# Do We have a superiority complex?



## The Psychonaut

Do we have a superiority complex? Do we feel we are better than other because we are NTs?
Did we feel we were better than others before we knew what an NT was?
Do we only have a superiority complex on PersonalityCafe, and if we do, is it because we outnumber most other types? (MOST, SHYADDUP NFs).
Or is it that we dont actually have a superiority complex, our NTness just maybe comes off that way, and if so please explain.

BTW i realize that not ALL NTs could have a superiority complex, and i dont mean to group us all together. Although i could understand someone reading the OP and getting that vibe.


----------



## HannibalLecter

I am an INTJ and I _know_ that I am better than others. It's not a superiority complex - it's the truth.


----------



## Peter

The Psychonaut said:


> Do we have a superiority complex? Do we feel we are better than other because we are NTs?
> Did we feel we were better than others before we knew what an NT was?
> Do we only have a superiority complex on PersonalityCafe, and if we do, is it because we outnumber most other types? (MOST, SHYADDUP NFs).
> Or is it that we dont actually have a superiority complex, our NTness just maybe comes off that way, and if so please explain.
> 
> BTW i realize that not ALL NTs could have a superiority complex, and i dont mean to group us all together. Although i could understand someone reading the OP and getting that vibe.


Well, if you think you´re better than others because you´re an NT then yes, you do have a superiority complex. And also if you think that, you´re not as rational as you think you are. 

INTJ's tend to have thought things through before they actually start to really talk about it so in many situations (which the INTJ also choses to participate and not in the situations where he knows he doesn't know enough) the INTJ is more knowledgeble than others. This can lead to thinking you´re better than others.

But an INTJ that really thinks that, is weak, because it means he avoids situations where he's not as smart as he thinks he is. A strong INTJ (actually this applies to every type) knows himself well enough to know that if he is the smartest one around, he needs to find places where he can learn new things.


----------



## thehigher

Peter said:


> Well, if you think you´re better than others because you´re an NT then yes, you do have a superiority complex. And also if you think that, you´re not as rational as you think you are.
> 
> INTJ's tend to have thought things through before they actually start to really talk about it so in many situations (which the INTJ also choses to participate and not in the situations where he knows he doesn't know enough) the INTJ is more knowledgeble than others. This can lead to thinking you´re better than others.
> 
> But an INTJ that really thinks that, is weak, because it means he avoids situations where he's not as smart as he thinks he is. A strong INTJ (actually this applies to every type) knows himself well enough to know that if he is the smartest one around, he needs to find places where he can learn new things.


For some reason... I _feel_ as though NT's are better than NF's. I suppose this confirms that I am not very rational haha. But.... it does _feel_ that way. I mean.... alright so being a feeler.... that means you know what to do in social situations and stuff right? Yea I suppose so... I guess just being an INFP means that even though you know it... doesn't take away from the social awkwardness. But despite that NT's often admit that they don't know what to do in social situations.... they are often quite popular at least in the intuitive community. I dunno. I'm sure it is merely because... I know what it it's like to be me.... and since I have it... I don't value it. Just like you want what you don't have. There is nothing about my outlook.... that I don't already know.... so .... it's not interesting to me... because it is me. If that makes any sense. 

Despite how illogical my feelings are about this.... for some darn reason I just feel this way. I guess it might be because I used to have discussions with my ex intp girlfriend in which we would discuss topics... and she was often right... and it made sense. To make sense.... feelings don't make sense. You can express them.... but they don't make sense. Not to mention if you make a argument based on feeling.... you are automatically disregarded ... so I guess part of the inferiority feeling is that.... in decision making.... we are not listened to unless we make an argument coming from a T perspective. It's quite frustrating really... feeling as though all the judgements you make to make sense of the world are .... wrong.

Another thing is that... we are supposed to be good at sorting out emotions and dealing with them. But ... honestly I think being aware of them is a problem. To feel joy is great.... if I could only get there. These emotions are so complicated and misleading. My intp ex girlfriend convinced me that because of that.... you shouldn't listen to them. But ... I know that that is just not being me.... but I don't know how to go back. 

Ima shut up now.


----------



## Promethea

Even before a young NT knows about mbti, they have a sense of general competence, picking up on things faster than most around them, and finding it easy to master just about anything they set out to do. Perhaps its a thirst for knowledge that motivates them to quickly wrap their minds around anything, and they do it with voracity, unlike many others. So when they finally take a look around, they might find themselves ahead.

It could also be that NTs are typically seen as odd children, and don't belong to social groups as much, which gives them time to develop interests other then hanging out and bullshitting, running their mouths about nothing to other people all the time. They may sit for hours reading, or pursuing other intellectual interests. It gives them a better foundation for later on when they do decide to open their mouths.

Whatever the case, I don't think that I'm superior to everyone - but I value my autonomy more than anything, and have a fierce pride. I also show respect to individuals, and expect it shown in return, with neither of our personal boundaries tread across.

I have even learned that sometimes people will really surprise you with their intelligence, and that I'm not always right. No one is.

A mistake that many young NTs make, is thinking that they are never wrong, and they are always the most intelligent, in any match. I think that they get used to being more correct, the majority of the time, when around their average classmates, etc. - but as you begin to get to where you want to be in life, and meet more people who are on your level - you'll find that you have a little competition now. Its a good thing. It makes you continue to grow, rather than just stagnate.. which is why I will admit when I am wrong, typically without shame. What matters is my personal growth, and in the end it doesn't mean a thing if someone sees me mess up here and there.


----------



## YourMom

"Superiority complex" implies that you thinking you're better than other people is false. It's not a complex if you know it's true.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## The Psychonaut

middeljohn said:


> "Superiority complex" implies that you thinking you're better than other people is false. It's not a complex if you know it's true.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


yes...then it becomes...what exactly? Narcissism probably...maybe Boderline. Its all subjective anyway man, what makes you inferior by some peoples standards is what makes you superior by other peoples standards. 

(example, Thinking rationally and logically may make you superior by your own definition, but Being cold and unsympathetic would make you inferior by others standards. Or Exploring your own self to the point of extreme self awareness, Being lost in your head a lot of the time. )

and hey, i dont mean to single you out either, i had a similar reply to HannibalLecter too, but i didnt articulate it very well and so i threw it out.


----------



## Vaka

I don't think it's good to ask someone if they have a superiority complex because even if they do, they're not gonna know it...They really do feel they are better than others.
I don't know if I'm saying that in the best words possible, but you get the idea xD


----------



## lirulin

I try not to think that...and then I read youtube comments. Or turn on the news. Or turn on the television. Or, or...it's hard. If it weren't for libraries my ego would be immense.


----------



## NeedsNewNameNow

lirulin said:


> I try not to think that...and then I read youtube comments. Or turn on the news. Or turn on the television. Or, or...it's hard. If it weren't for libraries my egos would be immense.


yeah that about sums it up.. I don't feel superior to other people... until I have run in with other people :tongue:


----------



## Monte

I think NTs are the best as a whole.

Some of use are better than others ( screw that every man is created equal bull ), but not every NT is better than another type.


----------



## Peter

thehigher said:


> For some reason... I _feel_ as though NT's are better than NF's. I suppose this confirms that I am not very rational haha. But.... it does _feel_ that way.


You shouldn't feel that way. They may be better at some things than you are. Just like you are better than them at some things. That's the way things are.



thehigher said:


> Another thing is that... we are supposed to be good at sorting out emotions and dealing with them. But ... honestly I think being aware of them is a problem. To feel joy is great.... if I could only get there. These emotions are so complicated and misleading. My intp ex girlfriend convinced me that because of that.... you shouldn't listen to them. But ... I know that that is just not being me.... but I don't know how to go back.


You think NT's aren't aware of their emotions? Of course they are, just as much as you are. Their brains just chose to deal with them rationally and make a decision and leave it at that. Your problem can not be solved by ignoring your feelings. Ignoring your feelings is just stupid. You need to learn how to deal with them. That's much easier than ignoring anyway.


----------



## thehigher

Peter said:


> You shouldn't feel that way. They may be better at some things than you are. Just like you are better than them at some things. That's the way things are.
> 
> 
> 
> You think NT's aren't aware of their emotions? Of course they are, just as much as you are. Their brains just chose to deal with them rationally and make a decision and leave it at that. Your problem can not be solved by ignoring your feelings. Ignoring your feelings is just stupid. You need to learn how to deal with them. That's much easier than ignoring anyway.


