INTP vs INTJ(Yes, Again)

[spongetatle]

I have recently moved to a bigger city to move in with a roommate I met on CraigsList(don't worry, he wasn't some wacko). Anyways, I have been intrigued by the Myers Brigg personality test since I took it about 3 years ago(now 18). I ended up talking my roommate into taking the test as well and we can get into some really good conversations that keep me interested unlike the average conversations people have. We bounce ideas back and forth and end up with some really good end products. However, there are just some things that just utterly annoy the piss out of me. He categorizes everything, often based on stereotypes or his own experiences he has had and refuses modify his judgements. We do get along for the most part but I've already got the memo of what he thinks about me. So his classifications of me are that I'm a druggie and a loser. He literally called me a druggie today because I smoke pot(not even excessively whatsoever). And when I called him out and started making valid points to him he got so hostile and tried to withdraw from the argument. Even threatened to punch me because I took a stand for once and didn't blow off his insult. I asked him his definition which was, "A druggie is anyone who uses drugs." So I told him he was a druggie because he took Ritalin according to his logic. Oh, of course not, he is prescribed. I told him anyone could get their hands on it if they wanted a prescription, and I also educated him on how addictive Ritalin could be compared to weed and the other points. So then his new definition was, "Anybody who uses illegal drugs." So then I stated to him that when weed becomes legal that all of the sudden my druggieness evaporates into thin air? That was when he got super pissed off at me and said he didn't want to talk about it. So I asked his girlfriend and she agreed with him(I assumed she didn't hear the argument, but I think she was listening because she took his side, unless she really thought that way.) Then he was happy to join back in the argument because he felt he had leverage now. Then the argument continued until he got pissed again and threatened to punch me(probably trying to pull some alpha male bull shit to impress his girlfriend, this is one of my BIGGEST pet peeves, people who put on a show to try to impress other people, I know I could take him anyways because his ground game is absolute crap) That's when I explained to him that he had insulted me,(keep in mind I have been completely chill and civil this whole time) and calling me a druggie when I have my life in order is utter crap. That's when he finally gave up and walked away without saying anything. I know this turned more into a rant but I was contemplating if this was just a typical argument or a true MBPT butting-of-the-heads. I can post other examples of what he does that gets me irritated later on,(I have my quirks that irritate him as well) but as of right now I have to go to bed.

 

[Cherry Cola]

How do you know this douche is an INTJ?

 

[spongetatle]

I made him take the test, don't get me wrong, we do occasionally butt heads and this topic particularly focused the problems. I get along with him way more than my other roommate. But yea, I had him take the test with my other roommate in the room and me and him talked for about 2 hours after reading many resources while the other roommate was bored out of his mind in the corner(ESFJ).

 

[Ex-User (5841)]

So you're telling me you're an INTJ? j/k

I think your arguments are valid, and I think he's rational enough to understand them. But I also think that what's setting him off to the point of physically threatening you is probably something you're not even aware of. Quite often it's not what we say, but how we say it and how we structure our arguments.

You're observing the three stages of truth: "All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident."

(Personally, I'd work to incorporate a definition of what a drug actually is by looking strictly at the effects produced. Ask "Why? What does a drug do that leads to one being a useless waste of life?" and this is where you can capitalize.

Weed acts on cannabanoid receptors (which for whatever reason exist in the human brain). So do chocolate and mangoes (both actually potentiate the high as well ). Ritalin (methylphenidate) is not very far from cocaine on a physiological level or ethylphenidate (<-more powerful than cocaine and lasts longer) on a molecular level, and all three act on dopamine and norepinepherine receptors, just to different degrees. Most differences in effect are dose-related and/or synergistic. If you drink alcohol while on ritalin, your liver will produce ethylphenidate, for example. The same is true with food...)

Spoiler

Your Brain on Food: How Chemicals Control Your Thoughts and Feelings: Gary Wenk: 9780195388541: Amazon.com: Books@@AMEPARAM@@http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41xbNqliyCL.@@AMEPARAM@@41xbNqliyCL

A druggie to me (and I'm assuming to most people) is someone who has allowed a drug to take over their life. Unless you're selling your body or committing burglary or robbery, or just sitting around all day with no goals in life, you're not a druggie. Drug use can be compatible with success, and has often catalyzed dramatic breakthrough discoveries. Francis Crick first visualized the double helix model of DNA while he was high on LSD ffs...

 

[spongetatle]

Thank you for your comment. I do not think he actually planned on punching me, I believe it was a show he was putting on because he has never threatened me before and I have noticed that he seems to act completely different when he is around certain people. However, if he wasn't putting on a show, he could have become angry because of the way I debate with people, kind of like what you were saying. I was pretty much just slinging facts at him when I do know he has done no research on the particular topic. The only material he had was from what he learned from health class along with basic societal stereotypes. If I would have approached him with the Socratic method like you said, I might have come off a little less strong. But yes, I'm pretty confident I'm an INTP, I've probably taken every test on the first 3 pages of Google, some multiple times. I've also been amazed countless times on how so many of my characteristics I've found associated with INTP. Which is why I'm here today.

