# INTJ needs help: talking to Sensors. It's like another language!



## Angeni

I've just moved up into the campus ministry at my church, and I've discovered that the majority (the *vast* majority) are Sensors. And most of them are introverted at that. I'd really llike to be friends with them, seeing as this is going to be my family, but I find that I am completely out of my element. I have no idea what to say when I'm with them, and this makes it quite hard to become known. What makes it harder is that half the time they all sit in silence (such as when we're all eating together), so I can't just latch onto a conversation. Do you guys have any suggestions about what I could talk about? I was thinking about asking them what time period and place they'd most like to live in (a conversation I always find enlightening, enjoyable, and stimulating) but I'm not sure Sensors find such theoretical discussions to be enjoyable. What do you think? Could I talk about such things with them?

I realize my goal here--social interaction and closeness--is unusual for an INTJ, but my church is my family, and I want to not only like them but also be close with them.

Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated! I'm posting this in the SP forum as well to get a more varied point of view.


----------



## coolcats

Actually, religion is also unusual for an INTJ, not just social interaction. it just isn't logical.... But I'm not here to judge. So I would try and help you out but I'm afraid I have never been to church in my life nor do I have any idea what a sensor is. But my best bet is just be yourself and you will slowly start to open up with them. And pay close attention when they are talking to each other. Because then you will start to understand their 'foreign language'and be pretty confident with what you are saying. I would personally just try and blend in for a while, then creep out of your shell when you are comfortable with them. I hope this helped! Best of luck! 

I just reread your post, and the fact that you want to talk is weird for an INTJ, most of us would love just sitting in silence! Evidently my conclusion is, you my dear, are a weird INTJ or in fact not an INTJ at all. But that's pretty cool that most of your sensors or introverts! Introverts rock! haha


----------



## Angeni

Well it's not so much that I want to talk. It's more that I want to quietly observe everyone else interact so I can decide if they're worth the time and effort to get to know. Unfortunately, complete silence at a table makes it a bit difficult to observe much more than table manners, let alone come to a conclusion about whom to avoid and whom to befriend.

I'm not going to touch on the religion aspect, as I am aware that it's unusual. Aside from the fact that I really do believe in it, which I don't expect most intellects to agree with, it helps keep from existential depression, as I tend to become waaay to analytic about my purpose and blah blah blah. The social aspect helps a bit with that as well, since friends force me to be a bit more grounded in reality rather than blowing things completely out of proportion in my head. Without people I fall into the Ni-Fi loop much too easily.

Edit: I've actually been professionally tested as an INTJ, if that helps clear your doubts at all.


----------



## WickedQueen

coolcats said:


> Actually, religion is also unusual for an INTJ, not just social interaction. it just isn't logical....





Angeni said:


> I'm not going to touch on the religion aspect, as I am aware that it's unusual.


Bullshit. INTJ is dominated by introverted intuition (Ni) function. Religious Ni-dom is a common thing.

In Carl Junghttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Jung's theory of the egohttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Id,_ego_and_super-ego#Ego, described in 1921 in _Psychological Types_, intuition is described as an "irrational function", opposed most directly by sensation, and opposed less strongly by the "rational functions" of thinking and feeling. Jung said that a person in whom intuition was dominant, an "intuitive type", acted not on the basis of rational judgment but on sheer intensity of perception.

His introverted intuitive types were likely mystics, prophets, or cranks, struggling with a tension between protecting their visions from influence by others, while making their ideas comprehensible and reasonably persuasive to others—a necessity for those visions to bear real fruit.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intuition_(psychology)#cite_note-7 Many new ideas, especially in the spiritual realm, have originated with people of this type; but they are often not worked out systematically. Their thought remains aphoristic, and is often expressed in paradoxes.

As to answer the OP, most people like to talk about themselves, and they usually will attracted to a person who finds them interesting. So give easy questions about themselves and show them that you think they are interesting. Fake it if necessary, just for temporary moment (if you happen to have a poker face). Let them talk. When they do, encourage them to speak more through your agreeing body language (nod, smile, smirk, focused eye contact, or other body language that shows that you're agree with them).

After they speak, it's your turn. Give them some information about yourself. Talk about your family, or about your hobbies, your thoughts, or anything that in line with their stories. The purpose is to share similarities in order to bond, relate, and connect. 

I usually start with funny story about my daily activity. I laugh at my own clumsiness and my silly misery. Idk why, but somehow that always work on making people feel comfortable when they are with me.


----------



## Ziwosa

WickedQueen said:


> Bullshit. INTJ is dominated by introverted intuition (Ni) function. Religious Ni-dom is a common thing.


Let's focus on one specific element of a personality type and deduct everything else from that! Not ...

The cheaper the education the less religious the population. Look at Europe, not religious at all compared to the US, and guess how cheap education is Europe. Very cheap, in some countries you even *get paid* without having to pay anything back. I think we all know how expensive education is in the US.

Now back to INTJ's, they *love* education or learning in some form. See where I'm getting at?

Religion is science from the past, it just does not fit in a modern civilization anymore. Keep it private.

I'm agnostic myself, as I believe it's wrong to rule out anything without strong evidence to support it.
But at the same time, I believe it is absolutely stupid to claim with any certainty that any kind of religion speaks truth.

Sorry for derailing this thread and thank you for reading it anyway.
I'll take my leave now.


