sunstranded

[sunstranded]

INTJ: Versus INFJ

I am getting increasingly tired of the versus contrast and comparison between the INTJ and INFJ. Mainly because it wants to synthesize but instead it simplifies. The harsh reality about the two types is that they are not so simple. No type is simple. Nor are INTJs antithesis of INFJs. I do not have any intent to say differentiating the two is wrong or pointless. My intentions are to emphasize that ones understanding of the two types can start in comparison and contrast but never end there.

There are dialogues where INTJs are system-focused and efficiency-loving people that INFJs reply to using empathy and the emphasis of our humanity.

A simple browser search would also give you an answer that sounds a lot like: INTJ = logic and machine; INFJ = emotion and soul. It is such a tired way to view the two types. As tiring as a lot of people mistyping themselves because iNtuition and Sensors are not as easy to discern. I had told my ISTJ friend that was mistyped as INTJ that they cannot be INTJ. We think too differently. The way they view and solve a problem is focused on what they can sense therefore directly manipulate while I focus on ideas that I can play around with in the abstract. The way we talk even showcases this. My ISTJ friend's Si-Te makes them story tell in fragmented but detailed ways with no overarching narrative in mind. On the other hand, my Ni-Te tells a story with an overarching narrative but I struggle to keep my details consistent. This is but only an example of a tangent, so let me get to the INFJ and INTJ difference.

People might think I focus on the obvious difference first, the F and T. No, I would rather explain one separate from the other.

INTJ: Te-Fi

Te stands for Extroverted Thinking and Fi for Introverted Feeling. For comprehensibility, think of Te as viewing abstract concepts such as those in math, science, or any theory all as tools. Working with Fi, one that views values, morals, opinion-formation, or any thing personal to be detached from anyone else. Te coming before Fi is also important. This means INTJs tend to think of their tools first then they think of what such tools mean to them alone. For example, if an INTJ likes using math for efficiency in work but for leisure they value creativity, then for video games they might not always follow the most efficient strategies but rather use their creativity to create a strategy unique to them.

INFJ: Fe-Ti

Based from what I had said, Fe is Extroverted Feeling and Ti is Introverted Thinking. Fe is an outward view of a collective's values, morals, opinions, and the importance of keeping the harmony and considering others. Ti treats abstract concepts in any and all derivatives of math, science, or any theory as building blocks. The order holds value here as well. Fe coming first before Ti means INFJs tend to think of what the group's collective opinion on a concept is and would be more cautious of going against it even if their understanding of said concept would view everyone else's as false. This is why, most of the INFJs I have met (in reality, they really are rare), tend to think of themselves as "harsh" and "highly judgmental" while everyone else thinks that they are nice and considerate.

Differences: Opinion-sharing

Now before I get into the situation examples I have in mind to apply what I have just explained, I want a disclaimer. The example is a demonstration of a theory not of prejudice nor behavior. Meaning, these two types are people first thus, they can go against their type's description. Because, again, MBTI by Carl Jung's Cognitive theory answers how one tends to think not why one acts.

The air is tense. The group turned silent after the INTJ had called out why someone's opinion is pointless and the INFJ had already doused the fire by letting the group move on to the next question. The INFJ goes first, wanting to set the tone into a more lighthearted manner. Some people respond to their answer before sharing their own. When it became the INTJs turn to answer they answered with the same deadpan, no-nonsense tone as they did when they called someone out. No one responds.

Now, in this situation we can continue it by imagining what is going on in the minds of the two types. The INTJ could still be somewhat pressed at the situation that happened, not quite liking how someone else's opinion goes against their own. But the INTJ can see the pointlessness of convincing someone just for an opinion, being factual is more important. The INFJ in contrast may be thinking of how the person who had a "pointless" opinion is taking the whole scenario. They may have already considered how the two parties have their own valid points about the matter but to consider everyone else in the group they decide to keep them focused on the objective at hand. They might even think of talking to each of the parties after the whole discussion.

Conclusion: Simplifying has its dangers

If someone only digested the INFJ vs INTJ media, I am certain they can still see this situation play out and that they could match the bullets that are under each of the types and explain the whys and the hows. This begs the question, then what the hell am I trying to prove here? Why go through all of this explaining? Well, dissecting a situation or an example is simple and easy. Intellectualizing an experience, now with the internet, is also just as easy. But coming up with an example is not as easy. Processing ones emotions over an experience is not as easy if they're stuck up on intellectualizing it. But, for the sake of simplicity (since it is possibly the most attractive lie in this age of binge-consumption of information), I am not ending the conversation in comparison. I am starting it with definition, continuing it with a situation, expanding it with comparison.

[sunstranded]

MBTI: Identity

There is a lot of use to MBTI. The good, the bad, and the ugly. One use people tend to believe inherent to this tool is giving a name to their identity. I want to spare myself from having to write something heavily philosophical, so I will put it simply: A hammer is a tool. Does the carpenter call themself a hammer?

