do not include loving feelings toward a partner in this statement. If I've
>said something once, saying it a second or third time is not helpful, just
>repetitive.
But some people cannot get enough "I love you(s)" or "Damn, yer good(s)"
Even in something as difficult as death, I was quite capable of
>mulling over my thoughts and feelings within myself. No one could cure the
>cancer or, later, bring my mother back from the dead. It must sound dry and
>rational -- certainly the situation needed to be dealt with, but no amount
>of problem-solving would change the facts. Better to move on.
For you, sure. But often others find that while the death itself may not
change, the perspective on the death or life of the person may constantly be
changing and evolving...
New book on Shakespeare & The Beatles come out every year...
I had a
>small but smart support group of friends and family that have a long history
>of understanding me, and that helped. What didn't help were a few 'extreme
>emoters' as I'll call them who would constantly air their own sad feelings
>of loss (sort of in invitation for me to air my own). Unfortunately, it
>started to feel like I was not only supposed to work through my own grief
>(which was happening, just not in public -- for some reason, if they
>couldn't SEE it, it wasn't happening), AND help them through theirs -- very
>heavy work. Either that, or I wasn't grieving in the socially acceptable
>way and needed to be reminded of this. I realize that you are talking about
>basic conversational exchanges, and not necessarily such serious topics, so
>this is an extreme example.
FWIW, there is a very good book on how the 16 types grieve...If anyone out
there remembers the name, please post...I first became aware of this subject in
particular in observing and empathizing with the very public and
self-destructive way ESTJ Courtney Love grieved following the deaths of her
(INFP) husband and earlier that year her bassist...Not surprisingly, it
differed much from the traditional reclusive feminine grieving of, say, Jackie
O (INFJ)...
>
>Since my husband seems to have that male preference to solve problems as
>well, I try to preface my remarks when appropriate and let him know that I'm
>not looking for advice, just a listening ear in those rare cases when I
>really must talk things out. He listens differently then, and I can just
>air my grievances looking for a little 'tea and sympathy' without him
>feeling like he has to take up whatever cause I'm going on about.
>
>Regarding the selective hearing, well, I have to laugh. I got the message
>big time when my 2 year old son pointed to a coloring book page with a woman
>curled up in a chair, nose stuck in a book and her head barely visible over
>the top and said MOMMY! Actually all three of us in this family are like
>this. With me, it's reading or Internet -- for my husband, it's football or
>a computer game, and for my son, it's Legos or whatever he's absorbed in at
>the moment. You're right -- if anyone would talk to any of us in the midst
>of this concentration, the sound would just not register.
>
>L
>
To some extent that's typical of Introverts, to some extent of Judgers, but esp
of IJs, who have the most "introverted" (in the sense of being selective in
terms of what data they regard as relevant to focus on) info-processing systems
and regard much of what goes on around them as noise/static...
J and L Miranda
help but think that you did not understand why I posted them. I had no
intention of arguing with the original poster's feelings, changing her style
of communication or telling her that she was 'doing it wrong', just giving
her an opportunity to have one INTJ's view of what being INTJ feels like --
for better or worse (since she gives the impression that getting a similar
voluntary response from her own would be unexpected). If you will read back
through my reply, you should see that I very deliberately made a distinction
between problem-solving conversation and companionable reassurance (or just
plain old information exchange), and that there are situations where I'd had
a preference for one or another. After 12 years of marriage, my husband and
are are pretty good at reading what the other is looking for and listening
to that end. If the need for one or the other were crystal clear between
everyone I've come in contact with, there would have been no reason for me
to post *this* message, would there. ;-)
In addition, I am well aware that there are many approaches to the grieving
process. Mine, being distinctively INTJ or not I couldn't say, works
within. I found it particularly difficult to get from the actively
grieving/depressed part to a more reflective, long-term position (when, as
you say, we understand that the perspective may be constantly changing) when
others would attempt me to divert me to their own 'style' of grief. From my
point of view, the person actively involved in grief should be able to
choose their own route and timing through the process and have it respected.