 

[Ex-User (5841)]

Thank you for your comment. I do not think he actually planned on punching me, I believe it was a show he was putting on because he has never threatened me before and I have noticed that he seems to act completely different when he is around certain people. However, if he wasn't putting on a show, he could have become angry because of the way I debate with people, kind of like what you were saying. I was pretty much just slinging facts at him when I do know he has done no research on the particular topic. If I would have approached him with the Socratic method like you said, I might have come off a little less strong.

I'd assume that he's acting authentically according to his perspective. The trick, I think, is to get him to ask the questions before you sling facts. "Why do you think that? Ask me anything." The thing is that once you demonstrate one or a few things, a reputation will start to precede you (in his eyes, at least). Make yourself a resource instead of an adversary.

 

[spongetatle]

Good advice, I think I just jumped the gun a little bit which tends to happen. I will definitely try approaching it that way next time. I just do not realize how I'm coming off as a lot of the time.

 

[BigApplePi]

I tried to follow that looong paragraph, but what about this:

He called you a "druggie." Why can't you tell him, "According to your definition I AM a druggie." and leave it at that? Or you could add, "How do you differentiate between my druggieness and that of a heroin addict or a cocaine freak?"

If this guy likes categories, why not dump more categories on him?

 

[Reluctantly]

It sounds just like an argument.

He seemed to be annoyed at your nit-picking of definitions; because if you harp on definitions, you make an argument against all arguments. So in his view, you're probably a dick because you have no stance, yet refute his. I think INTPs have a problem with this though.

You know, Socrates was popular in his time, but was also known to piss a lot of people off. He had a lot of enemies and they eventually condemned him to death.

You got to be careful with stuff like this; it seems most people aren't willing or happy about the idea of relative certainty.

 

[BigApplePi]

It sounds just like an argument.

He seemed to be annoyed at your nit-picking of definitions; because if you harp on definitions, you make an argument against all arguments. So in his view, you're probably a dick because you have no stance, yet refute his. I think INTPs have a problem with this though.

You know, Socrates was popular in his time, but was also known to piss a lot of people off. He had a lot of enemies and they eventually condemned him to death.

You got to be careful with stuff like this; it seems most people aren't willing or happy about the idea of relative certainty.

Who are you talking to here? Can you elaborate? I think you are making a good point.

 

[Reluctantly]

OP. What did you want me to elaborate on?

OP said this

However, there are just some things that just utterly annoy the piss out of me. He categorizes everything, often based on stereotypes or his own experiences he has had and refuses modify his judgements. We do get along for the most part but I've already got the memo of what he thinks about me. So his classifications of me are that I'm a druggie and a loser. He literally called me a druggie today because I smoke pot(not even excessively whatsoever).

And when I called him out and started making valid points to him he got so hostile and tried to withdraw from the argument. Even threatened to punch me because I took a stand for once and didn't blow off his insult.

Seems he explained this below:

I asked him his definition which was, "A druggie is anyone who uses drugs." So I told him he was a druggie because he took Ritalin according to his logic. Oh, of course not, he is prescribed. I told him anyone could get their hands on it if they wanted a prescription, and I also educated him on how addictive Ritalin could be compared to weed and the other points. So then his new definition was, "Anybody who uses illegal drugs." So then I stated to him that when weed becomes legal that all of the sudden my druggieness evaporates into thin air? That was when he got super pissed off at me and said he didn't want to talk about it.

So I got out of it that,
Spongetatle never argued what is or isn't true, rather he argued how his roommate's judgment of him was flawed in many ways. He basically took the Socratic stance of telling someone that their understanding is flawed or limited in some manner - relative certainty, while never taking a stance of their own. Thus implying that his roommate does not know what he says to begin with, which he clearly doesn't. And so there is no winner; and for many people, a tie is considered a loss.

I'd say it's analogous to playing a sport. There are rules to be played by, so that one can judge who "wins". Spongetatle, on the other hand, in Socratic fashion, disseminated and changed the rules, indirectly, making the player, his roommate, frustrated because his roommate is looking for a "win". Without rules, there is no way to judge who "wins". In effect, neither can win, though Spongetatle wasn't interested in winning as much as destroying modifying the game.

Thus it's probably better not to play games with these people to begin with, as they get joy out of winning, rather than playing (as spongetatle seems to get joy out of playing). I think sports tend to call it "poor sportsmanship".

 

[Ex-User (9062)]

I don't think this is really about any argument in particular.
I think it is more about the underlying conflict between him, you and his girlfriend.