The Good

People learn a lot about themselves, reasons for how they think and behave in MBTI. People also find a veil of humor and belongingness with it. But this veil is something we all wear to understand the joke and to feel comfort in it. This same veil we must remove to remember: we should not use the same reasons for how we think to justify and absolve ourselves from any consequence to be the same reasons we use to name ourselves.

The Bad

I have alluded to this: the justification of actions and absolution of consequences to how one thinks. It's bad for the sole reason that it could be. Imagine an idea, a dangerous idea that could easily make someone not blameworthy. Or rather, imagine a fight and the you hear the lines "that's my opinion" or anything that is along the lines of "it is who I am" such lines want understanding which some of us get in MBTI. In this desire for understanding, it could also be deemed as intolerance. This way it is not hard to imagine how MBTI can be used to absolve someone of blame. "It's my thing, it's an [insert type here] thing." It does offer explanation but there is such a fine line between an explanation and an excuse. That is: accountability (among other things).

The Ugly

Other than the bad, there is something far worse. In the pursuit of belongingness we will and always will attempt to put fences around ourselves to know where we are, where we belong, and where we do not. These margins also have people in them, those who do not fit neither. Those who should fit somewhere but do not. In MBTI, as we put humor, oversimplification, belongingness and the understanding of self with them, we put margins everywhere. In the things we do, we have unintended consequences such as exclusion. It was as if MBTI became a membership. And in this acknowledgment we remember that in every person that feels belongingness, there is also a person that feels ostracized.

The Hammer and The Carpenter

Back to what I had mentioned in the starting blurb. Does the carpenter ever calls themself a hammer? This is a rhetorical question that can easily slip anyone into going philosophical. I will instead, challenge MBTI. I want to prove that it can not be used and should not be used to be a means of shaping one's identity despite the good, the bad, and the ugly within it.

I deleted it, but I once wrote a short story, of how dehumanizing it is if we were referred to as our types instead of our names. I am no fiction writer, it was pretty bad. Though my point still stands. This dehumanization in our attempts to simplify and use a toolkit (MBTI) is a consequence we can never stop but we can acknowledge, understand, and knowingly avoid.

By no means am I criticizing or attempting to criticize MBTI media that I myself enjoy. What I am criticizing here is our awareness of when is it funny and when is it dangerous.

To continue, I must first define what MBTI stands for. Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. It is a type indicator made by Myers and Briggs. It is also based on Carl Jung's cognitive functions and theory. Give it a read. It is a good one. Though, it is not a prerequisite to understand what I am about to say.

An indicator, indicates. It calls the goose by the lake, the goose by the lake. It does not name the goose. And by design, it eases Carl Jung's conception of the cognitive functions. It bears repeating, there are other conceptions of the MBTI. If it has five letters, best believe that is behavioral. Meaning, it describes and talks about behaviors. Carl Jung's cognitive functions and the original MBTI is, well, cognitive. In other words, what order does someone usually think. It concerns itself not with actions or behaviors but rather the process of how everyone thinks. This means the choice, the decision, it is all still ours.

Identity is a complicated and convoluted topic. But it answers the question of, "who we are." It is, in it's very simplified essence, an idea. It's abstract, a concept with no body. You cannot observe it. You can indicate that it is your friend with [insert human name here]. And by your friend's name, you identify them to be [insert how you know your friend to be]. In this way, you cannot know your friend's identity. It is not for you to decide, know, and sometimes not even something you have to understand. Identity must just be what it is to persons. Because we cannot observe identity, same way we cannot observe someone else's inside thoughts, we can say that MBTI and identity must be related. As I have said, defined, the cognitive functions explains how someone tends to think. Not who they are. The two intends to answer separate and different questions. The very sentence "I am an INTJ" is not and should not be a matter of identity but rather, an indication and a reminder that it means "I" tends to think similar to the pattern titled INTJ or, Ni-Te-Fi-Se. Now, that would be the only part where the knowledge of Jungian Cognitive theory would be helpful. Though, it is not necessary. Even my participation and enjoyment of MBTI media does not mean my criticism is pointless or unnecessary. My criticism is for the interest of my awareness. To remind myself how I think is not who I am.

But this leaves us a question, what answers who I am. That, itself would be an altogether different post and a much more troubling topic to really answer. And I think a post that leaves one thinking would be better than a post that leaves someone satisfied.

[sunstranded]

INTJ: Not knowing what to say

I did a very non-INTJ thing, which is to be socially competent and to keep up in conversations. I often abstain from social stuff that include half-truths and arbitrary compliments. However, I came to a realization about the INTJ type, the Fe-users, and by proxy MBTI.

I have met an INTJ that, to say the least but mean the most, is socially unaware making them aloof on accident. I would share something to them with the expectations of them to laugh or talk about the thing I had shared. But they would give me a random criticism or an objective observation. If I was not an INTJ that did the same thing, I realized how that situation could have left me offended. I brought it up, I had asked them why did they sound like they wanted to grade the meme I sent (fully knowing it's a tendency I also have). They said the most obvious answer, so obvious I did not even think to consider it: they did not know what else to say.