----------



## huiwcleon

Another INTJ and religion debate... No, I won't talk about that. :dry:

It's hard for us to get along with sensors. I agree with the OP that they use a different language. What @WickedQueen has suggested, topics like family, hobbies, are not things we usually talk simply because we INTJ subconsciously consider them not important. Those things are what sensors are interested but not INTJ. 

I'm afraid expressing our thoughts would not help sensors understand us more. We think differently. It would be quite awkward to talk about intuitive thoughts with most sensors. In order to build a bond with sensors, I guess using your Se is the most effective way. Call your sensor friends out to have some outdoor activities like BBQ or watch sports games together. It has been a great way or me to communicate with my sensors friends.


----------



## WickedQueen

Ziwosa said:


> Let's focus on one specific element of a personality type and deduct everything else from that! Not ...


I'm not saying that INTJs are all religious, I'm saying that religious Ni-dom is a common thing, based on the statement from the founder of cognitive function himself, Carl Jung. If you want to beg to differ, nobody cares. But to say religion is unusual for INTJs is definitely opposed the theory itself.


----------



## WickedQueen

huiwcleon said:


> What @_WickedQueen_ has suggested, topics like family, hobbies, are not things we usually talk simply because we INTJ subconsciously consider them not important. Those things are what sensors are interested but not INTJ.
> 
> I'm afraid expressing our thoughts would not help sensors understand us more. We think differently. It would be quite awkward to talk about intuitive thoughts with most sensors.


Another bullshit. 

INTJs are intuitive free-thinkers who focus their minds on trends, connections, and explanations; on the why and how things are the way they are, and how and why people behave the way they do. The INTJ's interest in dealing with the world is to make decisions, express judgments, and put everything that they encounter into an understandable and rational system. Consequently, they are quick to express judgments.

Hobbies are things that you find interesting: music, movies, video games, even physics theories. INTJs likes to express judgments and thoughts. I suggest him to talk about hobbies and thoughts because this is a common thing people use to relate in the first conversation. You refute my suggestion, yet in the same time you suggest the OP to use his Se. What differs my suggestion from yours? Do you even understand how Si and Se work _in practice_?

It is not the thoughts that differentiate an intuitive and a sensor, it's the way we communicate it that's different. You can make everyone understand your idea if you know the right way to communicate them.


----------



## CataclysmSolace

WickedQueen said:


> Another bullshit.
> 
> INTJs are intuitive free-thinkers who focus their minds on trends, connections, and explanations; on the why and how things are the way they are, and how and why people behave the way they do. The INTJ's interest in dealing with the world is to make decisions, express judgments, and put everything that they encounter into an understandable and rational system. Consequently, they are quick to express judgments.
> 
> Hobbies are things that you find interesting: music, movies, video games, even physics theories. INTJs likes to express judgments and thoughts. I suggest him to talk about hobbies and thoughts because this is a common thing people use to relate in the first conversation. You refute my suggestion, yet in the same time you suggest the OP to use his Se. What differs my suggestion from yours? Do you even understand how Si and Se work _in practice_?
> 
> It is not the thoughts that differentiate an intuitive and a sensor, it's the way we communicate it that's different. You can make everyone understand your idea if you know the right way to communicate them.


You are a person of many words… Interesting to see the discussion though…. My best friend is an INTJ, usually if he asks me a question, he asks if it sounds right (the Si, I know). I don't know, I had to add something…


----------



## huiwcleon

WickedQueen said:


> Hobbies are things that you find interesting: music, movies, video games, even physics theories. INTJs likes to express judgments and thoughts. I suggest him to talk about hobbies and thoughts because this is a common thing people use to relate in the first conversation. You refute my suggestion, yet in the same time you suggest the OP to use his Se. What differs my suggestion from yours? Do you even understand how Si and Se work _in practice_?
> 
> It is not the thoughts that differentiate an intuitive and a sensor, it's the way we communicate it that's different. You can make everyone understand your idea if you know the right way to communicate them.


How do Si and Se work in practice? If what you have suggested is for Se, what is for Si? 

Indeed I wanted to say the OP could have some events rather than just talk with sensors. However, I really found the topics that we talk about differ from sensors, like I talk about personality and they talk about football, isn't that a difference in thoughts?

Well, sorry for another bullshit.


----------



## WickedQueen

Armageddon_Wasteland said:


> You are a person of many words…


Is that your way to say: "You talk too much. Shut up!" ???



huiwcleon said:


> How do Si and Se work in practice? If what you have suggested is for Se, what is for Si?
> 
> Indeed I wanted to say the OP could have some events rather than just talk with sensors.


You can't expect someone to come to your BBQ party if you had never make an initial conversation with him. The OP asking members on how to talk to Sensors and what topics to talk about, that's precisely what I have answered.



huiwcleon said:


> However, I really found the topics that we talk about differ from sensors, like I talk about personality and they talk about football, isn't that a difference in thoughts?