If the other person were the bereaved, I'd have certainly granted them the
same. However, I don't think that, being in the midst of my own grief, I
should have to stop and put on a teary show for a nosy acquaintance to prove
that I'm within their bounds for 'acceptable grieving standards'.
I suppose this is why I find the MB typing to be so interesting. When I
come across a person with a different type (a common experience for an
INTJ), I do not expect them to communicate in the same style that is natural
for me, and I'm be more attuned to adapting my own style to theirs to
improve the conversation.
L
Bloodthirsty Ghoul <pisc...@aol.commiessuck> wrote in message
news:20001008231859...@ng-cj1.aol.com...
> I think this is a huge area of possible miscommunication between INTJs and
> INFPs (I have no idea what your husband's type is, aside from the F)...For
many
> INFPs (and related types) airing feelings is *not* designed to elicit
practical
> problem solving behavior but reassuring/soothing behavior which in turn
helps
> restore the INFPs self-image to a positive state...If one INFP tells
another
> her ex-boyfriend has been an asshole to her in some small way, the most
> "constructive" approach might be for the listener to agree, that yes, he
*is*
> an asshole, and yeah, his poetry is shit, he's ugly, sucked in bed, I
don't
> know *what* you were thinking when you dated that troll, and maybe we can
use
> my scanner to post those embarassing pix of him (with name and phone
number
> included) on alt.sex.farm-animals....
> Does that "solve a problem?" No, but we'll both be laughing our asses off
and
> she'll feel better...
> But some people cannot get enough "I love you(s)" or "Damn, yer good(s)"
> But often others find that while the death itself may not
RJ Bull
as I am exactly 50-50 on both T/F and J/P. It's nice to see both sides of
myself talked about here, the mix of emoter and thinker. They conflict a
lot, but seem to compliment each other often as well. At least I've overcome
the thinker "tuning out" aspect... even when I'm totally absorbed, I'm not,
because I can still carry on a conversation, do what I'm doing, and be
thinking about my own emotional paranoia. I think I've determined that I may
be ever-so-slightly prefering the emotional side, lately anyway... it's a
switch, because just two years ago I was totally INTJ.
But anyway, descriptions of both ring true to myself.
Why am I even posting this? Jeez...
RJ Bull
"Xenia Lang" <xl...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:8FC823F7xl...@195.114.228.38...
> pisc...@aol.commiessuck (Bloodthirsty Ghoul) wrote in
> <20001008003711...@ng-cj1.aol.com>:
> >
> >So, how d'you like romancing an INTJ? I think one would have me
> >occassionally screaming "emote!" "emote!" from the top of my INFP
> >lungs....
>
> *giggle*
>
> You hit the nail squarely on the head there.
>
> In fact, it's not *that* bad - at least no worse than my frequent
eruptions of
> nagging self-doubt/ melancholy/ crying fits for no particular reason must
be
> for him :-P Plus, I'm pretty good at interpreting his various degrees of
> silence. But yes, it is a problem for me that INTJs don't seem to feel any
> great need to talk about how they feel, or how their day was and all that.
And
> it took me ages and a lot of fights to figure out that when he's doing
> something (ie on the computer) and you start talking to him, he's not
wilfully
> ignoring you but actually *not hearing* you. Amazing.
>
> Xenia
J and L Miranda
is getting more and more of a workout these days. What might seem very
strange to others expecting the textbook INTJ is that three years ago I
joined a one-on-one ecumenical ministry that places care-givers (50 hours of
training, bi-weekly meetings and a two-year commitment) with care-receivers
in crisis or transition (divorce, death, new parents, job loss, etc.). I've
learned a lot about myself, but also that the skills for listening involve
more than just my F function -- I and N are very involved as well. For some
reason, I've always been the person my friends would call if they wanted a
listening ear, and now I can put that to a broader use.
L
RJ Bull <rjb...@home.com> wrote in message
news:yZiE5.8674$Y6.23...@news1.mntp1.il.home.com...
Bloodthirsty Ghoul
>From: "J and L Miranda" <stud...@net-magic.net>
>Message-id: <39e1b...@206.30.194.5>
>
>While I appreciated reading your comments, and I agree with most, I cannot
>help but think that you did not understand why I posted them. I had no
>intention of arguing with the original poster's feelings, changing her style
>of communication or telling her that she was 'doing it wrong', just giving
>her an opportunity to have one INTJ's view of what being INTJ feels like --
>for better or worse (since she gives the impression that getting a similar
>voluntary response from her own would be unexpected).