We all, let's not kid ourselves because even I know I tend to, want to talk about things we know about. Not to sound smart or not to appease, but mostly because it is not possible to talk about something you do not know. I cannot talk about, for example, thermodynamics and entropy, if in the first place I do not know that those words even existed. It's also somewhat related to why I can come off as a "smartass" because I use words that people my age (and those 'chronically' online) do not use, i.e. comeuppance, awry. If your listener does not know this word and you explain it by giving a synonym, they would be faced with the feeling that you could just have said it simpler.

However, comeuppance is not fully similar to retribution. Retribution involves active action for the interest of vengeance. It involves a person. Comeuppance does not. It could be interpreted as an inevitability akin to: if you have a win streak, eventually you will lose.

I realize that I often default to saying an observation or light criticism when someone shares something to me because it is what I know to say. I do not, in those moments, know that I could say a compliment to something I recognize to be better. I do not even think that I could have said a half-hearted comment because I was intensely listening or engrossed with the material sent to me that I took it seriously.

In that, I am not unique. I think it is safe to say that it's a default we always have: to say what we know and notice. For example, an Fe-user would say a compliment or a light hearted retaliation to an unserious joke because what they had noticed was the intention behind the message or the effect it had to the person.

This, once exposited is not even worthy to be a eureka moment. It sure does feel like it but I would rather describe it as the something so obvious I glossed over it. It serves as the same purpose as MBTI: to explain things. I enjoy MBTI because it is by no means a person. We are not static, we change, we are inconsistent, but just because I socialize often my personality can no longer be explained by INTJ. In short, I am still INTJ by personality and for understanding not INTJ as a character or caricature of my personhood.

[sunstranded]

INTJ: Being Mean

Being judged and subjected to societal norms and expectations that ellude me usually ends the same way. I get called some insult, and I could not possibly care less. But I want to articulate why benefit of the doubt won't work on me and confrontation will.

I have mentioned before about my social mask. Such a mask is more of a first line of defense, not for me, but for everyone else around me. I just find myself to be a prickly and dry psrson. I'm so used to wearing a mask that is appropriate to the situation that people mistake my real personality (when caught off guard) as anger.

I often do not have a strong enough opinion and emotion towards anything. If anything, my objective perception makes me pretty stale. This objective perception can also make me appear laid back, mainly because my scheming mind is silent and secretive. However, it makes me blind to the emotional view of the world that most of its population is concerned about.

This blindness to emotions is not of malice. It is just: (1) my incompetence; (2) not my preference; and (3) lack of need for it. As every xxTJ, I am not the most concerned for things that hinder efficiency. It is why I do not prefer seeing and considering the emotional realm of a person. Such causes my incompetence at both sensing them and attending to them.

This is why I hope people would stop giving me the benefit of doubt. It will tire them. Waiting for someone that does not know you are waiting for them only builds resentment. Hence, I prefer it when someone tells me outright what I had done wrong. I am not selfish to apology, I apologize as much as I need to.

I am not even the type to explain my intention. If I had wronged someone, I just apologize, give thanks to their honesty, and do my best to be better. I am not the type to avoid problems, I accept their inevitability and I work as it faces me.

Enough about me, I want to mention xxFJs out there as I say: saying no is only selfish if you think people who say no to you are selfish. I grew up with an ESFJ brother. He can be truly judgemental and as I try to learn from his mistakes, I realize that if I were to stop judging others so easily, I judge myself less as well.

This lesson is what I apply to my tendency to be the cutthroat and thorough critic. I experienced my own worst version of said criticism. I only enjoy my own competence whenever I liberate myself from the burdens of doing the easy: tunnel visioning on problem-solving.

The same, at least on paper, could be said for other types. I told my friend a version of this before. The reason they are revered as a caring and considerate person is because they usually see the world in those emotional lens and act according to it. However, it also puts them in the position to forget considering themselves— deem any action to serve their wants and needs as selfish.

I suppose, in a way, I am asking for a benefit— with less doubt. To spare me the grace and mercy of understanding oneself, from values, perceptions, and eventually prejudices. We all have them. What I usually say to people who I think is an xxFJ is that: they can always say no to me. They can practice doing so, I'm quite hard to offend.

[sunstranded]

INTJ: Discernment

How do people get into MBTI? It is a question I often think about. I personally got into it on my own volition: I needed to use it to play the social game better. I fear that the way descriptions are in any site have an unintentional effect that might harm any person's capacity to discern for themselves.

I do not mean to write this with the intent that people should be more cynical or skeptic of things, that would be opposite of what I want to say. I think MBTI can be attractive to people that do not want to explain the inexplicable complexities of their own personhood. It is almost like a scapegoat for some people, and a lot of content creators about MBTI warn people to not use MBTI like that. Not as a justification for people but rather an enabler for extending compassion and understanding. However, no one can really control how someone else would use a tool.

However, anyone can tell and remind themselves what a tool is for and what it is not. Similarly to say that MBTI can start to make sense of how you tend to think, but not justify why you behave. The reason being, your behavior still has a choice. Your interests are a choice you make. This is why I find it near inane how people tend to take every description about a type without any grain of salt. They take it almost without question. An example would be INTJs not being fit to be in the music industry or in any field of art. That INTJs are fit to be in engineering and science-y and logic-demanding jobs. This line of thinking is not good. Art or science is not exclusive to certain types of thinkers. It can be for anyone who likes it.