Ah, the classic typism of "Sensors are dumb and prefer mundane things, while Intuitives are smart and prefer intelligent things". 
*clenches her hands*

It is never mentioned in any theory that Sensors don't like to talk about personality or Intuitive don't like to talk about sports. I'm a Sensor and I don't like sports. I have also made my own interpretation of personality theory in many posts. Example:
http://personalitycafe.com/articles/48813-si-te-fe-vs-ni-te-fe-wickedqueens-mbti-theory.html#post1114195

Sensing and Intuition represents _the way_ in which an individual receives information, not the thoughts/ideas itself. To people who fall into the Sensing category, information they receive through their senses directly is most important. People falling into the Intuition category mostly rely upon their conception about things, based on their perception of the world. 

If you can use your Se to connect with Sensors, then a Sensor can use their Ne or Ni to connect with you. So what's the problem? You just have to know the right way to trigger their Ne/Ni. Perhaps you just happen to connect with people whom you deemed as Sensors just because they love sports but not interested in personality theory. I've interact with dumb intuitives and dumb sensors before. They are all the same, all they talk about are just mundane boring things and they barely know anything about what's going on in the world (despite the fact that they have access to the internet). I feel like talking to people that have been living inside a shell all their life.



huiwcleon said:


> Well, sorry for another bullshit.


You are polite. I like you.


----------



## quadrivium

coolcats said:


> I just reread your post, and the fact that you want to talk is weird for an INTJ, most of us would love just sitting in silence! Evidently my conclusion is, you my dear, are a weird INTJ or in fact not an INTJ at all. But that's pretty cool that most of your sensors or introverts! Introverts rock! haha


By your standards, my dear, none of us are INTJs :dry:
How exactly do you intend to help him if "you don't even know what a sensor is?" 


How about we let the SJs explain themselves and not go on a witch hunt concluding that an NT is not an NT because she/he has an interest in spirituality?


----------



## Friday

corgiflatmate said:


> By your standards, my dear, none of us are INTJs :dry:
> How exactly do you intend to help him if "you don't even know what a sensor is?"
> 
> 
> How about we let the SJs explain themselves and not go on a witch hunt concluding that an NT is not an NT because she/he has an interest in spirituality?


I'm a pretty legitimate InTJ myself and I have a fascination with the abstract, mostly because of my right brain dominance. I love music (and the arts) and have trouble reading notion even after playing high levels of music for over 10 years in a classical music environment. I love religion/spirituality as a concept, but I do not taste the wine.

So... about the OP... lol



Angeni said:


> I've just moved up into the campus ministry at my church, and I've discovered that the majority (the *vast* majority) are Sensors. And most of them are introverted at that. I'd really llike to be friends with them, seeing as this is going to be my family, but I find that I am completely out of my element. I have no idea what to say when I'm with them, and this makes it quite hard to become known. What makes it harder is that half the time they all sit in silence (such as when we're all eating together), so I can't just latch onto a conversation. Do you guys have any suggestions about what I could talk about? I was thinking about asking them what time period and place they'd most like to live in (a conversation I always find enlightening, enjoyable, and stimulating) but I'm not sure Sensors find such theoretical discussions to be enjoyable. What do you think? Could I talk about such things with them?
> 
> I realize my goal here--social interaction and closeness--is unusual for an INTJ, but my church is my family, and I want to not only like them but also be close with them.
> 
> Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated! I'm posting this in the SP forum as well to get a more varied point of view.


It's going to be very hard for you to be "front end" in any organization. A colleague of mine of mine is the pastor of "administration" at his church, which is a very suiting role for him. He does have to lead/oversee/setup programs, but his personal interaction is somewhat lacking. He connects to very few people on a deep level. This must be accepted. We talk about it all the time, me being his former Padawan learner, having turned to the Darkside.

-Dont bullshit them. No one likes to be bullshitted on, regardless of type. (it's just that some types/intellects will be able to spot it easier... lol)

-Sitting in silence at eating time? WHY WOULD YOU EVER WANT TO VIOLATE THAT? haha. But, yeah, dinner time conversation... is almost a must. I cant really give you any "starters" with that, but try not to be lame (hard for us, I know). Maybe someone else can help you with this part with some advice. I only know "date interrogation" and "complete silence" practices here.

-Use an object. Play a game of chess with one of your underlings, or something during dinner time. Drop a rubix cube on the table, cause they'll wanna touch it. THEN DESTROY THEM. I mean, engage them in conversation.


I dunno man, whenever I hang out with the church people, im usually behind the scenes. Since you're doing this whole pastoral thing, you're gonna have to learn ways into peoples deep personal lives. They'll have to be able to trust you. They'll have to be able to find you. These are things you'll have to "display" for a bunch of sensors.


----------



## ambiguous entity

Angeni said:


> I've just moved up into the campus ministry at my *CHURCH*, and I've discovered that the majority (the vast majority) are *SENSORS*.


'nuf said.