 

[spongetatle]

"How do you differentiate between my druggieness and that of a heroin addict or a cocaine freak?"

I actually did make this point, he said there are different levels of druggies and yea I could've broke this into paragraphs haha.

 

[Ninety-Fourth]

Threatening to punch you in order to win an argument is the all-or-nothing show of dominance by inferior Se, so he's probably an INTJ.
Extrapolating from that, I assume that he believes you to have a drug problem that will undoubtedly ruin your life if he doesn't interfere, so it's his civic duty to clean you up by any means necessary. Typical Judging crap.

The next time he tries to threaten you, remind him that violence is the last refuge of the incompetent. That should be enough to keep his righteous anger under control.

 

[Goku]

Feeling insulted is the fault of the perceiver.

 

[spongetatle]

Threatening to punch you in order to win an argument is the all-or-nothing show of dominance by inferior Se, so he's probably an INTJ.
Extrapolating from that, I assume that he believes you to have a drug problem that will undoubtedly ruin your life if he doesn't interfere, so it's his civic duty to clean you up by any means necessary. Typical Judging crap.

This is very true, he tries to run everything in the household as he is very organized. Recently I have discovered that he has a temper so I'm guessing that's what brought him to his rage. I did go through a period where I was drinking a lot and I decided to put a stop to it and not drink for a month and not nearly as often if I did drink. Later that day after I made that decision, he told me I should stop drinking, but he was doing it in a caring way. Recently I have discovered that he has a temper so I'm guessing that's what brought him to his rage.

 

[Base groove]

Just kick his fucking ass and be done with it. INTJs need to get whooped once in a while. Then turn your back on him, go cold. Really cold. He will be emotionally hurt by this. Besides he sounds more like ISTJ by your description.

 

[Grayman]

Just kick his fucking ass and be done with it. INTJs need to get whooped once in a while. Then turn your back on him, go cold. Really cold. He will be emotionally hurt by this. Besides he sounds more like ISTJ by your description.

An emotional response.

 

[BigApplePi]

Both parties are insulted.

 

[Cherry Cola]

Feeling insulted is the fault of the perceiver.

Yeah except people are humans which are social creatures and not some conscious extract of rationality.

This view of yours presupposes that humans are something they are not, it's a "in a perfect world"-kind of argument which has little bearing on reality. It is everyones responsibility to learn some social graces because they are needed. Not doing so just because one thinks it doesn't make sense is not very smart and is mean.

Also I agree with Base Groove, or well maybe the OP shouldn't punch the guy, but the way he was acting was not okay and shouldn't be tolerated. I'd ignore him if possible and elsewise make sure he understands that he needs to work on his issues because the kind of disrespect he demonstrated is despicable.

 

[BigApplePi]

... which can only be resolved by BAP.

What??? I thought you guys are doing a fine job looking at this. Let's go back to the original declaration:

Feeling insulted is the fault of the perceiver.

I would claim insults take two to tango. No different than compliments. The deliverer has to wish; the receiver has to be receptive. Your trusted buddy probably can't insult you but someone you already dislike can. Hitler's attitude probably will insult lots of people, but a known moron probably can't insult you no matter what he says.

More: When Einstein delivers a compliment, it counts. If you feel down and guilty no compliment will be well received.

Maybe you can think of better examples. Anyway IMO insultation doesn't reside totally within either party yet there are extremes where it looks that way. For example the guy with a chip on his shoulder will be insulted by a butterfly.

 

[Goku]

What??? I thought you guys are doing a fine job looking at this. Let's go back to the original declaration:



I would claim insults take two to tango. No different than compliments. The deliverer has to wish; the receiver has to be receptive. Your trusted buddy probably can't insult you but someone you already dislike can. Hitler's attitude probably will insult lots of people, but a known moron probably can't insult you no matter what he says.

More: When Einstein delivers a compliment, it counts. If you feel down and guilty no compliment will be well received.

Maybe you can think of better examples. Anyway IMO insultation doesn't reside totally within either party yet there are extremes where it looks that way. For example the guy with a chip on his shoulder will be insulted by a butterfly.

http://intpforum.com/showthread.php?p=413518#post413518

 

[Polaris]

Fun and interesting derail moved to Goku's thread here.

 

[Goku]

What??? I thought you guys are doing a fine job looking at this. Let's go back to the original declaration:



I would claim insults take two to tango. No different than compliments. The deliverer has to wish; the receiver has to be receptive. Your trusted buddy probably can't insult you but someone you already dislike can. Hitler's attitude probably will insult lots of people, but a known moron probably can't insult you no matter what he says.

More: When Einstein delivers a compliment, it counts. If you feel down and guilty no compliment will be well received.

Maybe you can think of better examples. Anyway IMO insultation doesn't reside totally within either party yet there are extremes where it looks that way. For example the guy with a chip on his shoulder will be insulted by a butterfly.