(Bewildered)...Uh, yes, I agree with the second part of your statement---I
never thought you *were* disagreeing with the previous poster, nor did I intend
to imply that I disagreed with anything you were saying about yerself...
If you will read back
>through my reply, you should see that I very deliberately made a distinction
>between problem-solving conversation and companionable reassurance (or just
>plain old information exchange), and that there are situations where I'd had
>a preference for one or another. After 12 years of marriage, my husband and
>are are pretty good at reading what the other is looking for and listening
>to that end. If the need for one or the other were crystal clear between
>everyone I've come in contact with, there would have been no reason for me
>to post *this* message, would there. ;-)
Okay, here, I *do* modestly disagree with you. While I can understand that it
could be nice for an INTJ to hear 2-3 "I love yous" per day, and it could
easily be learned social behavior to "administer" 100 such "I love yous" per
day, I don't think I've ever encountered an INTJ who has a need, from the
bottom of their soul, to give and recieve such a volume of vocal (or other)
affirmation. Ditto ISTJs and certain other Ts, to varying extents. (ENTPs in
love can be surprisingly emotive). The INTJ avoidance of redundancy seems to
apply here, too, as well as their desire for economy, even *if* they feel great
depth of feeling...
One thing I've learned from having an INTJ father---and INTJ friends--- (who I
saw grieve, btw, in his own way a few years back when his mother died) is that
the depth of love/appreciation is far more easilly gauged by actions than by
direct "verbal expressions," FWIW...
>
>In addition, I am well aware that there are many approaches to the grieving
>process. Mine, being distinctively INTJ or not I couldn't say, works
>within. I found it particularly difficult to get from the actively
>grieving/depressed part to a more reflective, long-term position (when, as
>you say, we understand that the perspective may be constantly changing) when
>others would attempt me to divert me to their own 'style' of grief. From my
>point of view, the person actively involved in grief should be able to
>choose their own route and timing through the process and have it respected.
I agree entirely.
>If the other person were the bereaved, I'd have certainly granted them the
>same.
Which may or may not be the best approach, IMHO----some types would *not*
respond best to the kind of independence an INTJ would grant to their grieving
processs, others would....
However, I don't think that, being in the midst of my own grief, I
>should have to stop and put on a teary show for a nosy acquaintance to prove
>that I'm within their bounds for 'acceptable grieving standards'.
Of course not...
>
>I suppose this is why I find the MB typing to be so interesting. When I
>come across a person with a different type (a common experience for an
>INTJ), I do not expect them to communicate in the same style that is natural
>for me, and I'm be more attuned to adapting my own style to theirs to
>improve the conversation.
"The Art of Speedreading People" is prolly the best book on that subject...
Peace...
></PRE></HTML>
Xenia Lang
>
>When I am extremely emotional about something, I'd really rather not
>share -- if I came totally unglued, it would take a long time to 'put
>everything back together again'.
That's another thing I couldn't manage - when I feel intensely about something
(be it in a positive or negative way) I _need_ to talk about it, to tell
someone, otherwise it takes up my entire concentration and drives me totally
mad (I wonder if this is a more E-specific trait - my I score is usually only
around 56%)
>When my mother had cancer, and after she
>died, I only spoke about it a few times, and only to very close friends.
Which is the exact thing that happened to me, at age 12... And for a few years
I hardly spoke about it (mostly because noone else in my family really did),
but these days, 9 years later, I still need to talk about it sometimes (though
only with _very_ close friends - I wouldn't dream of mentioning it to somebody
outside my closest circle either) and think about it a lot, and still grieve
for her, even though it's getting hard to really remember her now. If you
really did deal with this grief the way you say (ie if there isn't a major
amount of rationalisation and denial in it - I'm by no means trying to imply
that you're trying to ignore the pain, merely that it may be too hard to deal
with - and in fact that I can't imagine it, because I'm totally different
there), that's an approach I would love to be able to have (and know that I
can't, because I've tried really hard :( Not that I think it actually makes
anything any easier - I guess it hurts just as much either way.