----------



## CataclysmSolace

WickedQueen said:


> Is that your way to say: "You talk too much. Shut up!" ???
> 
> You can't expect someone to come to your BBQ party if you had never make an initial conversation with him. The OP asking members on how to talk to Sensors and what topics to talk about, that's precisely what I have answered.
> 
> Ah, the classic typism of "Sensors are dumb and prefer mundane things, while Intuitives are smart and prefer intelligent things".
> *clenches her hands*
> 
> It is never mentioned in any theory that Sensors don't like to talk about personality or Intuitive don't like to talk about sports. I'm a Sensor and I don't like sports. I have also made my own interpretation of personality theory in many posts. Example:
> http://personalitycafe.com/articles/48813-si-te-fe-vs-ni-te-fe-wickedqueens-mbti-theory.html#post1114195
> 
> Sensing and Intuition represents _the way_ in which an individual receives information, not the thoughts/ideas itself. To people who fall into the Sensing category, information they receive through their senses directly is most important. People falling into the Intuition category mostly rely upon their conception about things, based on their perception of the world.
> 
> If you can use your Se to connect with Sensors, then a Sensor can use their Ne or Ni to connect with you. So what's the problem? You just have to know the right way to trigger their Ne/Ni. Perhaps you just happen to connect with people whom you deemed as Sensors just because they love sports but not interested in personality theory. I've interact with dumb intuitives and dumb sensors before. They are all the same, all they talk about are just mundane boring things and they barely know anything about what's going on in the world (despite the fact that they have access to the internet). I feel like talking to people that have been living inside a shell all their life.
> 
> You are polite. I like you.


Well, technically your not actually talking, maybe to yourself I don't know but how do I know if you did? Also, you seem to only talk about Se, your dom function… There is Si of course, I know that you that, just never any talk about Si conversation… And yea, as for the first comment, don't beat around the bush.

Sorry for the criticism, I was just pointing things out that you could improve on/ take into consideration. Anyways, sorry again for me being devil's advocate, I think it might be a five thing (pretty sure).


----------



## CataclysmSolace

My one thing I like about people: 

The person not beating around the bush. AKA: Being as simplistic as possible in speech, not "going off" into different directions, or taking time when asking questions…


----------



## Worriedfunction

Armageddon_Wasteland said:


> Well, technically your not actually talking, maybe to yourself I don't know but how do I know if you did? Also, you seem to only talk about Se, your dom function… There is Si of course, I know that you that, just never any talk about Si conversation… And yea, as for the first comment, don't beat around the bush.


As an ESTJ wouldn't her first order of priority go towards the frameworks of Te? Since that is the dominant function of an ESTJ.

More on topic though: I LOVE to discuss theories and abstractions.


----------



## CataclysmSolace

Worriedfunction said:


> As an ESTJ wouldn't her first order of priority go towards the frameworks of Te? Since that is the dominant function of an ESTJ.
> 
> More on topic though: I LOVE to discuss theories and abstractions.


 Ah yes thank you, I forgot the cognitive functions… You are right, I just got confused because she kept using Se as an example which was what I was getting at. Si being the other cognitive function she didn't talk about in detail much. Mostly my fault for getting confused (I hate blaming people for my failures, makes me feel childish…).


----------



## Worriedfunction

Armageddon_Wasteland said:


> Ah yes thank you, I forgot the cognitive functions… You are right, I just got confused because she kept using Se as an example which was what I was getting at. Si being the other cognitive function she didn't talk about in detail much. Mostly my fault for getting confused (I hate blaming people for my failures, makes me feel childish…).


Si is a bit weird to be fair!


----------



## CataclysmSolace

Worriedfunction said:


> Si is a bit weird to be fair!


TBH, we're all weird in our own special little ways… (Ignore the criticism)


----------



## WickedQueen

Armageddon_Wasteland said:


> Well, technically your not actually talking, maybe to yourself I don't know but how do I know if you did? Also, you seem to only talk about Se, your dom function… There is Si of course, I know that you that, just never any talk about Si conversation… And yea, as for the first comment, don't beat around the bush.
> 
> Sorry for the criticism, I was just pointing things out that you could improve on/ take into consideration. Anyways, sorry again for me being devil's advocate, I think it might be a five thing (pretty sure).


I'm not a Se-dom, I'm a Te-dom. I don't use Se, I use Si. I talked about _Sensing and iNtuition _as perceptions, not _Se _as a cognitive function. I don't know where did you get the idea that I was only talking about Se.

Most of members in this forum are beginners whose just started to learn about the JCF/Socionics/MBTI/Kiersey theories. My answers weren't intended to merely answering the OP, but also to clear out anyone's misunderstandings of MBTI types due to lack of knowledge about the theory itself, so that we can all learn together a bit. If everyone here is already an expert, I wouldn't waste my time to do such.


----------



## Owfin

Worriedfunction said:


> Si is a bit weird to be fair!


Yeah, to Si "this room makes me feel uncomfortable" is a normal way of describing things and saying where items specifically are comes across as clinical. Or maybe that's just to me, since Si's introverted and everyone's impressions are different.


----------



## coolcats

WickedQueen said:


> Bullshit. INTJ is dominated by introverted intuition (Ni) function. Religious Ni-dom is a common thing.
> 
> In Carl Jung's theory of the ego, described in 1921 in _Psychological Types_, intuition is described as an "irrational function", opposed most directly by sensation, and opposed less strongly by the "rational functions" of thinking and feeling. Jung said that a person in whom intuition was dominant, an "intuitive type", acted not on the basis of rational judgment but on sheer intensity of perception.
> 
> His introverted intuitive types were likely mystics, prophets, or cranks, struggling with a tension between protecting their visions from influence by others, while making their ideas comprehensible and reasonably persuasive to others—a necessity for those visions to bear real fruit. Many new ideas, especially in the spiritual realm, have originated with people of this type; but they are often not worked out systematically. Their thought remains aphoristic, and is often expressed in paradoxes.
> 
> As to answer the OP, most people like to talk about themselves, and they usually will attracted to a person who finds them interesting. So give easy questions about themselves and show them that you think they are interesting. Fake it if necessary, just for temporary moment (if you happen to have a poker face). Let them talk. When they do, encourage them to speak more through your agreeing body language (nod, smile, smirk, focused eye contact, or other body language that shows that you're agree with them).
> 
> After they speak, it's your turn. Give them some information about yourself. Talk about your family, or about your hobbies, your thoughts, or anything that in line with their stories. The purpose is to share similarities in order to bond, relate, and connect.
> 
> I usually start with funny story about my daily activity. I laugh at my own clumsiness and my silly misery. Idk why, but somehow that always work on making people feel comfortable when they are with me.