Yea wrong words... that will happen a lot with me. Like... i dunno... it's that that makes them seem better. Like you said... they ARE aware of their emotions... they just deal with them logically. Well... I mean.... what are we good at then? I just see little to be proud of.... I guess I mean just as ...a uh... INFP. Cause the other NF's I see nothing they should be ashamed of. I mean ENFP's are great at talking to people and all and INFJs actually do things for other people and ENFJs are just amazing with how they connect and all.... but I guess I feel like all I do is just sit here and feel. Like a sitting duck. I just sit here while everyone else does things.... I feel useless. But yet that's me. And knowing this ... just hurts. To know that you .... naturally.... just sit there... and get offended at irrational things. Dunno. Guess I am being hard on myself.


----------



## lirulin

INFPs are better at being aware of other people's emotions for one...how many people do you accidentally offend? Is it ten a day? Does your performance evaluation regularly say you're too rude, by accident? There's one strength.


----------



## thehigher

lirulin said:


> INFPs are better at being aware of other people's emotions for one...how many people do you accidentally offend? Is it ten a day? Does your performance evaluation regularly say you're too rude, by accident? There's one strength.


Yea I guess that is one strength. But ... if you don't feel bad about offending people... then why does it matter if you do offend people? Like the only reason why it would be beneficial to be aware of others emotions is if it hurt me to know that they were offended. Which.... I'm sure you guys feel bad about it. I dunno it's confusing. 

Then again... wouldn't it all be better if everyone just took things for what they meant rather than read into little signs that show emotion? I dunno if that makes sense. I guess what I am saying is.... if everyone was NT.... no one would get offended because they listened to what was actually said... not some lack of sensitivity in their voice. What's the point of INFP's creating harmony if things work just fine without it? 

Sorry I'm kinda derailing the thread.


----------



## Arioche

If the NT have even a marginal understanding of MBTI, s/he should understand that there is nothing to feel superior about. Having a superiority complex about one's own ability is one thing, but over a personality type based on preference? Everyone can use all functions -- I can't imagine a F trying to use his or her F function to solve a linear problem with efficiency, I certainly use my T while doing so.

This influx of ego that seems prominent in NT (not all NT, of course, just a general trend I see) probably comes from either their misunderstanding of what the function is supposed to mean...or worse, using their type as a justification for their ego despite having enough knowledge to understand that such act is ridiculous. Another thing I see is that MBTI community as a whole seems to have this misconception that NT = Superior, and contribute in stroking their ego. I have felt personally discriminated against, my arguments and opinions disregarded even before it is taken in consideration on the premise that I'm a "illogical, unintelligent" F, and not a NT.

I've also had this type of exchange quite a few times:

(after discussion of some length)
Other Person: "Let me guess, you're a xNTx?"
Me: "No, I'm an ENFP"
Other Person: "Oh, then you must be a very close borderline T right?"
Me: "Not at all, my Fi is crazy."
Other Person: "But you're smart" (Though this part is not always so blunt)

Ridiculous.


----------



## Vaka

Arioche said what I would have liked to say if I was near as good with my words >.<

And the idea in the dialogue at the end of that post is something that pisses me off daily!


----------



## beth x

I would have fallen into the trap in the past and shouted, yeah!! But no I'm not superior, just rational with a whole lot more issues when it comes to swallowing mass media crap and tacky feel good stories. I feel constantly insulted! I am sure I am going to be one of those mad old ladies shouting at the TV.


----------



## Peter

thehigher said:


> Yea I guess that is one strength. But ... if you don't feel bad about offending people... then why does it matter if you do offend people? Like the only reason why it would be beneficial to be aware of others emotions is if it hurt me to know that they were offended. Which.... I'm sure you guys feel bad about it. I dunno it's confusing.
> 
> Then again... wouldn't it all be better if everyone just took things for what they meant rather than read into little signs that show emotion? I dunno if that makes sense. I guess what I am saying is.... if everyone was NT.... no one would get offended because they listened to what was actually said... not some lack of sensitivity in their voice. What's the point of INFP's creating harmony if things work just fine without it?
> 
> Sorry I'm kinda derailing the thread.


INTJ's, or at least I, think that everybody is responsible for their own feelings. If I say something and another person feels bad then that's his problem. The only thing that annoys the hell out of me when people say things with the intent to hurt somebody else's feelings. That is so childish. I will never say things with the intent to hurt only.

But I will also be honest and when I say something that might hurt somebody's feelings and it's true, I don't have any problem with that. I usually don't really think about it either. But sometimes I do know it will hurt but then again, it's often the best thing to do as it benefits the end result, which is almost always more important.


----------



## lirulin

thehigher said:


> Yea I guess that is one strength. But ... if you don't feel bad about offending people... then why does it matter if you do offend people? Like the only reason why it would be beneficial to be aware of others emotions is if it hurt me to know that they were offended. Which.... I'm sure you guys feel bad about it. I dunno it's confusing.
> 
> Then again... wouldn't it all be better if everyone just took things for what they meant rather than read into little signs that show emotion? I dunno if that makes sense. I guess what I am saying is.... if everyone was NT.... no one would get offended because they listened to what was actually said... not some lack of sensitivity in their voice. What's the point of INFP's creating harmony if things work just fine without it?
> 
> Sorry I'm kinda derailing the thread.


One may not feel bad, but having enemies isn't always functional. Especially in, say, work situations. 

And not all tone is imaginary. Some of it is important. Some of it is very important. It's about being considerate. And if everyone was NT, what was actually said would probably be worth getting offended at.


----------



## amanda32

RafaelEnvoy said:


> *amanda32*
> Does this conforms to your standards of intelligence?
> 
> *Grade Range Percent*
> Genius 144 0.13%
> Gifted 130-144 2.14%
> Above average 115-129 13.59%
> Higher average 100-114 34.13%
> Lower average 85-99 34.13%
> Below average 70-84 13.59%
> Borderline low 55-69 2.14%
> Low <55 0.13%


Yes, that's pretty much it.


----------



## Sellihca

agokcen said:


> Wowzers. On the contrary -- I find that INTJs are often the _most_ arrogant. Their extreme focus on their subject(s) of choice makes it easier for them to hide their superiority complexes, but they are among the most self-loving people I've ever met! (Don't let me make this sound like a bad thing. I love INTJs with a passion.)
> 
> That said, I must confess that the only people who ever outsmart me are INTJs, without fail. In arguments, I can win against most any foe...unless said foe is an INTJ. Somehow, they always win, dammit! So frustrating, yet such a turn-on. (I hesitate to mention this because it sounds like bragging, but just for the record, my IQ literally is around genius level, so I actually have reason to be taken aback when I find myself outwitted. I don't rely on just IQ tests to get an idea of intelligence, though, of course. All in all, I'm not just an underachieving NT who likes to think herself secretly brilliant.) I have to agree that, when basic intelligence is about even for both parties, INTJs seem to come out on top. It's their stupid, amazing Ni, of which I'm super jealous.
> 
> Also, my extreme superiority complex is really more a matter of how I was raised, and not my NT-ness. My parents taught me to be confident and love myself, and it worked a little too well. Nothing wrong with that, so long as there's some substance to back up the ego! If there's nothing but hot air in that overinflated head, sooner or later it's going to burst...


Wow you're batshit crazy. :laughing:


----------



## jds

I did not read the whole thread. 

Do we have a superiority complex? 
I think it's bad to have such a broad question, no matter the answer the whole group would be labeled as one thing, which leads to stereotypes, and I'm not really that fond of them. 

Just to ramble a bit.. Superior in what sense? A superior human being? That would be foolish in my opinion. I would be afraid that such a sense of superiority would blind me from realizing the strengths others possess.


----------



## Peter

jds said:


> I did not read the whole thread.
> 
> Do we have a superiority complex?
> I think it's bad to have such a broad question, no matter the answer the whole group would be labeled as one thing, which leads to stereotypes, and I'm not really that fond of them.
> 
> Just to ramble a bit.. Superior in what sense? A superior human being? That would be foolish in my opinion. I would be afraid that such a sense of superiority would blind me from realizing the strengths others possess.


Don't worry so much. There's nothing wrong with stereotypes. It's just a way of dealing with the differences between people. The MBTI is already a form of stereotyping, yet you call yourself an INTJ.

I'm surprised about your reply by the way. It's more an F way or reasing.


----------



## jds

Peter said:


> Don't worry so much. There's nothing wrong with stereotypes. It's just a way of dealing with the differences between people. The MBTI is already a form of stereotyping, yet you call yourself an INTJ.
> 
> I'm surprised about your reply by the way. It's more an F way or reasing.


I think what I was referring to is a lot more negative and unjustified than what the MBTI test does. The way the MBTI test might stereotype people by putting them in groups of personality types is a lot more justified since these people did take a test. So it's somewhat measured. 

As for you being surprised about my reply, I think this is exactly the type of thing that happens when you cast stereotypes on an individual that says he is from x group, yes I am an INTJ but there are differences between INTJ's. I think it's more important to focus on individuals.