This is why I think there is an unintended danger on MBTI content. Some create it for relatability, some seek it for guidance, but the unintended effect of both is that there is a lack of discernment of oneself. Discerning as in, having your own judgements on one thing and also deciding based on your own judgements. And when one does so, no one else but themselves are to blame. On paper, no one wants that. No one would seek to be blamed intrinsically. This is why there is an attraction on things that blur the lines of directed blame. MBTI can do so, and it is bittersweet. Imagine the creation of it is intended for understanding and extending compassion but not everyone would use it for so. Not everyone would even be conscious of how they use it, if it is used harmfully or not. But that is why discernment is vital, it makes blame clear and in blame, people can see it as an inexplicably bad thing but also a chance of accountability.

At the end of it all, discernment is still subject to perspective, or, how you look at it. People who practice discernment can be celebrated or shamed, depending on how things seem to everyone else.

I mean, INTJs are the type expected to value individuality and control so much so that it will be unsurprising for them to value discernment, like this whole post I just wrote. But as much as I can idealize and write discernment to be an intrinsic good, I am often misunderstood and disenfranchised. Paradoxically, I am also envied. Those things barely make sense to me, that's why I need to use MBTI. To dispel prejudice out of the lack of material to understand. To get rid of my biases out of fear of the unfamiliar.

[sunstranded]

INTJ: Drama

INTJs are told to be people that do not enjoy drama. I personally can enjoy it but it often goes over my head. However, want people to understand that no one likes drama. It is not exclusive to INTJs and I find it pretentious to say that I, as an INTJ, will never enjoy so. I acknowledge its inevitability and depending on how I choose to view it, I can find a reason to enjoy it or find a reason to avoid it.

I do not speak for all INTJs. It is why I do my best to refrain from saying "we" or any collective pronoun in all or most my posts. I am fine to disagree with other INTJs, if anything it cements the theory more: cognitive personality is just the default way we think, we still have a choice to be more than that.

But I digress from my disclaimer. I just wanted to establish so because I often see MBTI content that love to tell me what I like, what I should do, what I should feel, and quite frankly, I am sick of it.

I am a person with a personality type based on a cognitive theory. I am not a personality type. Thus, I can enjoy drama. I just do not often have the need for it. I can also be subject to drama with no choice. To delimit and clarify this post I want to define what I refer to when I say: drama.

Drama, as I would describe it, can be a conflict or confrontation or the lack thereof. Drama could be rumors preceding before a person. Drama could be a person doing something that would need explanation yet we are not given so. Drama could also be a conflict in a story, a plot point where spectators or readers are detached from the complications thus they can judge so freely. An example of the latter would be:

Someone is rumored to have cheated and broken someone else's relationship. This someone used to be known as a semi-known jock but still a nerd: an awkward but tolerable nobody. Now, they're well known. So well known in fact that they're hated before they are met. As a spectator, you can act above it and be friend this person and, in high school fashion, commit that "social suicide" for hanging out with someone problematic. You can also act above it by just ignoring it all. Not partaking in it. As a person somewhat involved, you can justify any action you take because you either: know or not know that someone. You can spread rumors to friends in passing, you don't know the truth but you don't have to for an easy conversation. You can also be that someone's friend and fight for them because you know them more than the rest. As the reader of this example, you can say it is all drama. Depending on who you ask, it is interesting or needless drama. But most importantly, the reader is detached from it all. It's easier to subject morals, judgement and logic. However, if you were any of the mentioned, it is not so clear. It is not so easy.

The example is the drama I am more "familiar" with, the drama that has no confrontation. I find it all the more frustrating. I am a confrontational person because I value clarity, accountability, and humility. When I am made to realize that I am the problem, then I will apologize and make up for it or do better next time. It sucks, it's painful, it is not in anyway easy. But necessity is more important to me than ease. Counterintuitively, this is why I find drama with no confrontation familiar. Not everyone can do so. Not a lot of people prefer necessity over easy. It makes sense, life is already hard as it is. So people would rather be indirect, which I find this most interesting.

I always wonder if these people that enjoy drama but cannot bear confrontation and clear boundaries are as they are because they do not want to be on that spotlight. The spotlight of an interrogation. The person subject to obvious and undeniable consequences. Or, to put it bluntly: these people are those cursed with people pleasing. Thus the need of evasiveness that drama about someone else provides them. I do not know. Nor do I really care. All I want to really establish here is that even if people need the redirection away from them that drama can provide, even they don't want drama. Drama is only something they like because it's useful not because it is intrinsically desirable.

Going back to one definition I had about drama: a plot point in every story also known as conflict. Meaning, it is inevitable. It will happen. It must. I agree with such a notion because I am the type to forge genuine connections with others through trial by fire. We are not close if we never fought; if we never misunderstood each other to the point of pain; if we never confronted each other and chose ourselves in a circumstance; and ultimately, if we have never chosen our friendship over our pride. The aforementioned are, to me, telltale signs that people will choose necessity over convenience, over easy, because to them, there is something worth the trouble.