Okay well reading your post was a waste of my time. Hunny, obviously you are speaking from an ESTJ stand point. But right now, we are talking about an INTJ. SO you need to get your facts straight and maybe do some actual research before you start talking about something you have no idea about. Intj's are known for being logical and very intellectual. Which would be why majority of us do not believe in god, or any other religion. In your post you are only talking about the N function in our personality type. Which bravo to you for getting the stupid information on the 1921 whatever. But that has nothing to do with how we view the religious aspect of the world. Intj's prefer the logical and most rational ways of thinking, and religion is neither logical nor rational. And if you think for one moment you understand how an intj thinks, you are an idiot. Unless you are in fact an Intj yourself, you have no room to argue with me on my own personality type. evidently, I am sorry to rain on your parade. And I would really appreciate it if you would quit wasting my time, and not quote this in another one of your irrational post. Thank you and have a nice day.


----------



## coolcats

WickedQueen said:


> Another bullshit.
> 
> INTJs are intuitive free-thinkers who focus their minds on trends, connections, and explanations; on the why and how things are the way they are, and how and why people behave the way they do. The INTJ's interest in dealing with the world is to make decisions, express judgments, and put everything that they encounter into an understandable and rational system. Consequently, they are quick to express judgments.
> 
> Hobbies are things that you find interesting: music, movies, video games, even physics theories. INTJs likes to express judgments and thoughts. I suggest him to talk about hobbies and thoughts because this is a common thing people use to relate in the first conversation. You refute my suggestion, yet in the same time you suggest the OP to use his Se. What differs my suggestion from yours? Do you even understand how Si and Se work _in practice_?
> 
> It is not the thoughts that differentiate an intuitive and a sensor, it's the way we communicate it that's different. You can make everyone understand your idea if you know the right way to communicate them.


You are really kind of an aggravating person to me. Stop talking to us Intj's like you understand and know absolutely everything about us. Unless you are Meyers Briggs himself, you have no room to speak. The only person that will every understand an Intj is an Intj. What I am saying is, just stop trying to be an expert on intj's. Because you obviously are not, you are stating these ridiculous 'facts' about us, that for the most part are not true.

* Your little 'signature' thing on the bottom of every post you create is actually very hypocritical, you need to follow your own advice and obviously choose option number 2. Because, optional number 1 you are totally not listening to.


----------



## Owfin

coolcats said:


> Okay well reading your post was a waste of my time. *Hunny, obviously you are speaking from an ESTJ stand point.* But right now, we are talking about an INTJ. SO you need to get your facts straight and maybe do some actual research before you start talking about something you have no idea about. Intj's are known for being logical and very intellectual. Which would be why majority of us do not believe in god, or any other religion. In your post you are only talking about the N function in our personality type. Which bravo to you for getting the stupid information on the 1921 whatever. But that has nothing to do with how we view the religious aspect of the world. Intj's prefer the logical and most rational ways of thinking, and religion is neither logical nor rational. And if you think for one moment you understand how an intj thinks, you are an idiot. Unless you are in fact an Intj yourself, you have no room to argue with me on my own personality type. evidently, I am sorry to rain on your parade. And I would really appreciate it if you would quit wasting my time, and not quote this in another one of your irrational post. Thank you and have a nice day.


And you feel entitled to argue with WickedQueen about her personality type because...?


----------



## stephiphi

To the OP: I would suggest you try exchanging stories of silliness or oddball happenings. If you've got a particularly interesting bit, you can hold people's attention for a little while, and then others will naturally pick up on details and elaborate with their own stories and one-liners. From these, conversation often flows more smoothly and you can find out some interesting details about the group and the people it is composed of.

Sometimes conversations will break off from the group into smaller groups of two or three and then you can ask about hobbies, musical/aesthetic tastes, etc. where you may find commonalities to pursue further.

Additionally, since you mentioned that they are mostly introverted, you'll need to make them feel comfortable for them to start speaking up (at least from what I understand). You can do this by showing your attention to them with a direct gaze, nodding, 'mhmm's, etc. You can also do this simply by being genuine - you say that you want to get to know them and befriend them, which is good, because phoniness is readily detected.

Edit: One final thought is that while you may be inclined to see Sensors as wholly different from oneself; Sensors are simply people. People with interests in a dizzying array of topics, theoretical to concrete - in the same way iNtuitives are people who can enjoy many topics.


----------



## Worriedfunction

coolcats said:


> Snipped for convenience of reading.


Id slow down there a second. Firstly not everything Wickedqueen said was untrue,( disregarding the 'you cant speak for INTJ's part for a bit'), in Jung's original theory Ni types are indeed irrational in that they are dominant perceptors and it is also quite true that in his writings he put's them across as being spiritual and philosophical.