----------



## Peter

jds said:


> I think what I was referring to is a lot more negative and unjustified than what the MBTI test does. The way the MBTI test might stereotype people by putting them in groups of personality types is a lot more justified since these people did take a test. So it's somewhat measured.
> 
> As for you being surprised about my reply, I think this is exactly the type of thing that happens when you cast stereotypes on an individual that says he is from x group, yes I am an INTJ but there are differences between INTJ's. I think it's more important to focus on individuals.


Focussing on individuals is definitely an F trait.


----------



## agokcen

Sellihca said:


> Wow you're batshit crazy. :laughing:


Pshhh. Tell me something I don't know!


----------



## Excido

I suspect the IQ test is made by and for NT's, and explains why I score in the genius range. It avoids other sorts of intelligence that are not as calculated. 

When I have a random encounter and end up discussing something I have studied, I do get a sense of superiority in a way. However, I recognize it is not something the other person has spent effort on, or not much effort anyway. When discussing a topic with an expert in the field, it feels more like a normal conversation and that feeling goes away. 

When I meet an extrovert and end up comparing it to my introversion, I end up feeling very humbled by what they are able and willing to do. Sometimes that goes so far as to make me feel like quite a failure, despite what other advantages I might have.


----------



## Sellihca

Haha. Intellectuals excel on a test designed to measure intellect? You don't say? How unfair!

And let me add:

You are not a genius. You do not score in the genius range. Leonardo da Vinci was a genius. You are nothing.


----------



## lirulin

I score in the genius range too. 
I think though, everyone knows it is a bit of a misnomer and that genius is more than IQ. Even those of us who get a number in the designated "genius range." It's just a name. (And in my case, a product of taking too many tests. Thanks parents.)


----------



## Excido

Sellihca said:


> Haha. Intellectuals excel on a test designed to measure intellect? You don't say? How unfair!
> 
> And let me add:
> 
> You are not a genius. You do not score in the genius range. Leonardo da Vinci was a genius. You are nothing.


You don't even know me, but thanks for the vote of confidence. You are very kind.


----------



## Jerick

Where's this IQ test at?


----------



## Peter

Jerick said:


> Where's this IQ test at?


Google it. But considering you had to ask, maybe you don't want to know. :laughing:


----------



## Think

No, we do not have a superiority complex. We know we are.


----------



## Sellihca

NithinAG said:


> No we do not have a superiority complex. We know we are.


Yeah thanks for exactly this comment #842.


----------



## Peter

NithinAG said:


> No we do not have a superiority complex. We know we are.


You know you are a superiority complex? Interesting.


----------



## MuffinPwnz

HannibalLecter said:


> I am an INTJ and I _know_ that I am better than others. It's not a superiority complex - it's the truth.


 My hero... Bow*


----------



## Think

Peter said:


> You know you are a superiority complex? Interesting.


lol

we know we are superior.


----------



## amanda32

NithinAG said:


> lol
> 
> we know we are superior.


A perfect example of what INTJ's like to do, play mind games and push buttons. 
A good chunck of you might have the ability to understand abstract ideas, be good at science and math, but I have to say, you seem to suck at romantic and interpersonal relationships due to your lack of empathy, sympathy and deep selfishness.

You might want to tone it down a bit and consider that relationships with others is what brings personal happiness, otherwise you're just an evil genius corporations use and no one likes to be around.


----------



## NiDBiLD

Syock said:


> When I meet an extrovert and end up comparing it to my introversion, I end up feeling very humbled by what they are able and willing to do. Sometimes that goes so far as to make me feel like quite a failure, despite what other advantages I might have.


What do you mean by this? Care to elaborate?


----------



## Mantis

teabiscits said:


> i hope that this forum helps to address this problem for INTP'S. i've helped a few on here to see their true value and helped build confidence in their pursuit of a love interest. although insecurity and awkwardness can be endearing to some so maybe you shouldn't try to change too much, i don't want to find myself saying "oh no i created a monster!":crazy:


I know, that's exactly what I've been thinking, as well. When I was younger I'd try to be on good terms with just about everybody, but I was censoring myself a lot, until I finally realized that the few people I did like and who would've liked me would mis-label me and just move on..fucked up.

I would really like a NF, for instance, but between my absent-mindedness and their proverbial softness/emotionalism, we just might starve.:blushed:


----------



## vel

InvisibleJim said:


> Non sequitur reasoning is non sequitur.
> 
> Surely if I had to share resources with a large number of INTJs ensuring that I could live a comfortable life would be difficult due to a level playing field. The logical conclusion is to maximise our scarcity value.


If it was so valuable to the species, it would have already been maximized by natural selection.



InvisibleJim said:


> because to be perfectly frank we are realists.
> Regardless why should we value your abilities if we personally find no value in them?


you're not the measuring stick though, so what you value and don't value is irrelevant


----------



## HraP

Superiority complex is a complex only when you're not superior compared to the others.


----------



## InvisibleJim

vel said:


> If it was so valuable to the species, it would have already been maximized by natural selection.


Incorrect, a creature if valuable will through nature maximise its potential based upon the various constraints placed upon it.

In the theory of evolution there is no quote 'Survival of the Fittest' what is quoted is that the superior position is the 'most adaptive to change'. Just because something does one activity particularly well does not lead to overgrowing its environment if this is against the notion of adapting to change. In effect too many INTJs would be disadvantageous to the individual. This is a stipulation of the limited resources and space available to us in life. INTJs are 'small group' people by nature but like to have significantly more independence than other types. We have maximised this position by ensuring that our abilities are reasonably scarce so that others require us especially and not vice-versa. Sometimes it is a desirable situation to have no-one reliant upon us.

In effect you are semantically incorrect. The term is* optimized*. Not maximised.

Note that what tends to the optimum for different MBTI types based upon their numbers is upon how they choose to interact with the world.



vel said:


> you're not the measuring stick though, so what you value and don't value is irrelevant


Incorrect again. I am the measuring stick of my reality just as you are to yours. Note that I do not devalue you by claiming your views are irrelevant/stupid etc. What I do simply state is that they are not relevant to mine. Perhaps you should be mutually accepting of this position instead of pretending that my admittance to a lack of value in empathy is a right to attack *my right* to an opinion (a very aggressive act to undertake).

Should we re-engage our common sense and grey matter and agree to disagree?


----------



## Mantis

vel said:


> If it was so valuable to the species, it would have already been maximized by natural selection.



I believe there is a book called "it takes all types" about the myers-briggs personality types-and that phrase just says it all, really.

Without intellectuals to take chances and break into new fields and develop new information, we wouldn't have made it so far in technology and knowledge.

And of course it would not benefit the species if the majority of the population would be NTs..people would all be highly-complex independent thinkers-too much individualism could take its toll on our survival, of course.
Not only that but if most people on the planet would be able to detach themselves from their own instincts the way NTs can, there would be a major drop in births all over the world.

Can you imagine if STs and SFs would be only about 20% of the population? There would be no place for them in a cold-blooded NT-dominated world.

NTs, on the other hand, are best equipped to handle things like social isolation.

My point is "valuable to the species" doesn't mean much, especially when you are an NT and are aware of the fact that we are all programmed to act in a certain way, and that there might be a lot more out there that we cannot grasp.
Most people are dominated by their instincts, if not by their emotions. And as long as you let instinct build your life, you are still a robot, no matter how complex your life gets.
Of course, NTs also get dominated by instincts and emotions every now-and-then, but at least they are always aware of what's happening to them.

People who are not intellectuals see intellectuals as cold, and over-analyzing and possibly party-poopers because they cannot get over their own brain-wiring, and see that there might be more to life than feelings and sensations.
Of course you may argue that there is no real reason to assume that giving into the natural course of living dictated by nature is negative, but that doesn't really matter.
It could be either way. Sometimes nature knows best, so maybe as long as we all keep the thinking to the minimum and go with the flow, we'll be here for another 100.000 years, but will we ever be anything more than just animals? That is the question.
Knowledge gives us power-the power to decide our own fates and rise above the slavery of natural imprints.


----------



## Sellihca

InvisibleJim said:


> Incorrect, a creature if valuable will through nature maximise its potential based upon the various constraints placed upon it.
> 
> In the theory of evolution there is no quote 'Survival of the Fittest' what is quoted is that the superior position is the 'most adaptive to change'. Just because something does one activity particularly well does not lead to overgrowing its environment if this is against the notion of adapting to change. In effect too many INTJs would be disadvantageous to the individual. This is a stipulation of the limited resources and space available to us in life. INTJs are 'small group' people by nature but like to have significantly more independence than other types. We have maximised this position by ensuring that our abilities are reasonably scarce so that others require us especially and not vice-versa. Sometimes it is a desirable situation to have no-one reliant upon us.
> 
> In effect you are semantically incorrect. The term is* optimized*. Not maximised.
> 
> Note that what tends to the optimum for different MBTI types based upon their numbers is upon how they choose to interact with the world.
> 
> 
> 
> Incorrect again. I am the measuring stick of my reality just as you are to yours. Note that I do not devalue you by claiming your views are irrelevant/stupid etc. What I do simply state is that they are not relevant to mine. Perhaps you should be mutually accepting of this position instead of pretending that my admittance to a lack of value in empathy is a right to attack *my right* to an opinion (a very aggressive act to undertake).
> 
> Should we re-engage our common sense and grey matter and agree to disagree?


