[Boolean11]

First, I'm not American. I'm Indonesian. My country is the fourth most populated country in the world (China the first, India the second, USA the third) and has the biggest Muslim population in the world (China is dominated by Buddhist, India by Muslim and Hindu, USA by Christians).

Second, MBTI is only famous in few Western countries. It is not known to the rest of the world. I never heard of it if it weren't because of my ex (he's American). We don't use it in my country, and I know for sure they don't use it in China or India as well. There were no MBTI survey in large sample in most countries in the world. So where is this 'fact' came from? Show me the source.

Third, if you take the first point as fact (In a national sample, -INTJs- ranked highest in saying 'No' to belief in a higher spiritual power) as well as the second point (Highest rank on coping resources used was spiritual/philosophical - ranked 3rd out of the 16 types), what you get is a contradicted fact, which stated: "Although -INTJs- ranked highest in saying 'No' to belief in a higher spiritual power, they also will turn into spiritual/philosophical thing as their coping mechanism."

A contradiction in facts shows that the facts are partial and bias.

Fourth, you did not mention any other reliable source that said INTJs rank highest on the atheist scale, which also shows that you have no idea what you're talking about.

You don't make any sense.

First, you have no reliable source to be able to claim that 'irreligious INTJs are higher than any other MBTI types'.
Second, you have no reliable source to be able to claim that 'Ni is the most irrational perception tool according to Jung'.
Third, you have no reliable source to be able to claim that there is a correlation between 'irreligious' with 'Ni as an irrational perception'.

Fourth, let assume that indeed there are 2% of atheist in the world population. Take example in the US. The most recent ARIS report (released March 9, 2009) found in 2008, said that 15% Americans claim to have no religion, of which 0.7% explicitly describes itself as atheist. According to Center for Applications of Psychological Type, in 2008 the total percentage of INTJ in the US is 2-4%.

Even if we assume that all atheist Americans are INTJs, this still does not support the claim that INTJs are mostly atheist (0.7% out of 2-4%). They probably ranked higher as atheist, but still, the number does not cover up the majority of INTJs.

Fifth, why don't you eat your own words:

Sixth, don't fucking mess with me about my facts. Read my signature and think before you speak.

The lack of facts were from me being lazy and assuming that you had the same data that drove the assumptions I made. Plus the dyslexic thing sometimes means that without thorough examination of my writing I miss mistakes since looking at similar patterns can make me feel disorientated.

Introverted intuition is irrational claim
Read Jung description of introverted intuition several paragraphs below and you find out why he describes it as the most irrational of all the perceptions. Both sensing and intuition are stated as being irrational but intuition is said to be more so than sensory, and from that he also states that when the perception function is introverted (Ni/Si), its less concerned with "objective" reality than its extroverted counterparts.
Classics in the History of Psychology -- Jung (1921/1923) Chapter 10

The idea of the INTJs having the highest sub minority of atheist is an assumption based on that sample you stated. I just gave you my reason that my assumption is based upon, my aim is in not being "right" but gaining further understanding (plus empathy doesn't mean agreeing its just knowledge). And again with the Ni and "irreligiosity" correlation assumption was based on analyzing some of the properties the NiTe relationship which makes us quite independent (getting along with others on the interpersonal realm is stated as an achilles heel for us since we are fiercely independent (without addressing this we have difficulty dealing with the other types (INTJ Personal Growth))). And that's were the perceived "arrogance" claim was based on and its a common state regardless of whether the INTJ is religious or not. Plus from, the religious INTJ debate forums I learnt that the reason to why an INTJ can accept religion tends to be vastly different in comparison to other types since from what I heard, the religion is supposed to meet the given INTJs idiosyncratic system and not the other way round.


Why the rage?
Why the rage? Why are you taking this to heart? If you are drawn to get personal over this (any argument) then you'll defeat any objectivity in the argument and simply get centered around "winning". Third order and Second order thinking are important frameworks in assisting objective thinking since awareness of our biases is gained (plus the why factor). If the line before feels condescending, its actually not meant to be (but that's the limitation of lacking the power of speech tone of voice...). To be honest, I tend to expect people to look at arguments objectively and not get wrapped around any feelings accidentally evoked.

[WickedQueen]

The lack of facts were from me being lazy and assuming that you had the same data that drove the assumptions I made. Plus the dyslexic thing sometimes means that without thorough examination of my writing I miss mistakes since looking at similar patterns can make me feel disorientated.

Understandable.
(although, I sense a made up excuse from the first sentence. But lets just pretend that I’m an idiot and clueless about that)

Introverted intuition is irrational claim
Read Jung description of introverted intuition several paragraphs below and you find out why he describes it as the most irrational of all the perceptions. Both sensing and intuition are stated as being irrational but intuition is said to be more so than sensory, and from that he also states that when the perception function is introverted (Ni/Si), its less concerned with "objective" reality than its extroverted counterparts.
Classics in the History of Psychology -- Jung (1921/1923) Chapter 10

So because:
(1) iNtuition is more irrational than Sensor.
(2) Ni/Si is less concerned with ‘objective’ reality than its extroverted counterparts.

Your conclusion: Ni is the most irrational perception.
???

Here’s the problem.

First:
I’ve read the whole article several times before, probably before you even found the link address. I have never read any line from Jung that said that intuition is more irrational than sensor. Perhaps it is my mistake. Perhaps I don’t read it carefully. Perhaps I take everything too literally. Would you please kindly copy paste the lines so we can all read them?

Second:
Being less concerned about the ‘objective’ reality than the extroverted perceptions, does not equal with being more ‘irrational’. Focus of perception (outward or inward) is not a key factor that determines the level of the perception function’s 'irrationality'. Each function cannot stand alone. So the key factor (other than maturity level) is in the balance use of the dual functions (Ni/Se and Ne/Si). The less balance, the more 'irrational' the person becomes.