Im not necessarily defending Wickedqueen here, ( I certainly wouldn't start my posts with the words 'another bullshit' not that she needs defending anyhow), and I am also not supporting her posts 100%, but I am defending some of the things she said. INTJ's are perceptive first, the J is just what they extrovert in, so to the world they will be presenting their Te, but their true loyalty lies with Ni.

Irrational does not necessarily mean illogical but unfortunately we have filtered down the meanings of such words to a negative connotation that is far removed from the original meaning; within the context of this theory. Am I saying INTJ's do not possess a logical thought process? Of course not, but first of all they are going to be taking information in via Ni, the subjective speculations of things, the implications of things, patterns that are built upon and followed up in that obsessive Ni way.
You said that only INTJ's can understand other INTJ's, id say that is a thought process anathema to the motives of this theory. It isn't about excuses as to why you cannot get along with certain people, it is about broadening the perspectives of people, lending understanding and graspable meaning to why there are difficulties in the first place. 

This is why Jung's original theory was heuristic; it had to be in order to properly allow for the variability of humanity.

As a minor note Myers-Briggs is not a man, (discounting Isabel's son), but a combination of Isabel Briggs-Myers and Katharine Mary-briggs, daughter and mother respectively who worked on their theory together as they adapted it from an interpretation of Jung.
Finally, on the subject of religion; you say it is not logical, but logic is essentially about systemic occurrences: *A + B will obviously = C**. If we can admit that we truely do not know the origins of the universe, (when following everything back step by step), then the ideas put forth by various religion's are as valid as the big bang theory when it comes to explaining the nature of the universe, (or multiverse's).

The problem lies in the usage of religion by people, the stupid and the ignorant, the petty and the cruel. Now im not religious at all, but I respect that within the circle of speculation regarding the nature of existance, that it has as much validity as any other idea on why reality suddenly came into being.

**Ok im simplifying things here a great deal, but im not about to write an essay on the nature of logic. Especially as it isn't even my primary mode of operating*


----------



## Angeni

coolcats said:


> Okay well reading your post was a waste of my time. Hunny, obviously you are speaking from an ESTJ stand point. But right now, we are talking about an INTJ. SO you need to get your facts straight and maybe do some actual research before you start talking about something you have no idea about. Intj's are known for being logical and very intellectual. Which would be why majority of us do not believe in god, or any other religion. In your post you are only talking about the N function in our personality type. Which bravo to you for getting the stupid information on the 1921 whatever. But that has nothing to do with how we view the religious aspect of the world. Intj's prefer the logical and most rational ways of thinking, and religion is neither logical nor rational. And if you think for one moment you understand how an intj thinks, you are an idiot. Unless you are in fact an Intj yourself, you have no room to argue with me on my own personality type. evidently, I am sorry to rain on your parade. And I would really appreciate it if you would quit wasting my time, and not quote this in another one of your irrational post. Thank you and have a nice day.


I don't know what your problem is, but you need to chill out. I asked for SJ advice because I wanted to understand how they think. I don't care how INTJs think because I already know how. WickedQueen gave her advice about how Sensors think, just as I asked.

You, on the other hand, are just being rude and lashing out unnecessarily (not just in this post but in the one following it as well). I didn't start the thread to start yet another debate about INTJs and church, so please stop trolling and get a life.


----------



## Bast

coolcats said:


> Which bravo to you for getting the stupid information on the 1921 whatever.





coolcats said:


> Unless you are Meyers Briggs himself, you have no room to speak. The only person that will every understand an Intj is an Intj.


You must be new. Cute.


----------



## Oakysage

coolcats said:


> You are really kind of an aggravating person to me. Stop talking to us Intj's like you understand and know absolutely everything about us. Unless you are Meyers Briggs himself, you have no room to speak. The only person that will every understand an Intj is an Intj. What I am saying is, just stop trying to be an expert on intj's. Because you obviously are not, you are stating these ridiculous 'facts' about us, that for the most part are not true.
> 
> * Your little 'signature' thing on the bottom of every post you create is actually very hypocritical, you need to follow your own advice and obviously choose option number 2. Because, optional number 1 you are totally not listening to.


 She knows and understands far more about MBTI than you. You haven't much right to judge her.


----------



## EmileeArsenic

Well, you ARE at church, so the original topic could be your religion. Get them to tell you how they came to be of your religion and take it from there. Introverted sensors tend to live in the past, so sharing part of their story will give you a glimpse into them as a person. Listen very carefully and pay close attention to the images they illustrate with their words. The connection between their perception of the world and experiences is often very strong. If you talk more about what the topics you're interested remind you of than the conclusions you've drawn, you'll have a much easier time making a connection.

Signed
~an ISFJ who spends a lot of time around INTJs


----------



## quadrivium

coolcats said:


> You are really kind of an aggravating person to me. Stop talking to us Intj's like you understand and know absolutely everything about us. Unless you are Meyers Briggs himself, you have no room to speak. The only person that will every understand an Intj is an Intj. What I am saying is, just stop trying to be an expert on intj's. Because you obviously are not, you are stating these ridiculous 'facts' about us, that for the most part are not true.
> 
> * Your little 'signature' thing on the bottom of every post you create is actually very hypocritical, you need to follow your own advice and obviously choose option number 2. Because, optional number 1 you are totally not listening to.