Xenia
J and L Miranda
a great deal when she was still living -- afterwards I was mainly just
exhausted (and that from the stress of focusing so completely on others and
none at all on myself). After a certain point, it was clear that there
would be no miraculous cure for the cancer, and that we would just have to
face the inevitable end. After caring for someone for so long, it was hard
not to feel a great deal of relief that the long struggle was over for her,
especially after knowing how independent she preferred to be. I know that
my mother had 'concluded' her life pretty much on her own terms, and that
she was mentally prepared to move on as much as any person can be. We
talked about it. Because we had such a long time to prepare, there really
weren't any loose ends or regrets, at least regarding what we did or didn't
say to each other.
I still feel sadness because I know that my son will not know his
grandmother, but there are ways of honoring her memory such as teaching him
about nature and other things that she enjoyed which allow me to think of
her without always feeling that sadness. It has allowed me to understand
that life really is for the living -- meaning that I need to attempt to live
in the present (tough for an N!) and enjoy family and friends as they exist
now, since circumstances may change without notice.
I contrast this death with that of my father. He died unexpectedly when I
was out of the country (just three days from my return). I was not called
when it happened, my mother preferring to inform me when I got off the plane
instead (I know she was hit hard as well, so although that wouldn't have
been my first choice, I have certainly forgiven her for it). Within the
span of two days of my return, we had a house full of guests, attended a
wake and attended the funeral (all experienced in parallel with jet lag).
Then everyone was gone again, and I was shipped back to college for my
senior year. It was like having someone rip off a band-aid (a really,
really BIG band-aid) and being so stunned that I couldn't even catch my
breath to express anything at all. Because of the culture that I grew up
in, the wake and so forth was helpful (more like a big party -- my dad
always loved a party), but because my friends were all my age, they didn't
have much experience with death. It was their innate intuitiveness that
just kept them 'around', but not 'prying'. I appreciated that they gave me
the privacy I needed for me to sort things out.
I may be unusual, but because both of my parents had some background in the
medical field, illness and death were discussed with total frankness in our
house (my father at one time took classes to become a mortician even). This
did allow me, even as a child, to separate the idea of the physical body
from the spiritual, I suppose. And the memories and experiences that I
carry with me of my parents are still comforting. I still hear those inner
'parental' voices, and I still dream about them. So although they are not
here in body, they're really still with me in spirit -- and how can I
continue to mourn someone who STILL reminds me to pick up my socks. ;-)
L
Xenia Lang <xl...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:8FC8C0F0Axl...@195.114.228.38...
LucidWaking
>From: pisc...@aol.commiessuck
>Date: 10/8/00 10:51 PM Eastern Daylight Time
>>From: xl...@yahoo.com (Xenia Lang)
>>Date: Sun, Oct 8, 2000 19:16 EDT
>>it took me ages and a lot of fights to figure out that when he's doing
>>something (ie on the computer) and you start talking to him, he's not
>>wilfully
>>ignoring you but actually *not hearing* you. Amazing.
>>
>>Xenia
>
>I know what you mean about the latter----as introverted Ns, INJs have a very
>low tolerance for external data entering their field of focus and perhaps
>"distracting" them from whatever was percolating in their heads---which makes
>them completely unlike we INPs who enjoy all sorts of new and odd ideas
>barraging us...
Actually, the total absorption to the point of not hearing externals is true of
both my INTJ SO and myself (INTP). The difference between us is that he gets
into "hyperfocus" on just the one thing and doesn't want to be distracted by
anything else, while I'm not satisfied by only one thing...
He gets into writing some code and nothing but the computer screen exists for
him until he's finished - if another idea comes up he mentally files it away to
tackle after he's finished, and nothing external has a chance of disturbing
him, which he likes. I want to be totally absorbed in the 5 different things
that I'm doing at once, picking up and putting down in various combinations,
but still completely oblivious to the phone, the door, the fire alarm... I
wouldn't mind if something else got my attention, but nothing usually can.