I'm about to devalue you both precisely because your views are irrelevant/stupid.

Evolutionary theory is not relevant to this discussion. At all. You suppose that 1. NTs have an advantage in the context of natural selection 2. NT parents beget NT kids. Neither of these assumptions hold water.

And INTJs have not "maximized" anything because they have no ability to influence the number of INTJs in the world and thus have no control over INTJ abundance.

And just for the record, I'm not attacking your right to an opinion, I'm attacking your opinion.


----------



## InvisibleJim

Sellihca said:


> I'm about to devalue you both precisely because your views are irrelevant/stupid.
> 
> Evolutionary theory is not relevant to this discussion. At all. You suppose that 1. NTs have an advantage in the context of natural selection 2. NT parents beget NT kids. Neither of these assumptions hold water.
> 
> And INTJs have not "maximized" anything because they have no ability to influence the number of INTJs in the world and thus have no control over INTJ abundance.
> 
> And just for the record, I'm not attacking your right to an opinion, I'm attacking your opinion.


I agree natural selection is irrelevant to this discussion. However I have seen no evidence against or for some sort of generational transferance of brain chemistry. I challenge you to find some.

I will happily agree with you if you offer any evidence. I haven't looked in a while but from my very small and narrow experience it would appear that INTJs tend to clump together to certain areas and to certain families. This is probably both nature and nurture.

As I say, prove me wrong.


----------



## Jerick

InvisibleJim said:


> is a right to attack *my right* to an opinion...Should we re-engage our common sense and grey matter and agree to disagree?


Agreeing to disagree is nonsensical. It also wasn't attack on your "right" to an opinion since she was just saying your opinion is irrelevant in regards to what nature considers superior or not. (who said you have a right to an opinion, anyway?)



> Evolutionary theory is not relevant to this discussion. At all. You suppose that 1. NTs have an advantage in the context of natural selection 2. NT parents beget NT kids.


That's not totally true. INTJ have fewer children on average then ESFJ, for example. That means INTJ are contributing less genes to the gene pool then ESFJ, regardless of which MBTI type their children turn out to be.

If a bird with a yellow beak has 1 kid, while a bird with a blue beak has 6 kids, then the yellow beak won't be totally removed from gene pool, but the blue beak will be more evolutionarily successful, regardless of which color of beak their children have.


----------



## RafaelEnvoy

HraP said:


> Superiority complex is a complex only when you're not superior compared to the others.


Superiority complex is not simply about thinking you are superior when in fact you are not, but assuming that you are without any evidence. The actual truth bears no significance to a complex, the individual believes he/she is superior by default.


----------



## Peter

vel said:


> If NTs were superior they would make up 99% of human population. Clearly it is not so. ESxx and ISxx make up the majority.


You´re confusing quantity and quality. :shocked:


----------



## vel

InvisibleJim said:


> Incorrect, a creature if valuable will through nature maximise its potential based upon the various constraints placed upon it.
> 
> In the theory of evolution there is no quote 'Survival of the Fittest' what is quoted is that the superior position is the 'most adaptive to change'.
> 
> Incorrect again. I am the measuring stick of my reality just as you are to yours.
> 
> Should we re-engage our common sense and grey matter and agree to disagree?


Hate to break it to you but there is just one reality - "mine", "yours" is just a model of it that you built up in your head. What you believe or feel or think is true, doesn't make it true. With my comments I was trying to put things in a bit different perspective for you hoping your Ni will figure it out and understanding will be achieved.



Mantis said:


> I believe there is a book called "it takes all types" about the myers-briggs personality types-and that phrase just says it all, really.


Pretty much. Any NT-types who subscribe to this idea that their functions are superior to functions of others needs to have their version of reality updated. And the reality is that there are many different personality types that have been successfully propagated on and on through thousands of human generations and that all of them have contributed to humanity as it is today and will contribute to your future. Saying your type contributes the most is like saying "oh but my apples contribute more to the fruit basket than your oranges hence my apples are superior" i.e. sounds very silly.



Jerick said:


> Agreeing to disagree is nonsensical. It also wasn't attack on your "right" to an opinion since she was just saying your opinion is irrelevant in regards to what nature considers superior or not. (who said you have a right to an opinion, anyway?)


finally somebody who has his N actually working <3


----------



## InvisibleJim

vel said:


> Hate to break it to you but there is just one reality - "mine", "yours" is just a model of it that you built up in your head. What you believe or feel or think is true, doesn't make it true. With my comments I was trying to put things in a bit different perspective for you hoping your Ni will figure it out and understanding will be achieved.


Then you understand virtually nothing about INTJs, our purpose or how we view the world. Therefore your internal reality is wrong. We actively change reality to match our expectations and therefore in advance of it; you exist seeing what you observed before and then play catchup. Both models are equally wrong from it is actually in occurance.

As I stated everyone has a correct reality from their perspective. It's waste of time to state that someones perspective is incorrect, it correct based upon their ideas. I understand well that you exist in a world where your ideas are subject to the world you inhabit whereas I view the world as changable based upon my ideas.

Regardless, despite your need to derail the thread, the question was 'Are NTs in possession of a Superiority Complex'. My answer is, if the question really is 'Do NTs think they have a higher IQ than other people' the answer is, statistically yes.










On an individual level you will have very very stupid ENTPs and very very smart ESFPs. But all that IQ is is the ability to solve problems and design on this basis.

I do not think that this says anything more about NTs than that and I recognise that other types have other useful preferences. But it is categorically wrong to ignore the evidence and say that the cognitive bundles that NTs carry do not lead to an advanced ability to solve problems.

You will note that this translates directly into who businesses hire for high level positions...








You will note that there are no normalisation of these figures, but what you should note is that across society NTs make up a far smaller percentage than SF's and NF's, so there is some underlying feature of our make up that somehow dictates that we have a purpose improving and guiding business by applying intelligence.

So NFs are a very gifted bunch, but its apparently for something quite different than applying that practically to system like a business which is reliant upon optimizing and providing more for everyone.

I don't think it is right to say based upon the evidence that NTs shouldn't feel that there are some benefits to the cognitive functions we have as we need to do so to realise this and to recognize this to contribute positively to society.

Although I'm not providing an extensive breakdown of this evidence to you or its sources you can find these charts and read the underlying proofs behind them by typing in queries such as 'MBTI IQ' and 'MBTI managers' and then following the papertrail on google images.


----------



## agokcen

InvisibleJim is my hero.

There's nothing for me to add to that. You've covered it!


----------



## vel

Superiority complex is just a symptom of being unable to think objectively. Once you grasp this, you can still feel proud about being who you are - but at the same time not be conceited and arrogant about it.

Of course in your mind you think that your perspective is correct. Everybody thinks so. The world is not static to observe. Every one of us goes out and makes changes in it every day of our lives. But when you make changes, what evidence, what data do you use to decide what to do? The data that you use is a model in your head of what absolute reality is. And this absolute reality is not any different because your model is imperfect and does not correspond to it. This in no way interferes with your ability to make changes (it does factor into you making mistakes hence the expression "we're all human"). Saying that "I am superior because I think I am and I am 100% right at it" is a subjective claim based on your model of the world that is imperfect i.e. it is not the absolute truth. The INTJs who do not have superiority complex issues have at some point in their life deducted this (and this also gives me an idea ...)

Besides IQ you have other measures of intelligence. EQ for example. INTJs are good as solving a certain _subset_ of problems. They are not good at solving all types of problems. This is because once again your perspective and way you reason and feel are all imperfect, as is true of all personality types, so we're all good at something and not other.

That you quoted working in business and companies, once again it is your subjective judgement that being high level businessman is teh best in this world. NF people on the other hand might aspire to be doctors, surgeons, nurses, writers, emergency relief workers, peacekeepers, psychologists, etc. Prove that those profession are inferior to being a businessman in a company. You cannot. So what are the NTs feeling superior about again?


----------



## InvisibleJim

vel said:


> Besides IQ you have other measures of intelligence. EQ for example. INTJs are good as solving a certain _subset_ of problems. They are not good at solving all types of problems. This is because once again your perspective and way you reason and feel are all imperfect, as is true of all personality types, so we're all good at something and not other.