Bahaha Myers and Briggs were definitely two women. Please. Get YOUR facts straight. And also, don't speak for other INTJs.


@Angeni, is there any sort of in depth Bible study there you could attend? An in depth theological discussion?
Also, seeing how this thread is a week or two old, any progress?


----------



## Boolean11

WickedQueen said:


> I'm not saying that INTJs are all religious, I'm saying that religious Ni-dom is a common thing, based on the statement from the founder of cognitive function himself, Carl Jung. If you want to beg to differ, nobody cares. But to say religion is unusual for INTJs is definitely opposed the theory itself.


For god sake INTJs rank highest on the atheist scale. Religion (especially organised) tends to be incompatible with us since it doesn't match our extremely idiosyncratic perception. And it is the reason why we can/are be perceived as being stubborn and uncooperative (making conformity difficult) since our interpretation of reality is held above reality it self... (there's a bit more to this but know your facts)


----------



## Boolean11

coolcats said:


> Okaywell reading your post was a waste of my time. Hunny, obviously youare speaking from an ESTJ stand point. But right now, we are talkingabout an INTJ. SO you need to get your facts straight and maybe dosome actual research before you start talking about something youhave no idea about. Intj's are known for beinglogical and very intellectual. Which would be why majority of us donot believe in god, or any other religion. In your post you are onlytalking about the N function in our personality type. Which bravo toyou for getting the stupid information on the 1921 whatever. But thathas nothing to do with how we view the religious aspect of the world.Intj's prefer the logical and most rational ways of thinking, andreligion is neither logical nor rational. And if you think for onemoment you understand how an intj thinks, you are an idiot. Unlessyou are in fact an Intj yourself, you have no room to argue with meon my own personality type. evidently, I am sorry to rain on yourparade. And I would really appreciate it if you would quit wasting mytime, and not quote this in another one of your irrational post.Thank you and have a nice day.


Being"logical" has less significance in trying to explain why werank high on the atheistscale,this is due to you falling into the modern stereotype that peoplehave become more intelligent in this age. I think its stupid to evensay we evolved within the past 500years when science has graduallybegan to take hold. We are just in a different culture with differentvalues and in these times atheismcanbe perceivedasthe new "religion" (of course it's not). You have theburden of proof when you accept such claims, I hope you don't takethis as an adhominem attack but I think its important to be awarethat this age has its biases which are accepted as “facts”.


Butthe main attack against being “logical” stems from what Jung saidwhen he stated that perception functions intuitionand sensingare irrational whilst thinkingand feelingare more rational (the argument is explained by Jung in the link andit pisses on the fountain of glorious “logic” most atheists areoblivious too ). And to seemingly add insult to injury introvertedintuition has been stated to be the most irrational function due toit being an introverted function (which is “subjective” accordingto Jung) and secondly being intuition. The idea of introvertedfunctions (either sensing, feeling, thinking or intuition) means thatsuch functions sacrifice “objectivity” (perceiving reality as itactually is) and stick its place order and direction resulting in(the flaw) a “personalised” outlook of reality; whilstextroverted functions (again, either sensing, feeling, thinking orintuition) are “objective” and in touch with reality as it is,but on the downside, they are useless on their own since they lackdirection and order (they serve their introverted function master).


Anextract from Jung (its not smooth to read just as most translated work):
psychclassics(dot) yorku(dot) ca(slash)Jung(slash)types(dot)htm


*dyslexicso bear with me


----------



## PyrLove

Ugh. Why do some people insist on speaking for large groups of people as if we are a hive mind? Maybe I'm PMSing but this bugs the shit out of me.

To the OP:

First of all, congrats on your decision to explore your spirituality. There is a lot to be gained from investing oneself in that path.

Second, good for you for wanting to reach out to the people around you. This is one of the hardest, but most rewarding, things for me to do.

Now, to your question. Many good suggestions here, from common topics to personal stories. Personally, in the times I've attended church, I get the best interaction when I join small groups such as a Bible study or choir. The older folks in the church are often the most interesting to talk with and are usually the most open to guiding a new and/or young person. Maybe offer to help with preparing dinner? You _have_ to communicate when you're in a large, working kitchen. Working side by side with someone on a common task/goal is a good way to build camaraderie.


----------



## Jewl

Sensors can be interested in the abstract and theoretical. Intuitives can be interested in concrete "simple" stuff. 

Sometimes I see the simple argument floating around that Sensors = not as intellectual, not into as many intellectual things as Intuitives. Therefore, Sensors = more likely to be religious and Intuitives = more likely to be non-religious. This takes the assumption that to be religious, you're not going to be as smart as agnostics or atheists. Basically, religion means you're doing it wrong. 

It's ridiculous assumption upon assumption. I'm not going to get into an argument about religion, but to assume that you've got to be pretty dense to take up a religion is downright wrong. To tie in stereotypical definitions of Intuitive and Sensor just makes it even worse. I could go on here, and honestly I want to, but I don't feel like completely derailing the thread. 

@_Angeni_ - To agree with what some other people have said, you can talk to Sensors about pretty much anything. They aren't prone to being any less intellectual or theoretical or abstract or whatever. You should find them quite easy to talk with. In fact, you're probably already used to interacting with them -- you just haven't noticed. Haha. ^_^


----------



## WickedQueen

Boolean11 said:


> For god sake INTJs rank highest on the atheist scale.