[sunstranded]

INTJ: Confidently crippling with Self-doubt

I am not going to bring up the misunderstood and misrepresented concepts of the Dunning-Kruger effect and imposter syndrome as I explain this. For simple reasons: 1) I am no expert and I did not study them beyond a common browser search; and 2) it is possible to talk about our personhood and experience without getting clinical— I'm not going to pretend I am qualified to.

Now I complained lengthily about how INTJs are not paradoxical but I got so lost in my own world of technicality I forgot to emphasize that I refrain from this "paradox" and "complex" calling of any personality because of its pragmatic implication: being "hard to follow" means its a (shameful) scapegoat for those who do not want to understand.

This is relevant for me to disclose mainly because I still do not want to go over myself as I mention the "paradox" of INTJs being very confident to the point of arrogance but being truly crippled by their own self-directed doubts.

Back to me, I have this problem but I first want to establish words I prefer using and define them all. I'd rather call myself unapologetically myself rather than confident; I'd rather think I have this self-consciousness on how I can be wrong and I will never be certain if I am right or wrong unless I take action.

Crippled with self-doubt would mean I fail to believe myself and I have doubts directed towards my skills and what I do. It cripples me with hesitation. However, I rarely hesitate and lack belief in what I do. What I lack belief in is what happens after I do something not my own execution.

Do not confuse my belief of my own execution to be confidence. No, I am unapologetically myself: an imperfect being mistaken to be infallible. I make mistakes, rookie ones, silly ones, and I cherish every moment I am humbled into learning from my own doing. My own lack of knowledge or wisdom in every action and decision, I am eager to account for. I am not going to grovel or adhere to pity if I had made an error. I was wrong, teach me how to be better and let's keep going.

I hope those are apt definitions for why I disagree with being called confident with self-doubt. The distinctions are as clear as I can make them as, I really do not think they are the same. For confidence is recognized by others as unapologetically themselves but confidence is having that trust within the self strong enough to rely on themselves.

I would not call being unapologetically myself to be confidence. Not apologizing for being imperfect and being who I am is not the same with trusting and relying on who I am. Now before the memes of INTJ and trust issues resurface, I want to clarify that trust expires.

The more you learn, the less you would want to trust external factors. The more you want to rely on yourself, the less enthused you are in co-dependency in collaboration. The less enthused you are in collaboration, the more likely will you isolate yourself. I have learned early on in isolation that it is not the solitude I revel in. It is dangerous. It is a detachment that makes one forget that they are a human in a society or a society with human rather than a singular being in a singular circumstance.

I may have muddled my words and explanations towards the end but I still want to restate that it is not so complicated. I am not confident and self-doubting. I am just aware enough of my capacities and that I am an antecedent subjected to a consequence that I cannot name unless I take action. Taking actions is not what I would call confidence, I would call it unapologetically being an imperfect being. Finding out the consequence of my antecedent by trial and error. I let myself make my mistakes because certainty and absolutes are only gained in isolation, a dangerous path I'd akin to death or dehumanization.

[sunstranded]

INTJ: Anonymity

It is our means of having a peace of mind. Solitude and isolation is something surely any introvert would like. However I notice a difference that no one had cared to spell out before for me: I am the type of introvert that abhors being known in a way that I cannot measure. In the darkness I can flourish, away from prying eyes.

Honestly, the blurb is never a summary. It is not even a hook. I fear it is the most condensed and concise way I could translate my thoughts. Post the line break is getting a little more specific, nerdy, or a bit more anecdotal.

Now to be anecdotal, nerdy, and specific: I had once made an account where I shared work. I would not dare call it creative or good. It is trash to me and its very existence sends chills down my spine and goo of disgust in every step, slowing me down, making me heavier.

I obviously had deleted this the most "deleted" it could be. Despite being told by others that it was good or that it was not bad. I do not care. It is trash to me and it being open to the public's prying eyes and half-assed, short-witted judgement annoys me.

I was an anonymous writer under a penname and good grief. It was free work; it was supposedly just for "fun" to try new things and learn. I surely did learn and now its branded memory in every other work that reminds me of it haunts me. It used to be fun; now it means little to me. I had refrained from deleting it out of sentiment or to "look back." I was kidding myself. I am not one to "look back." I am but a person that looks at the future as I move in my present. An INTJ cliche. Eventually my penname became recognized. I had even made it far enough to be offered payment. I did not want it even if I tried setting it up. It felt like an absolute offense to what I stood for. I knew my work was utter trash at that time. It was for fun. It was at best an experiment more so a work to be proud of. That was the point of my burnout and from then on it was a continuous decline. Once I deleted it from existence and trace as much as I could, I am in this state of lucidity and emancipation. The power I regained was when I am back in the darkness, away from stressful recognition.