The idea of the INTJs having the highest sub minority of atheist is an assumption based on that sample you stated. I just gave you my reason that my assumption is based upon

You were the one who refute my post by implying that you know the real fact:

For god sake INTJs rank highest on the atheist scale.
... (there's a bit more to this but know your facts)

And now you’re telling me that your ‘assumption’ (no longer fact, eh?) is actually based on your misinterpretation of Jung’s statements? You’ve got to be kidding me.

my aim is in not being "right" but gaining further understanding

Uh-huh. That’s not what your oh-so-confident previous posts tell us.

And again with the Ni and "irreligiosity" correlation assumption was based on analyzing some of the properties the NiTe relationship which makes us quite independent (getting along with others on the interpersonal realm is stated as an achilles heel for us since we are fiercely independent

First you said that the highest rate of irreligious INTJs was caused by the Ni as the most irrational perception. Now you said that it was caused by the NiTe relationship which makes INTJ ‘fiercely independent’. Both the old and new assumptions don’t make any sense, nor it based on any justifiable hypothesis.

As for the new assumption, I would argue that being ‘fiercely independent’ does not end up with the person being irreligious. Independent thinking process does not end up with having the same result/decision (in this case, being irreligious), it’s actually the opposite.

Plus from the religious INTJ debate forums I learnt that the reason to why an INTJ can accept religion tends to be vastly different in comparison to other types since from what I heard, the religion is supposed to meet the given INTJs idiosyncratic system and not the other way round.

From ‘the religious INTJ debate forum’??

Well, of course INTJs will say that they are ‘vastly different in comparison to other types’. Ever visit the other types’ forums? We all have our own theory on how different and special we are in comparison with others. Every snowflake is unique, yet all snowflakes are just the same snowflake. I bet the same conclusion will come if the other types have the same religious debate forums.

Why the rage?
Why the rage? Why are you taking this to heart?

When someone say these things to me:

I suspect you are probably American which would make you less inclined to notice how religion tends to be marginalised in the developed world

due to your natural bias, you may find it difficult to look at religious beliefs objectively.

Of course unless you are able to perform second or third order "thinking" (you'll be aware of your own biases even if you are an atheist). )

(there's a bit more to this but know your facts)

I do believe that I have the right to be angry. Those lines are cheesy attempts to condescending the other person’s knowledge and objectivity. You don’t do that in an impersonal and objective argument.

And when I’m angry, the only way to quell my anger is by crushing the other person to pieces, and then burning them to ashes. Like I said before, don’t fucking mess with me. I don’t want to harm anyone. Play neat.

If you are drawn to get personal over this (any argument) then you'll defeat any objectivity in the argument and simply get centered around "winning". To be honest, I tend to expect people to look at arguments objectively and not get wrapped around any feelings accidentally evoked.

Bullshit. Your posts clearly shows condescending intention, which shows that by down-grading the other person, you are trying to convince yourself that you are more intelligent and objective than her. You call that behavior of yours objective and impersonal? Who do you want to lie to? The other person? Or yourself?

[Boolean11]

...

You really got personal over this and that's just beats me because it doesn't make any sense. From your responses you don't seem to be coming from an objective point of reasoning since you are bent on "winning" and in anger mode. At this point it seems as if any of my words lack any meaning ( premises for reasoned consideration) since I've just become the villain to speak... (at this point you may resort to rage again and reiterate the "crashing blows" you were attempting to within the previous posts; or maybe you'll treat me as an internet troll with nothing more to do than waste time and feed of the rage that's caused)

If you want to know where I'm coming from, you'll have to know a little bit about my mind framework. I'm just interested in ideas and evaluating them for the sake of doing so, I have no vested interests in securing an out come really (this is were my personality tends to come as strange since not that many people can relate to my style of thinking, plus the confidence in my intuition is a side effect of my personality that is easily mistaken for arrogance). And I think that were you and I differ since you seem to be more rigid and bent on coming to a conclusion (maybe it's the anger ruling your immediate ideas).

As for the new assumption, I would argue that being ‘fiercely independent’ does not end up with the person being irreligious. Independent thinking process does not end up with having the same result/decision (in this case, being irreligious), it’s actually the opposite.

What are your arguments against the idea of being "fiercely independent" not correlating with rigid beliefs shared?
Being fiercely independent will mean that your values generally deviate greatly from the rest since there is no reason to conform. If anything, it'll mean that when you decide to "conform", you'll have arrived there on your own terms thus you'd be pretty much on your on.

Why do fear exploring the idea of being irreligious (understanding modern freethinking)?
If you have strong "faith", you won't fear exploring/understanding atheism as it is. That like me not wanting to learn a bit about islam, buddhism... any religion out there in fear that I'll be converted. Or is it that you'd get killed in your country going against the status quo or looking at the wrong material?

Well, of course INTJs will say that they are ‘vastly different in comparison to other types’. Ever visit the other types’ forums? We all have our own theory on how different and special we are in comparison with others. Every snowflake is unique, yet all snowflakes are just the same snowflake. I bet the same conclusion will come if the other types have the same religious debate forums.

Off course all types are special and different, but still statistics still stand and "NT" are in my minority and introverts (INT) even more so. For some odd reason natural selection didn't favour us, which is the reason why we tend to feel that we don't naturally fit. I personally found that when I got older I had to pretend less and less to be myself in order try to fit in with the rest. My natural mode of engagement tends to be repulsive to most people at first since I come of as arrogant (I'm not swayed by feelings, the number of people opposing me nor any authoritative voice), condescending and some what argumentative.