-Kat
http://www.geocities.com/catha-edulis
"They called me mad, and I called them mad, and damn them, they outvoted me."
- Nathaniel Lee, on being committed to a mental institution
LucidWaking
>Date: 10/9/00 11:18 AM Eastern Daylight Time
>>From: "J and L Miranda" <stud...@net-magic.net>
>>Date: Mon, Oct 9, 2000 08:15 EDT
> While I can understand that it
>could be nice for an INTJ to hear 2-3 "I love yous" per day, and it could
>easily be learned social behavior to "administer" 100 such "I love yous" per
>day, I don't think I've ever encountered an INTJ who has a need, from the
>bottom of their soul, to give and recieve such a volume of vocal (or other)
>affirmation. Ditto ISTJs and certain other Ts, to varying extents. (ENTPs in
>love can be surprisingly emotive). The INTJ avoidance of redundancy seems to
>apply here, too, as well as their desire for economy, even *if* they feel
>great
>depth of feeling...
>
>One thing I've learned from having an INTJ father---and INTJ friends--- (who
>I
>saw grieve, btw, in his own way a few years back when his mother died) is
>that
>the depth of love/appreciation is far more easilly gauged by actions than by
>direct "verbal expressions," FWIW...
Strangely, my SO (INTJ) usually says "I love you" all the time ("all the time":
probably about 50 times per day), which throws me off, actually. I know he does
indeed place more stock in actions than verbalizations... seems almost
out-of-place (probably picked up the habit from his last girlfriend, who was
much more verbal). Eh, not that I mind his wanting to make sure I know, of
course...
Both of us, however, as well as most of the other INT*s I know, grieve
similarly - for my own part, I don't want any human contact whatsoever until
I've gotten to a point where the pain isn't at the front of my consciousness
anymore. I don't want to talk about it, I don't want to seek anyone's help, and
I don't want to burden anyone else with my problems (barring a very few people
who know me well) by going to see them in a state where it's obvious I'm not
going to be able to control it. I don't know anyone who can see a friend in
pain without feeling the desire to do *something* about it (nor do I want to,
really); I hate to put anyone in the position of wanting to do something but
being unable to because of the nature of the problem and my own reluctance.
After the grieving is no longer the focus of my life, but is manageable, in the
background, I won't bring it up at all... the effect being that no one has seen
me show any feeling whatsoever. It's there (and I probably have reams of
writing and bleeding fingers from playing cathartic music to show for it), but
I'm unwilling to make it public.
>>In addition, I am well aware that there are many approaches to the grieving
>>process. Mine, being distinctively INTJ or not I couldn't say, works
>>within. I found it particularly difficult to get from the actively
>>grieving/depressed part to a more reflective, long-term position (when, as
>>you say, we understand that the perspective may be constantly changing) when
>>others would attempt me to divert me to their own 'style' of grief. From my
>>point of view, the person actively involved in grief should be able to
>>choose their own route and timing through the process and have it respected.
>
>I agree entirely.
As do I.
>>If the other person were the bereaved, I'd have certainly granted them the
>>same.
>
>Which may or may not be the best approach, IMHO----some types would *not*
>respond best to the kind of independence an INTJ would grant to their
>grieving
>processs, others would....
A good deal of my friends (alright, most of them) are much more expressive than
I am... one or two in particular tend to come to me when they need a shoulder
to cry on. I want to be able to give the kind of support they need, but it's
very difficult to give them that when their grief process is so foreign to my
own... I'm never sure I'm as helpful as I'd wish to be. Usually I will give
people space when they're upset unless they come to me, and hope they interpret
it as consideration rather than disinterest...
> However, I don't think that, being in the midst of my own grief, I
>>should have to stop and put on a teary show for a nosy acquaintance to prove
>>that I'm within their bounds for 'acceptable grieving standards'.
>
>Of course not...
::nods in agreement::
>>I suppose this is why I find the MB typing to be so interesting. When I
>>come across a person with a different type (a common experience for an
>>INTJ), I do not expect them to communicate in the same style that is natural
>>for me, and I'm be more attuned to adapting my own style to theirs to
>>improve the conversation.