The only source for your claim that I could find on the internet is from http://www.discoveryourpersonality.com/intj.html. It said: "In a national sample, (INTJs) ranked highest in saying 'No' to belief in a higher spiritual power". 

_First_, it is a sample. It doesn't even mentioned the exact percentage or number of people included in the sample. 
_Second_, it is a national sample. It is not a representative of all INTJs in the world. 

Unless there's a survey of at least 10 percent of INTJs around the world, I don't think I would rely much of the facts from that source.

Plus, the website also mentions other 'facts' about INTJ, such as:

Highest rank on coping resources used was spiritual/philosophical - ranked 3rd out of the 16 types.
 
Among the 3 male types overrepresented among substance abusers.
 

Perhaps you want to take that as facts too?


----------



## Angeni

Thanks for all of your suggestions, guys. They have indeed been helpful--particularly the one about asking them about their own beliefs. I've found this to be the most effective course of action so far because it gives them the opportunity to talk about themselves for quite some time and it gives me sufficient insight into their character and personality. It's proved to be very enlightening. (I also liked the idea about paying games/sports with them because it brings me out of my shell as well as I tend to be on the competitive side.)



corgiflatmate said:


> Is there any sort of in depth Bible study there you could attend? An in depth theological discussion?


We have "Bible Talks" on every Tuesday, which is basically a small gathering of any college students who can come and we to in-depth analyses of scriptures, which I thoroughly enjoy. Also, before the main service on Sundays we have classes which deal completely with the factual history of biblical times and is much less "spiritual," I guess you could say, than the sermon. Although to be honest, the church I go to is much less "feel-good" and sentimental than most churches I've visited (which is why I chose to attend it--it seems to most accurately represent the Bible without all the fluff and watering-down of emotional cushioning). We also have "devotionals" on Fridays, which allows for even more discussion. 

And yes, to all you sensors who hate the stereotype that you are less intelligent, I completely disagree with it as well. In fact some of the most thought-provoking people I know are Sensors. I would never do them the disservice of calling them shallow or simple-minded--it is much too far from the truth.


----------



## Boolean11

WickedQueen said:


> The only source for your claim that I could find on the internet is from INTJ Personality Type. It said: "In a national sample, (INTJs) ranked highest in saying 'No' to belief in a higher spiritual power".
> 
> _First_, it is a sample. It doesn't even mentioned the exact percentage or number of people included in the sample.
> _Second_, it is a national sample. It is not a representative of all INTJs in the world.
> 
> Unless there's a survey of at least 10 percent of INTJs around the world, I don't think I would rely much of the facts from that source.
> 
> Plus, the website also mentions other 'facts' about INTJ, such as:
> 
> Highest rank on coping resources used was spiritual/philosophical - ranked 3rd out of the 16 types.
> 
> Among the 3 male types overrepresented among substance abusers.
> 
> 
> Perhaps you want to take that as facts too?


I would accept the bad stereotypes to be purely based around the introverted intuition (NiTe) problem which easily breeds arrogance with due to the purely self oriented view of the world (none of us INTJ are really alike, which is why it has been difficult for me to befriend someone I know is one). I suspect you are probably American which would make you less inclined to notice how religion tends to be marginalised in the developed world (USA seems to be the exception to this rule); 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).

But to cut my rumbling short find out how many people are religious is a fruitless obvious task, I would expect the general majority of them to be religious since atheist are less than 2% of the world population last time I checked. However through gaining insight to what it is to be religious/causes it, I would expect the proportion of irreligious INTJs to higher than any other MBTI types due to my understanding of Ni being the most irrational perception tool according to Jung.


----------



## WickedQueen

Boolean11 said:


> I would accept the bad stereotypes to be purely based around the introverted intuition (NiTe) problem which easily breeds arrogance with due to the purely self oriented view of the world (none of us INTJ are really alike, which is why it has been difficult for me to befriend someone I know is one). I suspect you are probably American which would make you less inclined to notice how religion tends to be marginalised in the developed world (USA seems to be the exception to this rule); 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).


_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.



Boolean11 said:


> But to cut my rumbling short find out how many people are religious is a fruitless obvious task, I would expect the general majority of them to be religious since atheist are less than 2% of the world population last time I checked. However through gaining insight to what it is to be religious/causes it, * I would expect the proportion of irreligious INTJs to higher than any other MBTI types due to my understanding of Ni being the most irrational perception tool according to Jung.*


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:


Boolean11 said:


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


_Sixth_, don't fucking mess with me about _my _facts. Read my signature and think _before _you speak.


----------



## Boolean11

WickedQueen said:


> _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

Boolean11 said:


> 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)



Boolean11 said:


> *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.



Boolean11 said:


> 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:


Boolean11 said:


> 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.



Boolean11 said:


> 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.



Boolean11 said:


> 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.



Boolean11 said:


> 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.



Boolean11 said:


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


When someone say these things to me: 


Boolean11 said:


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





Boolean11 said:


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





Boolean11 said:


> 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). )





Boolean11 said:


> (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.



Boolean11 said:


> 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

WickedQueen said:


> ...


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).



WickedQueen said:


> 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? 



WickedQueen said:


> 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.


----------