Moving forward to be nerdy, I wonder if other INTJs get stressed at the face of compliments or if it is a me thing. I think I just got so used to anticipating negative comments that struck louder than the compliment before it. I'm also so very used to being called hard to understand which I find to be such an inane comment. Aren't we all difficult to understand if the lens in which we look at someone else is our own? Our own perception of the world, its situations, and its people are all preconceived into a truth. It makes us prideful for having figured out the world but as we are, we are also cursed with prejudice for being proud of "understanding." But that is a post for another time, surely.

Lastly, let me get a bit more specific as I tether back to anonymity and its related to the very bane of my existence: being remembered by people as a stagnant non-changing being. I am not. No one is. Hence, the preconception of the world, its situations and peoples that we are proud of figuring out is the reason for our prejudice as to why we do not "get" people, similarly why we do not quickly accept that someone changed and learned from their mistakes. It's my strength to not look back at a cool explosion in slow-motion as it is my weakness to cause that damned explosion in the first place. Explosion being: the remnants of having done something that is no longer relevant to me, a bad representation of me.

[sunstranded]

INTJ: Accused of Arrogance

I enjoy intellectual conversations and socratic-esque discussions so much more than small talk and aimless conversations. Despite my preference, I am capable of small talk— I just slowly die inside. Yet I am cursed with being called arrogant. No matter what intricate string of words I craft, no matter how docile my question sounds, the moment I critically challenge someone is the same moment a logical conversation becomes personal? Good heavens isn't this a special kind of hell.

I am, once again, gracing my grievances with a post full of complaints.

People find me arrogant. I can be proven wrong; I can make mistakes; and I can recognize this margin of error. If anything, I seek to make it as small as possible. This is why I always seek that challenge that sharpens my thinking and points out things I failed to see or establish.

People always argue that I need to know when I should criticize and when I shouldn't. I also learned from my rookie mistakes that being the first shot doesn't guarantee the blow. If anything, it is an announcement— a blowhorn of your own progress. Among other things, this is why I keep to myself.

Hence, when people start asking for me to speak only to be on the receiving end of an accusation less based on reality and appropriate context, I am absolutely and utterly pissed about it. As much as I am pissed with yes-men and sorry-men.

Do not apologize for learning when someone critiques you with something you can work on. Do not just agree and say yes to every information. Moreover, do not use your feelings and personal matter as a shield for everything— even deflecting the good things.

But let me define arrogance as I have defined humility. Arrogance is dominating over someone else with non-substantial or fabricated claims or putting one's self-importance and impact above others by means of overestimation.

I am the person who tends to be precise to a fault. Even my goals, my present moment skills, and the orchestration of my forward life plan are precise in respect of what I want to be and what I am now. So when I am called arrogant and I, like any accused, would ask for evidence only to find irrelevant emotions.

I acknowledge the chances of people losing their cool and/or having an off-day. I understand this, and I also have such chances. If anything, those are what I usually apologize for. Forcing myself when I am not in a good state of mind; letting my restraint loose; all of which, I would understand.

However, in the interest of my complaints, I highlight the people those individuals that have the gall— the audacity— to call me arrogant for giving constructive criticism, for answeing their question, and for defending someone who is unjustly accused.

That is the aggravating part. If you are butthurt for being proven wrong, if you had no clapback after a retaliation to your challenge, do not start appealing to pity. It's not going to work on me, and I have been used to social exile because of my coldness and cruelty. I keep my principles, I will not fall for an informal fallacy, nor will I fall for weaponization of emotions.

I can apologize for maybe losing my cool and having raised my voice, but I will not apologize because I made someone cry. Truth hurts, I cry about it too, but I am not so shameless to solicit pity, so my mistake would be excused. Like everyone, I seek to be understood; but unlike everyone, I only seek to be understood by those who want to do so.

[sunstranded]

INTJ: The "Most Misunderstood Type"

It is no trophy to be feel like you are the most misunderstood type. Any type could feel so, especially in a world composed of more talkers and less listeners. I do not feel like I am the most misunderstood out of the 16 types for I think it takes two people to misunderstand the other. But I do think that those that feel "most misunderstood" only deem to be so because they are the recipient of unfair assumptions.

I chose the word listener and talker instead of extravert and introvert because both parties can be a listener and a talker. I hope that was clear. Moreover, I meant it word for word when I had said that those who feel most misunderstood only deem to be so because they are the recipient of unfair assumptions. This could be anyone who is capable of retrospection. All types are part of that.

Now for my argument of "it takes two people to misunderstand the other," I wanted to emphasize this because I want to introduce the lack of one person that fucked up. I think both parties are accountable to apologize and to realize where they had went wrong and what information they lacked that limited their understanding. To further clarify, if it is more than two people that are having a misunderstanding, all members of that interaction have played a role in it. I do not like the lack of self-reflection when people jump into the "I didn't do anything, I am not a part of this." Exactly because of their abstinence especially if they had known better but did not intervene, they are a part of this.

However, that is not the point of this post. I might discuss it some time else I only wanted to clarify. But I want to get into the idea that INTJs are not the most misunderstood but good God does it aggravate me when someone thinks they had understood me when they never have let me speak my piece. You cannot represent a someone you do not talk to or listen to.