I just wanted to make sure I highlighted the logical consequence of your statement, that you're suggesting: the higher one's IQ, the more a compliment should count.

(ha ha)

I do know what you're getting at, but I must point out that I think we both probably value genuineness over cleverness. Sure, a person with a high IQ could come up with a more clever compliment, but even a dumb person can say "I love you" and mean it. A clever person is also more likely to be flattering you, manipulating your emotions, making you think that he/she is sincere. And because their IQ is higher, you will never know. Since intent is actually impossible to determine, because you must always factor in the (even slight) probability that the person is pretending, even if it would be illogical for him to be doing so, it is impractical to base both insults and compliments off of intent.

"Intent" might as well be defined as "hurt" in this case, and matters of "hurt" are always subjectively shaped by the victim. If there is no victim, there is no hurt and no crime.

Have you been to a hospital emergency room lately? They have these signs asking you to rate your pain from a scale of 1-to-10, and if you aren't quite sure, they have corresponding pictures relating to how "you" feel.

Hurt/pain/insults/compliments are very much perceiver based.

The interesting effect that you mention actually involves the perceiver of the insult/compliment valuing the perpetrator's intent, and factoring the intent into the strength of either the insult or compliment. This is why Einstein's compliment means "more," because you assume that the genius' words are genuine. Maybe you respect the person more and thus value his judgment more?

Either way, I still see your reply as evidence favoring the perceiver's perspective when shaping an insult (or compliment). In your case(s), it is just a complicated case of resolving 'the perceiver's perception of the perpetrator's intent.' If the perceiver cares about the perpetrator's intent, which in your case you do, then the perception of the perpetrator's intent is what defines the insult/compliment in this scenario, as the actual intent is irrelevant, only the perceived intent, on the part of the perceiver.

Genuineness
The more genuine a compliment, the more it should count. The problem with most people is that they aren't that "perceptive." Most people take things for face value-- meaning that they mistake superficial flattery for compliments at an alarming rate.

 

[Grayman]

Genuineness
The problem with most people is that they aren't that "perceptive." Most people take things for face value-- meaning that they mistake superficial flattery for compliments at an alarming rate.

It doesn't matter if others are that perceptive, only BAP as he is the one who values intent as you say.

 

[Base groove]

I just wanted to make sure I highlighted the logical consequence of your statement, that you're suggesting: the higher one's IQ, the more a compliment should count.

(ha ha)

The only one? Logically? Wow.

If the perceiver cares about the perpetrator's intent, which in your case you do, then the perception of the perpetrator's intent is what defines the insult/compliment in this scenario, as the actual intent is irrelevant, only the perceived intent, on the part of the perceiver.

Narcissistic people receive compliments and insults differently from this, or no?

 

[Cherry Cola]

I just wanted to make sure I highlighted the logical consequence of your statement, that you're suggesting: the higher one's IQ, the more a compliment should count.

(ha ha)

I do know what you're getting at, but I must point out that I think we both probably value genuineness over cleverness. Sure, a person with a high IQ could come up with a more clever compliment, but even a dumb person can say "I love you" and mean it. A clever person is also more likely to be flattering you, manipulating your emotions, making you think that he/she is sincere. And because their IQ is higher, you will never know. Since intent is actually impossible to determine, because you must always factor in the (even slight) probability that the person is pretending, even if it would be illogical for him to be doing so, it is impractical to base both insults and compliments off of intent.

"Intent" might as well be defined as "hurt" in this case, and matters of "hurt" are always subjectively shaped by the victim. If there is no victim, there is no hurt and no crime.

Have you been to a hospital emergency room lately? They have these signs asking you to rate your pain from a scale of 1-to-10, and if you aren't quite sure, they have corresponding pictures relating to how "you" feel.

Hurt/pain/insults/compliments are very much perceiver based.

The interesting effect that you mention actually involves the perceiver of the insult/compliment valuing the perpetrator's intent, and factoring the intent into the strength of either the insult or compliment. This is why Einstein's compliment means "more," because you assume that the genius' words are genuine. Maybe you respect the person more and thus value his judgment more?

Either way, I still see your reply as evidence favoring the perceiver's perspective when shaping an insult (or compliment). In your case(s), it is just a complicated case of resolving 'the perceiver's perception of the perpetrator's intent.' If the perceiver cares about the perpetrator's intent, which in your case you do, then the perception of the perpetrator's intent is what defines the insult/compliment in this scenario, as the actual intent is irrelevant, only the perceived intent, on the part of the perceiver.

Genuineness
The more genuine a compliment, the more it should count. The problem with most people is that they aren't that "perceptive." Most people take things for face value-- meaning that they mistake superficial flattery for compliments at an alarming rate.

His example presupposed genuinity obviously, sigh.