I completely agree. 

Infact I said that everyone has their own skills and that you shouldn't downplay others ideas and abilities.

All I stated is that INTJs are Superior_ at some_ things and INFJs are Superior_ at different _ things. 

What I disagree with is that you assume my perspective is wrong about what I know I can do because it is different from what you do best. You have then argued persistently that I should change to be you because being confident in myself does not match your expectations of what one should be confident about.

In effect that because we are not superior in the particular things that you value that we cannot state we are superior at what we do.

I then provided evidence that certain types are better at certain things, to reassure you, with *evidence* that NTs are especially useful and should infact embrace this. I did not say that this means that others do not have their own unique talents.

Perhaps what you should do, is work out how you are useful and put that into practice rather than complaining that others don't do it and succeed regardless.


----------



## Peter

vel said:


> Besides IQ you have other measures of intelligence. EQ for example. INTJs are good as solving a certain _subset_ of problems. They are not good at solving all types of problems. This is because once again your perspective and way you reason and feel are all imperfect, as is true of all personality types, so we're all good at something and not other.


EQ is an interesting thing. I did an online EQ test once and it said I have a high EQ. I would think most INTJ's have high EQ's because they´re actually very good at dealing with emotions (i.e. they don't make a big deal out of their emotions.) It's the NF types, (especially INFP's) that are more likely to have low EQ's and many of them aren't really good at dealing with their emotions at all. (in other words, they let their emotions guide their lives.)

INTJ's aren't suppose to be very good at dealing with the emotions of others. And that's true if you consider that they deal with the emotions of others the same way they deal with their own emotions (All types do this by the way.) They don't make a big deal out of them and try to explain them. When others need emotional support that's often exactly the opposite of what they want.

When dealing with emotions I'm so happy I'm an INTJ. The amount of time some types spend on their emotions is just amazing. What a waste of time.


----------



## WickedQueen

InvisibleJim said:


>


Look at those numbers. Maaannnn.... I feel so powerful.

ESTJ FTW!!!


----------



## Sellihca

agokcen said:


> InvisibleJim is my hero.
> 
> There's nothing for me to add to that. You've covered it!


Really? Because I'm pretty sure those statistics are complete nonsense, this entire argument about transcendental idealism is cringe-inducing, and the simplest thoughts of IJ are communicated in a style so stilted and bombastic it sounds like he has Asperger's.


----------



## NiDBiLD

InvisibleJim said:


> Incorrect again. I am the measuring stick of my reality just as you are to yours. Note that I do not devalue you by claiming your views are irrelevant/stupid etc. What I do simply state is that they are not relevant to mine. Perhaps you should be mutually accepting of this position instead of pretending that my admittance to a lack of value in empathy is a right to attack *my right* to an opinion (a very aggressive act to undertake).


The phrase "_my reality_" aggrevates me. I understand "_the _reality" and "_my _opinion". Letting those two meet, mate and give birth to the abominable expression "_my reality_" is anathema to all that is reasonable, intelligent and sane.

There is *a* reality. And it's not yours, mine or anyone elses. Reality is what's left if you let go of all your damn opinions about everything and look at what's measurable, and only that. That's what's so great about reality. It can be objectively measured, so there is no need for opinions or views about anything that can be proven or disproven.

One might have a "_right to an opinion_". This is irrelevant, though, as this does not make ones opinion "_right_". This is a common mistake. Opinions are by definition irrelevant. If something can be measured, opinions and beliefs about this are superfluous, and one should make measurements instead. If there is no way to measure an item of debate, the entire debate is superfluous and should be ended since no objective conclusion can be made.

If one is to know if NTs are superior, one has to first define "NTs" and "superiority" and then test NTs and other types against this definition.

Depending on the definitions of NTs and superiority, "NTs" may or may not be "superior".


----------



## InvisibleJim

Sellihca said:


> Really? Because I'm pretty sure those statistics are complete nonsense, this entire argument about transcendental idealism is cringe-inducing, and the simplest thoughts of IJ are communicated in a style so stilted and bombastic it sounds like he has Asperger's.


Only one of us here has been deduced to the ludricous position of ad hominem attacks and applying labels to the others condition because they disagree with your narrow opinion. Perhaps you should check your compass about whether you are here to reach a real understanding or to pick a fight.

I'm amused by the statement 'I'm sure those statistics are nonsense'. How about you stop wasting time and go prove them wrong or provide alternate stastics rather than assuming that the statistics are nonsense. If you are going to state how wrong I am then prove it and I will admit it; don't make gross assumptions about data quality just because you cannot find any proof to back your incorrect opinion.

So put your money where your mouth is and provide some sort of evidence to back up your claims, I have done so, I endear you to do better. Either that or back away with dignity.


----------



## InvisibleJim

WickedQueen said:


> Look at those numbers. Maaannnn.... I feel so powerful.
> 
> ESTJ FTW!!!


Much power to the saying 'If you wan't something done properly get an STJ to do it!'


----------



## Sellihca

InvisibleJim said:


> Only one of us here has been deduced to the ludricous position of ad hominem attacks and applying labels to the others condition because they disagree with your narrow opinion. Perhaps you should check your compass about whether you are here to reach a real understanding or to pick a fight.
> 
> I'm amused by the statement 'I'm sure those statistics are nonsense'. How about you stop wasting time and go prove them wrong or provide alternate stastics rather than assuming that the statistics are nonsense. If you are going to state how wrong I am then prove it and I will admit it; don't make gross assumptions about data quality just because you cannot find any proof to back your incorrect opinion.
> 
> So put your money where your mouth is and provide some sort of evidence to back up your claims, I have done so, I endear you to do better. Either that or back away with dignity.


So the burden's on me to provide context for random graphs you snatched off google images that indicate 0.0 ISFP executives in the whole sample?? Don't think it works that way.

And just for your own self-improvement, you have some kind of speech pathology, every sentence is so bizarrely constructed and straining desperately for unneeded complexity its really unpleasant to have to sift through them.


----------



## beth x

Personal attacks always get to the crux of an argument.


----------



## Sellihca

I endear you to do better. :crazy:


----------



## beth x

I already am.


----------



## Sellihca

Do you expect me not to say anything when the man is spouting gems like "I endear you to do better"? Malaprop anyone? That's not even a coherent thought. 

Welcome to the big boy table.


----------



## beth x

Indeed I do. Attack the ideas and back up your statements with facts or good theories. Don't attack the individual. It says more about you than what it does about the debate.


----------



## Peter

Sellihca said:


> So the burden's on me to provide context for random graphs you snatched off google images that indicate 0.0 ISFP executives in the whole sample?? Don't think it works that way.
> 
> And just for your own self-improvement, you have some kind of speech pathology, every sentence is so bizarrely constructed and straining desperately for unneeded complexity its really unpleasant to have to sift through them.


Classic Strategy: If you can't win on content, go for personal attacks. That works in politics, but in here not really.


----------



## lirulin

You made a perfectly valid point: picking a few graphs off of google images says little to nothing for their credibility. I am as skeptical as you on their content. And yeah, his wording is more than a little odd (and amusing). Still. Tempting (and amusing) as it is, the accusations aren't really doing anything for your argument.


----------



## InvisibleJim

lirulin said:


> You made a perfectly valid point: picking a few graphs off of google images says little to nothing for their credibility. I am as skeptical as you on their content.


This is a fair point; these are the results of various PhD studies that float about from CalTec etc. However, with a lack of any other information to benchmark these against I draw my conclusions about how to proceed from the only information available. 

These statistics are probably suspect to the errors of small numbers statistically, but they are the only numbers I can find. Please show me more so that I can make a better informed decision. Don't just say 'You're wrong, you're wrong, you're wrong!!'

One should also ponder stochastically that when dealing with statistics just because there are a small number of samples this does not mean that the breakdown is neccessarily wrong and with big samples that they are neccessarily correct; just that there is a greater chance that with more samples the statistics are correct.

What I actually think is that the MBTI testing is generally fluff: people with similarly outlooks and approaches tick certain boxes, thats all: So someone who ticks an NT box is more likely to have the skills and outlook to be in a managerial or highly skilled role. Someone with an ST box is more likely to follow through consistently or be a team leader etc.

There is a great study with over 3000 samples which shows that a disproportionate number of STPs are in prison; does this mean that people who have studied their cognitive functions and decided they are STP are criminals? No. But it does mean that people in prison are more likely to tick certain boxes in an MBTI test.


----------



## vel

InvisibleJim said:


> What I disagree with is that you assume my perspective is wrong about what I know I can do because it is different from what you do best. You have then argued persistently that I should change to be you because being confident in myself does not match your expectations of what one should be confident about.