What people need to understand about INTJs is that they must suspend themselves from their emotional bias to understand that silence, very factual responses, and their demands for INTJs to be considerate of them are causally related. I am silent because people demand me to be considerate when they do not consider my very factual response is out of good will not malice nor is it to look high and mighty. I have no use for trophies and being put in a pedestal.

The moment I claim to be misunderstood is if only if: I had set the scope, for example, in my friend group; I had tried to make myself understood [and failed to be understood]; and I had also did my best to understand everyone else in the scope. In these cases I articulate that I first feel very misunderstood. I do not want to assume that everyone else felt understood for me to claim I am misunderstood.

Do note I tried to be consistent on when I am referring to myself and to INTJs. I am the direct example of INTJs but do note I do not represent the collective. They can relate, they cannot, all I had wanted to articulate that there is no "most misunderstood type" since most would imply one; it is impossible especially when misunderstandings are often caused by more than one party.

[sunstranded]

INTJ: Letter of Appreciation to ISFPs, INTJ

I rarely had a good experience with one. I had even ranted about it before. However, I recognize I was very unforgiving and true to the INTJ branding of "trusting no one". I only realized this when an ISFP had held themselves accountable and actually started creating great strides for themselves. Moreover, they are fun to be around.

Dear ISFPs,

My anecdotes with you are mostly having felt used and disrespected. I am usually deemed reliable by people I've met to have your type, even as someone fun to talk to. However, things go awry and my unforgiving and distrustful nature does not help things. I do not want to be reduced into utility, I do not enjoy feeling used. I also must say, I am not as sharp as you with emotions. So the small inkling that I am being used, I tend to be confrontational about it or start my exit strategy. I realize the latter is not healthy and that confrontation is devastatingly scary for most.

I understand this and would be a lot more merciful in the coming times. ISFP honesty is one I cherish. I could rely on their opinions to be in tune with what they stand for and what they really prefer. Even more so, I appreciate that we equally do not like hanging out often. It makes every minute of every hour that we hang out in a day much more worthwhile. It is also very apparent that ISFPs would feel the same. As much as people would highlight ISFPs as flakes, once you get their trust to be blatantly honest with you with what they like or not or how they feel, you must really be very careful with it. Their present moment is the gift they have for themselves, so I always appreciate it if they do their best to communicate with me and staying true to their word. They respect my time, I respect theirs.

In my take, I feel as though this self-focused interest is less appreciated today. The self-focused emotional honesty ISFPs have is even less appreciated today. So here I am, appreciating it. I obviously had not wanted to instill fear to my ISFP friend for having been very confrontational about it but I can trust that they are going to be real with themselves and when they are ready to be real with me too, I can truly appreciate it.

The world would be less pretentious and less plagued with doubt if we take to account and learn from the emotional honesty and introspections that ISFPs can show.

Henceforth, I understand that I have been a bit cruel and I will make amends on my reactions as that ISFP have for their own. I take back what had said before and explicitly disclose that I appreciate ISFPs.

Regards,

INTJ

[sunstranded]

INTJ: Analysis Paralysis

I do not know if this is exclusively an xNTJ thing or a me thing but I rarely experience this. If anything, I'd call it a mental meltdown. Analysis paralysis is when you're paralyzed (doing nothing) because you're stuck in a state of analysis. This is less of a vent.

I rarely experience this because I consume less information, actively choose what information by parameters, and ask a specified question. In cases that I can not, I just stop consuming and actively play with my intuition, knowledge and the novel information.

This post is just trying to capture how the INTJ would work. There are cognitive functions and their order is how your brain prefers to think but if you are conscious and active, this order becomes more of a bias.

This is my understanding with theories I've read about and I suggest people to do their own research since this is a closed discussion (what I think abd make sense of) analyzing a certain context (myself).

I am also explicitly limiting it there because nowadays people irresponsibly diagnose others: 1) in a snap judgement way; 2) in jest; and 3) in little analysis of both clinical knowledge and present experience.

Back to the actual topic at hand. I rarely get stuck doing nothing because with my Ni (my intuition and knowledge) + Se (novel information and observations) data, I use my Te (impersonal and impartial logic) to create something that I could integrate with my Fi (ethics, moral code that i live by and believe in).

I mention Ni and Se when they are the first and last in the cognitive stack of INTJ while Te and Fi are mentioned later. This is because Ni is my primary function so I am the type to observe the situation or gather information and play with my intuition more than I actively judge people.

If dear reader has come with the knowledge from that MBTI 16 personalities with a 5th letter do note that is behavioral NOT cognitive. I am talking about cognitive functions.

Meaning, in my head, I gather information more than I judge them. By "judge" I pertain to subjecting my external understanding of what makes sense world (Te) and my personal values (Fi). For example, if I learn this spot pattern is that of a giraffe I would think of what that implies to what I am currently seeing to the brown cow in front of me. Again, this is hard to observe from someone else given that it is their thought process.

However, if I am not actively thinking and I'm in some type of autopilot, my thoughts could go like: Person A and person B have been discussing about the same thing over and over with no purpose. This is annoying. I'm leaving.