Incidentally - you are usually the one who adapts? I notice that about myself,
too; very rarely have I noticed anyone adapting to mine. (Perhaps when others
adapt, it's hard to tell that wasn't their style to begin with.)
Argh, verbosity attacks again. Oh, well. ::posts::
Kat, INTP
http://www.geocities.com/catha-edulis
"I cannot articulate enough to express my dislike to people who think that
understanding spoils your experience... How would they know?" -Marvin Minsky
J and L Miranda
LucidWaking <lucid...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20001010150214...@ng-fl1.aol.com...
> Incidentally - you are usually the one who adapts? I notice that about
myself,
> too; very rarely have I noticed anyone adapting to mine. (Perhaps when
others
> adapt, it's hard to tell that wasn't their style to begin with.)
I enjoyed reading your post -- so many things in common, especially
regarding not burdening others with your problems. For some reason I feel
that others, as you say, should not have to be put in the uncomfortable
position of dealing with someone else's pain (which very little could help
anyway).
As far as adaptation, yes, I'd say I am the person who usually adapts. I
think it is probably because the whole MB thing is at the forefront just now
that I'm hyper-tuned to it. Not all the adaptation is mirroring, however.
I'd say quite a bit of the time it is complementary -- being the ying to
their yang, so to say. If I were with a very loquacious, extraverted
friend, I'm more likely to be more responsive and may even interrupt, but if
I were with someone who I know to be on the introverted side and they were
all of a sudden talking non-stop, I'd be more likely to wait them out and
consider any reply (if one was necessary) very carefully. It's not
necessarily conscious on my part, rather, it's a switch that is flipped by
the traits of the person that I'm with -- the way an actor might play a
scene differently depending on the person they're doing lines with (except,
of course, it's not acting). Reflective listening, maybe?
Also, if I know, for example, that one friend is an NF (to my NT), and that
she has expressed her negative experiences with others over their
forgetfulness or rudeness, I make an extra effort to clear up anything that
might be considered a mis-understanding in our communication style. On the
other hand, I've had a very NTJ friend walk up to me and tell me right off,
"Black is not your color," and I really just had to laugh. Sure I was a
little hurt (considering I was wearing black at the time), but that was
about 5-percent. Annoyance was another 5-percent (since I couldn't change
into anything else), but the other 90-percent was gratefulness that she
would tell me something that was useful (she has a great design sense, and I
trust her judgment). I would never say something like that to an NF friend.
L
Edward Gordon at XYSTUM
Ed
Xenia Lang <xl...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:8FC714A47xl...@195.114.228.38...
Bloodthirsty Ghoul
>Date: Wed, Oct 11, 2000 15:26 EDT
>Message-id: <ud$P6i7MAHA.357@cpmsnbbsa07>
>
>What's the Keirsey Test?
>
>Ed
It's essentially David Keirsey's abridged version of the MBTI, which, unlike
the MBTI---which is "officially" only available to credentialed psychologists &
the like----is in the public domain.
Frankly, I don't like the Keirsey very much. David Keirsey is an INTP, and
while he is brilliant in a distinctly Introverted Thinking way, he has two
*huge* shortcommings from my perspective in his MBTI stuff, 1) He is awful at
"reading" and hence "typing" people---if you read his books, at least half,
IMHO (and I'm saying this as someone who is, frankly, damn good at typing
people) of the examples of given types are dead wrong, and 2) For much the same
reason and same typological blind spots, he is a rather bad communicator with
the average person...As a result, I find his use of language in the Keirsey
test itself rather befuddling (read Please Understand Me II to get a great
example of how hard Keirsey can be to understand)...Obviously, if you can't
understand a question on a test, answering it accurately becomes something of a
challenge...
Even when I understand his questions, however, I don't find some of them all
that *discerning.* An MBTI-like test should ask questions (obviously) which do
a very good job of distinguishing between, say ALL Ns and ALL Ss. Many of
Keirsey's questions (I wish I had one of his books in front of me so I could
give examples) seem to me questions---designed to differentiate between Ns and
Ss---with which INFJs could very easily mark "A" and ENTPs could very easily
mark "B."
:>