People can discuss and find understanding without "changing" into one another. Only on PerC forums you find others saying "I don't have to listen to you or try to understand you, and you will never understand me" and point out to your MBTI type as way to end any discussion. I am beginning to understand why people complain about the "labeling" as they call it. I certainly was not discussing you "being confident" but as the topic of the thread suggests the discussion was about NT types coming off as thinking that they are better than other MBTI types. I am glad you agreed that you guys are not superior form of a human being, just better at doing some tasks in life, so we have nothing more to discuss. See? You didn't have to turn into me after all.

Also I don't see where I am saying NTs are not useful to society. That argument was pulled out of thin air.



Peter said:


> EQ is an interesting thing. I did an online EQ test once and it said I have a high EQ. I would think most INTJ's have high EQ's because they´re actually very good at dealing with emotions (i.e. they don't make a big deal out of their emotions.)
> 
> It's the NF types, (especially INFP's) that are more likely to have low EQ's and many of them aren't really good at dealing with their emotions at all. (in other words, they let their emotions guide their lives.)
> 
> INTJ's aren't suppose to be very good at dealing with the emotions of others. And that's true if you consider that they deal with the emotions of others the same way they deal with their own emotions (All types do this by the way.) They don't make a big deal out of them and try to explain them. When others need emotional support that's often exactly the opposite of what they want.
> 
> When dealing with emotions I'm so happy I'm an INTJ. The amount of time some types spend on their emotions is just amazing. What a waste of time.


You misunderstand emotions. It is simply an alternate inbuilt computational system that takes input from outside world and calculates interactions with other individuals of your kind. Emotional intelligence is not "not making a big deal" of having emotions but ability to correctly recognize your and other people's emotions and take appropriate actions. While NTs are good at recognizing their own emotions, they are on average not good at recognizing other people's emotions (notice how I said on average, not you personally). This leads to the phenomenon of when you visit INTJ forums for example there would be requests for very basic relationship advice that to me sounds like "duh!" but I give advice anyways.

Not all NF types are good at recognizing their own emotions and dealing with them. But they will always be better at recognizing emotions in other people. INTJs I noticed can barely feel and understand what it feels like to be other people, hence it is common for you guys to tell others "you will never understand me" as a way to end a debate. Because you think others are like you. You lack understanding hence others are also incapable of it.

As for feelings being a waste, NF stance on it is that it is better to live a fully human life. Wonder why people sometimes call NTs robots? yeah ... If you are a feeler you can start thinking any time, but as a thinker you cannot feel without having a reason to it. For many experiences in life you simply won't compute a reason and not feel anything or not feel appropriate emotions.


----------



## beth x

vel said:


> People can discuss and find understanding without "changing" into one another. Only on PerC forums you find others saying "I don't have to listen to you or try to understand you, and you will never understand me" and point out to your MBTI type as way to end any discussion. I am beginning to understand why people complain about the "labeling" as they call it. I certainly was not discussing you "being confident" but as the topic of the thread suggests the discussion was about NT types coming off as thinking that they are better than other MBTI types. I am glad you agreed that you guys are not superior form of a human being, just better at doing some tasks in life, so we have nothing more to discuss. See? You didn't have to turn into me after all.
> 
> Also I don't see where I am saying NTs are not useful to society. That argument was pulled out of thin air.
> 
> 
> You misunderstand emotions. It is simply an alternate inbuilt computational system that takes input from outside world and calculates interactions with other individuals of your kind. Emotional intelligence is not "not making a big deal" of having emotions but ability to correctly recognize your and other people's emotions and take appropriate actions. While NTs are good at recognizing their own emotions, they are on average not good at recognizing other people's emotions (notice how I said on average, not you personally). This leads to the phenomenon of when you visit INTJ forums for example there would be requests for very basic relationship advice that to me sounds like "duh!" but I give advice anyways.
> 
> Not all NF types are good at recognizing their own emotions and dealing with them. But they will always be better at recognizing emotions in other people. INTJs I noticed can barely feel and understand what it feels like to be other people, hence it is common for you guys to tell others "you will never understand me" as a way to end a debate. Because you think others are like you. You lack understanding hence others are also incapable of it.
> 
> As for feelings being a waste, NF stance on it is that it is better to live a fully human life. Wonder why people sometimes call NTs robots? yeah ... If you are a feeler you can start thinking any time, but as a thinker you cannot feel without having a reason to it. For many experiences in life you simply won't compute a reason and not feel anything or not feel appropriate emotions.


I am pretty sure on average that NT's could be quite good at judging another person's emotions. I have read that INTJ profile has suited them being psychologists. Therefore quite capable of sorting through what feeling is "valid" and likely to lead to "adaptable" behaviours as a form of process to "invalid" and what would lead to "maladaptive" behaviours. It simply isn't that cut and dried.


----------



## lirulin

InvisibleJim said:


> This is a fair point; these are the results of various PhD studies that float about from CalTec etc. However, with a lack of any other information to benchmark these against I draw my conclusions about how to proceed from the only information available.
> 
> These statistics are probably suspect to the errors of small numbers statistically, but they are the only numbers I can find. Please show me more so that I can make a better informed decision. Don't just say 'You're wrong, you're wrong, you're wrong!!'
> 
> One should also ponder stochastically that when dealing with statistics just because there are a small number of samples this does not mean that the breakdown is neccessarily wrong and with big samples that they are neccessarily correct; just that there is a greater chance that with more samples the statistics are correct.
> 
> What I actually think is that the MBTI testing is generally fluff: people with similarly outlooks and approaches tick certain boxes, thats all: So someone who ticks an NT box is more likely to have the skills and outlook to be in a managerial or highly skilled role. Someone with an ST box is more likely to follow through consistently or be a team leader etc.
> 
> There is a great study with over 3000 samples which shows that a disproportionate number of STPs are in prison; does this mean that people who have studied their cognitive functions and decided they are STP are criminals? No. But it does mean that people in prison are more likely to tick certain boxes in an MBTI test.


I'm not saying You're wrong! I'm saying I'm skeptical. And I remains so because I don't care enough to do more research for you. You chose to show mildly fluff graphs so you cannot make too strong statements based on them. As long as you aren't drawing ridiculous conclusions from inadequate data there is no issue. I remain skeptical, lazy and indifferant, and you do your own thing. But it's not my job to bolster your weak stats. I would just attack your statements if you were trying to say they were the gospel truth or something. Since I don't think you were, I am not. Everything is peachy...


----------



## Peter

vel said:


> You misunderstand emotions. It is simply an alternate inbuilt computational system that takes input from outside world and calculates interactions with other individuals of your kind. Emotional intelligence is not "not making a big deal" of having emotions but ability to correctly recognize your and other people's emotions and take appropriate actions. While NTs are good at recognizing their own emotions, they are on average not good at recognizing other people's emotions (notice how I said on average, not you personally). This leads to the phenomenon of when you visit INTJ forums for example there would be requests for very basic relationship advice that to me sounds like "duh!" but I give advice anyways.
> 
> Not all NF types are good at recognizing their own emotions and dealing with them. But they will always be better at recognizing emotions in other people. INTJs I noticed can barely feel and understand what it feels like to be other people, hence it is common for you guys to tell others "you will never understand me" as a way to end a debate. Because you think others are like you. You lack understanding hence others are also incapable of it.
> 
> As for feelings being a waste, NF stance on it is that it is better to live a fully human life. Wonder why people sometimes call NTs robots? yeah ... If you are a feeler you can start thinking any time, but as a thinker you cannot feel without having a reason to it. For many experiences in life you simply won't compute a reason and not feel anything or not feel appropriate emotions.


You´re right, I don't feel what people feel, but I can recognize their emotions pretty easily. Something I learned over time recognizing body language and facial expressions.

I didn't say feelings are a waste. What I said was that the amount of time spend on dealing with emotions is a waste of time. What's wasted is time, not feelings.

Besides that I can accept most of what you said, except for the idea that living a fully human life somehow requires lots of emotions. Most people that have lots of emotions seem to be very unhappy a lot. If that's needed to live a fully human life, then I am very happy I'm not fully human. (You know, just like gods aren't fully human. :laughing


----------



## vel

Peter said:


> I didn't say feelings are a waste. What I said was that the amount of time spend on dealing with emotions is a waste of time. What's wasted is time, not feelings.


There is actually some good discussion here in this thread about feelers and thinkers. Especially good post on page 3 by Ghrim: personalitycafe.com/myers-briggs-forum/3629-thinker-feeler-differences.html

Feelings are basically used to process a value system. This value system is oriented at people and relationships. Value system of thinkers is different. It places people and relationships at low consideration, so obviously feeler value system seems pointless and hence your comment. Except when one finds himself or herself in a tricky social situation where one has offended somebody and doesn't know why or doesn't know how to attract a particular individual to oneself. For that moment it becomes important.

I still haven't understood these processes completely though. Need to read more about this. It still doesn't explain why, for example, I sometimes want to hug a tree <3


----------



## Nexus6

Peter said:


> Classic Strategy: If you can't win on content, go for personal attacks. That works in politics, but in here not really.


Ad hominem attacks don't work anywhere in my opinion. They are surest way for me to dismiss an argument entirely.


----------



## Nexus6

While it's fun to discuss and think about the various abstract applications of the MBTI, the test lacks predictive validity. People can draw their own personal conclusions about INTJs, but frankly they are probably subjectively based in their own personal experiences and therefore not very valid. I basically can't even get annoyed with that, because there would be no point. People are entitled to their opinions, however incorrect or misled. 

I'm very in touch with my "warm fuzzy" side, I just don't parade it around for everyone to see, and sometimes, I would definitely appreciate the same from others.


----------



## Peter

vel said:


> There is actually some good discussion here in this thread about feelers and thinkers. Especially good post on page 3 by Ghrim: personalitycafe.com/myers-briggs-forum/3629-thinker-feeler-differences.html
> 
> Feelings are basically used to process a value system. This value system is oriented at people and relationships. Value system of thinkers is different. It places people and relationships at low consideration, so obviously feeler value system seems pointless and hence your comment. Except when one finds himself or herself in a tricky social situation where one has offended somebody and doesn't know why or doesn't know how to attract a particular individual to oneself. For that moment it becomes important.
> 
> I still haven't understood these processes completely though. Need to read more about this. It still doesn't explain why, for example, I sometimes want to hug a tree <3


I don't totally agree with the idea that Thinkers put people and relationships at low consideration. (though many thinkers and feelers actually think that.) I think that Thinkers deal with people and relationships in a logical way. In stead of something feeling right, it makes sense and just like you can make errors in logic, you can also have felt wrong about something.

I have a very strongly developped value system. Honesty and fairness being the most important values.


----------



## Sellihca

Nexus6 said:


> Ad hominem attacks don't work anywhere in my opinion. They are surest way for me to dismiss an argument entirely.


I'm comforted by the fact that your opinion is of no consequence.


----------



## Peter

Nexus6 said:


> Ad hominem attacks don't work anywhere in my opinion. They are surest way for me to dismiss an argument entirely.


In politics that's often a desired goal. :happy:


----------



## killerB

Each personality has its strengths and weaknesses. NTs do tend to understand the system of things, not people. They can see patterns and understand how 'things' work. That of course is benficial for system analysis and such, having a backup plan and so on, etc. However, NTs have an Achilies heel also. They can not see(or rather give consideration to) the emotional system that people experience, and put that together. That is where NFs excelle. We can see how people interreact and see the system emotions cause and acertain the outcomes as NTs can see what computer system will do what, and how people can be put to use best.

Case in point, my boss is a INTJ and once he figured out I am an INFJ, he promptly asked me to work as a force to help keep the balance emotionally in a part of our company while it underwent radical changes. He said "I have tried to figure this out but no one is very logical here with this happening. People continue to be unhappy and upset. You are touchy-feelie and you are able to help me with this, so I am requesting you do this, please." 

The greatest lacking a NT has is their refusal to give much weight to the emotions that cause people to do what they do. Do not think this means they lack emotion, they don't. All the explaining in the world will not work, they are convinced that they are correct or "I take emotion into account but I eschew it and that is that".

The only help for it is to let them be and love them for what they are. I fell in love with, and married an INTJ, baby you can be superior if you wish.


----------



## Nexus6

Sellihca said:


> I'm comforted by the fact that your opinion is of no consequence.


Well also be comforted by the fact that ad hominem attacks being erroneous isn't just my "opinion" - ad hominem attacks are a fallacy of reason. So that actually is "of consequence", for the purposes of argumentation.


----------



## lirulin

Of course NTs can understand emotional systems if they want to. They just don't always want to and they tend to understand them in terms of science, psychology, sociology, mbti, or anything that can make some sort of rational sense. Most emotions have some sort of reason, if you look into it deeply enough. Usually people just don't give the real reasons for their actions, so they sound completely irrational, sometimes because they don't want to admit their real motives, or because they lack insight. But there is generally something there that can be analysed.


----------



## Blue Butterfly

lirulin said:


> Of course NTs can understand emotional systems if they want to. They just don't always want to and they tend to understand them in terms of science, psychology, sociology, mbti, or anything that can make some sort of rational sense. Most emotions have some sort of reason, if you look into it deeply enough. Usually people just don't give the real reasons for their actions, so they sound completely irrational, sometimes because they don't want to admit their real motives, or because they lack insight. But there is generally something there that can be analysed.


 
Every emotion is logical even though most logical reasons for them are hidden. I have studied this subject for 40 years searching for an illogical emotion and have not found even one. If one digs deep into the core of each emotion there is a logical explainable reason.


----------



## RafaelEnvoy

Blue Butterfly said:


> Every emotion is logical even though most logical reasons for them are hidden. I have studied this subject for 40 years searching for an illogical emotion and have not found even one. If one digs deep into the core of each emotion there is a logical explainable reason.


Although emotions are explainable, claiming they are logical is an entirely different thing. To be logical, an emotion must be capable of constituting a logical premise or a logical conclusion. It is perfectly possible to reason _about_ an emotion, but not to reason _with_ an emotion.


----------



## Sellihca

Nexus6 said:


> Well also be comforted by the fact that ad hominem attacks being erroneous isn't just my "opinion" - ad hominem attacks are a fallacy of reason. So that actually is "of consequence", for the purposes of argumentation.


It wasn't part of my reasoning, sweetheart. It was a comment on the cadence of the exchange. I thought that much was obvious.


----------



## Peter

RafaelEnvoy said:


> Although emotions are explainable, claiming they are logical is an entirely different thing. To be logical, an emotion must be capable of constituting a logical premise or a logical conclusion. It is perfectly possible to reason _about_ an emotion, but not to reason _with_ an emotion.


Emotions are caused by logical steps. If there seems to be no rational cause for an emotion, it just means not all the needed information is available. Emotions in the end are just patterns in the brain, just like visual information is just a pattern in the brain. The same applies for sound and the same also applies to ideas, concepts, feelings, etc. etc. etc. Everything in the brain is patterns, nothing more, nothing less. Therefore, a feeling is the result of the exact same processes as a logical conclusion is. Since a logical conclusion is reached logically, a feeling is also reached logically.

Mistakes do happen of course. Therefore logical conclusions can be wrong, just like feelings can be wrong.


----------



## beth x

lirulin said:


> Of course NTs can understand emotional systems if they want to. They just don't always want to and they tend to understand them in terms of science, psychology, sociology, mbti, or anything that can make some sort of rational sense. Most emotions have some sort of reason, if you look into it deeply enough. Usually people just don't give the real reasons for their actions, so they sound completely irrational, sometimes because they don't want to admit their real motives, or because they lack insight. But there is generally something there that can be analysed.


This thread is starting to remind me of an old relationship. I have quoted Lirulin as she has made a point which I wanted to expand on. Emotionally....guffaw.

I wanted to understand my INFJ ex and he always managed to keep me as puzzled as fuck.....I think I probably understood more of his emotions than what he did though....LOL...he is just starting to understand what a bitch he was.

I always wondered why he had so many meltdowns over such trivial things. I didn't look overjoyed to see him walk in when I was deep in study, apparently, which was a source of 3 long hour arguments. He would throw "is this how it is going to be?" into the fray. Of course I tried to give him a nice look each time afterwards (can you imagine the fake smile) just so I wouldn't have the same arguments....Do you think my attempts were recognised. I ended up saying. "I am actually working here, doing something worthwhile"....I can understand he was insecure now as I did then. I made other attempts to alleviate his insecurity which were also unrecognised...pffft....needless to say he is an ex.

I could generalise to say that all INFJs are like this to all Fs but it isn't really helpful to stereotype. I have seen INTJs being called robots all over the place and it is really becoming quite boring. I know I just keep tantrums to myself whether I want to blitzkrieg over another or not. Nobody seems to understand that I am deeper in emotions because I don't care to wear everything hanging out like a big hairy ball sack blowing in the breeze. 

I wonder how many other types would give an engaging smile while they were unwelcomely interrupted, deep in thought, finishing an assignment, in the bath. I know my ex really hated interruptions which adds to the lunacy of the above situation.

I feel as if I were to be impolite to downright abusive to others by acting on an emotional blitzkrieig....it's a lack of self responsibilty to impose these kinds of futile emotions on to another....The down side to being this way is? I can't think of any. Does this make me feel superior? No....just a little less crazed than some.:dry:


----------



## InvisibleJim

Sellihca said:


> It wasn't part of my reasoning, sweetheart.


I guess you aren't done spitting out your dummy yet?

Go on, put it back in and spit again! You're doing really well keep it up! Bravo.


----------



## Nexus6

Sellihca said:


> It wasn't part of my reasoning, sweetheart. It was a comment on the cadence of the exchange. I thought that much was obvious.


What is obvious is that you are taking offense where none was intended [from my part anyway], and you are behaving in a way that betrays your personal sensitivity to the issue, possibly hence the ad hominem attacks. That is contrary to what you profess in your sig block. You are a thinker, right?

My point was that I would like to listen to what people have to say, but when they resort to the kinds of argumentation which they learned on a second grade playground, I tend to dismiss them.

I will say you made some interesting points, and the entire exchange was very thought provoking and interesting on many levels. It was good such a variety of "types" commented as well, which added so much depth to the discussion.


----------



## Sellihca

Nexus6 said:


> What is obvious is that you are taking offense where none was intended [from my part anyway], and you are behaving in a way that betrays your personal sensitivity to the issue, possibly hence the ad hominem attacks. That is contrary to what you profess in your sig block. You are a thinker, right?
> 
> My point was that I would like to listen to what people have to say, but when they resort to the kinds of argumentation which they learned on a second grade playground, I tend to dismiss them.
> 
> I will say you made some interesting points, and the entire exchange was very thought provoking and interesting on many levels. It was good such a variety of "types" commented as well, which added so much depth to the discussion.


Yeah I'm terribly offended, whatever, nonsense aside, you have comically misinterpreted my sig line. It's a statement by the narrator of the Illiad after Achilles (my name) kills Hector. "Feel" as in the sensation of physical pain and death, not emotion.


----------



## Nexus6

My apologies lirulin, it isn't my intention to derail the discussion.


----------



## lirulin

stop derailing the thread.


----------



## Sellihca

Well thank God the thread wasn't derailed and we were permitted all this insightful discourse.


----------



## Foziya

The superiority complex is my least favorite personality trait. At least of the non-violent personality traits.

Do you have a superiority complex? Just ask yourself: "Do I walk into every room assuming I'm the smartest person there?" Or if you can't pass yourself off as smartest, just generally better than everyone else?

You know the song "All I Wanna Do Is Have Some Fun"? The narrator has a huge superiority complex. She walks into a bar in the afternoon and this is what she thinks about a total stranger she just met:

_He says his name's William but I'm sure, _
_He's Bill or Billy or Mac or Buddy _
_And he's plain ugly to me _
_And I wonder if he's ever had a day of fun in his whole _
_life _

WTF, lady? You know, you're_ also_ in a bar in the middle of the day. A guy tells you his name is William, but you think he's_ wrong_ and his name is really something you consider stereotypical of someone you mock. And based on your knowing him for 0 minutes, you can tell that he's never had a day of real fun in his whole life. Because what kind of loser would be in a bar in the middle of the afternoon. (Because you have a good reason and that doesn't count)


----------



## Sellihca

That is the strangest thing I've ever read.


----------



## JJMTBC

I'm curious as to what makes an NT believe that he or she is better, or superior than another?


----------



## RafaelEnvoy

JJMTBC said:


> I'm curious as to what makes an NT believe that he or she is better, or superior than another?


The exact same thing that makes so for every human being: The inferiority of others.



Have we reached the end of the "complain about an NT" thread already?


----------



## JJMTBC

RafaelEnvoy said:


> The exact same thing that makes so for every human being: The inferiority of others.
> 
> 
> 
> Have we reached the end of the "complain about an NT" thread already?



That's kind of a vague and indirect response.. I just don't get why others feel superior? 

For example, if it's intelligence, there is not much one can do to control that, and in fact, the inferior individual either is completely unaware, or is not actually inferior at, or is attempting to improve upon those attributes that need developing. 

Why do people feel superior? I'm curious to know. Also, sometimes I believe that the inferior people may not deserve to be looked down upon.


----------



## Peter

JJMTBC said:


> That's kind of a vague and indirect response.. I just don't get why others feel superior?
> 
> For example, if it's intelligence, there is not much one can do to control that, and in fact, the inferior individual either is completely unaware, or is not actually inferior at, or is attempting to improve upon those attributes that need developing.
> 
> Why do people feel superior? I'm curious to know. Also, sometimes I believe that the inferior people may not deserve to be looked down upon.


Survival strategy of nature. It's how evolution works.


----------



## Sellihca

Peter said:


> Survival strategy of nature. It's how evolution works.


 Hmm, what could this possibly mean? Is it adaptive to think of oneself as superior?


----------



## Peter

Sellihca said:


> Hmm, what could this possibly mean? Is it adaptive to think of oneself as superior?


It means that in order to compete, you need to think/believe you can actually win. That means you think/believe you´re better than the other(s).


----------



## Sellihca

So then all humans would have a genetically ingrained superiority complex, which they don't.


----------



## Peter

Sellihca said:


> So then all humans would have a genetically ingrained superiority complex, which they don't.


That's taking it too far. When you have a superiority complex, you´re not being rational anymore. You'll think you´re superior in general. This makes it a complex. But you can say that all humans (the healthy ones at least) are genetically ingrained with the need to compete.

Ofcourse there is also the need to work together, the need to help, etc. etc. etc. But when your need to compete takes over your whole being, you can say you have a superiority complex.


----------



## Nexus6

Sellihca said:


> That is the strangest thing I've ever read.


That wasn't strange. That was an ENFJ "sweetcheeks".


----------



## Sellihca

Why does it matter that she's an ENFJ? Because ENFJs say strange things?

So it was strange? You're excused.


----------



## killerB

RafaelEnvoy said:


> Have we reached the end of the "complain about an NT" thread already?


 


I think that it's actually pretty superior acting to complain about NTs and bash them for being more 'intellectually outward' than other types. Someone has to think about the heavier aspects in life. Someone has to be more antalytical and that person is NOT me. LOL LOL LOL


----------



## AutumnTiger

Promethea said:


> It could also be that NTs are typically seen as odd children, and don't belong to social groups as much, which gives them time to develop interests other then hanging out and bullshitting, running their mouths about nothing to other people all the time. They may sit for hours reading, or pursuing other intellectual interests. It gives them a better foundation for later on when they do decide to open their mouths.
> 
> Whatever the case, I don't think that I'm superior to everyone - but I value my autonomy more than anything, and have a fierce pride. I also show respect to individuals, and expect it shown in return, with neither of our personal boundaries tread across.


 
I don't have a superiority complex, but I agree that when I was younger, and even now, my interest lie in learning and not socializing. The world needs ALL types and one type is NOT better than any other. Atleast in my humble opinion. 
:wink:


----------



## RafaelEnvoy

killerB said:


> I think that it's actually pretty superior acting to complain about NTs and bash them for being more 'intellectually outward' than other types. Someone has to think about the heavier aspects in life. Someone has to be more antalytical and that person is NOT me. LOL LOL LOL


Intellectuality is a choice, really. I've seen just as many brilliant and eloquent NFs as I've seem stupid and futile NTs. Perhaps even more. Anyway, don't let other people do your thinking for you. :wink:

About thinking about the "heavier aspects of life", I'm not quite sure I do that. I think all day long and it is a miracle if any of that actually has anything to do with my life directly. "Reality" isn't my greatest concern by far.

From my understanding, INFJs tend to be pretty analytical as well; though usually interested on different subjects, or in the same subject for different reasons. Such posture probably is due to introversion and intuition leading to a reflective personality.


----------



## vel

Sellihca said:


> So then all humans would have a genetically ingrained superiority complex, which they don't.


that's because competition within your species isn't the only evolutionary successful approach
you also win by cooperation with others of your kind
F-types favor cooperation within species as winning strategy, T-types favor competition within species

also, poasting on 17th page of NT superiority complex thread >.<


----------



## Peter

vel said:


> that's because competition within your species isn't the only evolutionary successful approach
> you also win by cooperation with others of your kind


Actually, you can bring almost everything back to competition. Cooperation is just a better way to compete. Even when you don't compete with others of the same species, you could be competing with animals (hunting) or you could be competing against the weather. You can even be competing against yourself. It really is all about survival.


----------



## vel

Peter said:


> Actually, you can bring almost everything back to competition. Cooperation is just a better way to compete. Even when you don't compete with others of the same species, you could be competing with animals (hunting) or you could be competing against the weather. You can even be competing against yourself. It really is all about survival.


Even with other species it is a balance between competition and cooperation. We put much time and effort into raising the animals and plants we eat and help them to procreate on and on, which in biological terms is essentially all they need from us.


----------