Person A and B are discussing about the same thing over and over (Ni with Te judgement)

This is annoying (Fi)

I'm leaving (Se only if I actually do it)

Ni says they're still talking about the same thing

Te judges it as "over and over"

Fi judges this whole ordeal as "annoying"

Se has internally decided on course of action "I'm leaving."

This order showcases why INTJs have reasons for almost every decision. Before Se decides on what actual observable action to take, NiTeFi have already done their part. Do note this is my autopilot or usual setting NiTeFiSi is what INTJ stands for.

Now referring back to the very first example of Ni-Se and Te-Fi and my claim that I am not a judger, but a perceiver. We can see that in the thought process "autopilot" example I had just showed.

I first perceived people to be talking about the same thing, I had an concluded that they are talking about the same thing first than literally taking note of all of what they said but I have observed something that happened (Ni-Se data). Then I judge it, shifting the focus more on this is the same thing again and again. There's no goal and endpoint; it is all annoying to me (Te-Fi judgement). Then I take action.

INTJ explanation aside, how do I prove that I actually rarely experience analysis paralysis? Now, do not confuse this or define it as if it is similar to procrastination. I procrastinate if I feel like I have to understand this point to reach my desired goal first. I call this productive procrastination because I am indirectly progressing in my main goal but I am not directly doing it. Similarly to how I play a lot of side quests so that the main storyline is easier and I have better gear.

Now that I've deduced as much as I can, I'll finally give my main proof: I am always doing something. Therefore, I am not paralyzed. This "something" may be a side quest to ensure the success and ease of my journey towards the goal, but rest assured, every move I do has its reason— of which I can always articulate but only selectively share.

One thing I noticed in formal education is that it assumes the student does not know anything and will never think. This has gone for so long that people who don't want to spend so much money do the same thing as they binge watch video essays and informative videos.

It spoonfeeds information to the student/consumer as if they were a deposit savings account with no interest rate. Since I recognize that "never need to think" and "just sponge up the information" I tried to contextualize my explanation first to deduce and delimit people's understanding of my proof.

However, in the psyche of people within the digital age, is anyone even reading the long and confusing and thought-provoking and dry sentences and word choice of my argument? Or people would rather watch than read? Or those who've read and watched, would they prefer to just believe me or ask further?

I would not have an impartial answer to such a question. I am an observer of my circumstance alone, not of anyone's nor everyone's.

[sunstranded]

INTJ: Lack of Emotional Response

I'm not even a dad, nor am I a boomer, but when someone sends me a video or a meme expecting me to laugh, I am quite the disappointment. Especially if people catch me not prepared for a social intervention or "interaction" as they like to call it.

It's tiring to have a recognizable or expected emotional reaction. I have to be in a really good mood for someone to show me a video or a picture and laugh. I'm totally the type to say "that's funny" rather than actually laugh.

I'm usually the joker, the one making people laugh. Not the other way around, not because they're unfunny. I am just used to hiding my emotions. I have been called, in jest, that I have two moods: angry or anrgy but loud.

If it's in chat, it's worse. I have this ingrained behavior to always reply as soon as I can out of respect so when people send me things I often check immediately. If it's a video from an app I don't use but everyone seemingly does, I don't watch it unless they give me context that isn't: "this is funny."

My brother had once caught me read the transcript of an 11 minute video in about 3 minutes and called me weird. It's faster, elicits less reactions, and I don't hear that animated youtuber voice.

With all this, it irritates me that the "respectful" thing to do is to show emotions. I do, but I'm not sharing most of them. If anything, I probably practice emotional introspection on my own more than people expect from me. I'm only saying probably because I am rarely asked about how I feel (rightfully so) and when I share, people are always shocked— even enamored or in awe— that I can comprehensively capture my emotions.

I've learned as early as I could that emotional instrospection should be absent of logic and absolutes. All it needs to be is recognized, understood, accepted, and expressed. It does not even have to make complete logical sense. Nor does it have to be valid.

I hate that sentiment, "that's valid." You could have just said "fair" and avoided confusing my deductive logic driven brain. Or you could have done the more emotionally gratifying response and had restated what someone experienced to remind them its human to have reacted the way they did— rather than some impersonal and utterly unhelpful string of words.

With all this, I can practice my Fe, I can appease and make efforts to understand people's emotions. Yet, yet here I am writing about lacking emotional response. I did not want to serve any INTJs injustice by putting the title of: Emotionlessness. No human being (note, this excludes inhumane beings), would ever admit to emotionlessness. Numbness, detachment, or even a haze that makes emotions unrecognizable still means that there are— it's just far away. Most xNTxs are not emotionless assholes. Some of us just haven't learned or haven't allowed ourselves to share our emotions.

My emotions are my personal business. That's what I always say and think. Never have I let myself use my emotions recklessly, I only do so when I want to get out of a situation where everyone communicates via emotional signals. I'm not one to share. All I really ask is that people do not take my silence or lack of response as a sign of disinterest.

If I was not interested, they would have heard me say no, or I would not have been in such a situation.

[sunstranded]

INTJ: Deleting Messages

I find it more efficient to delete messages rather than say "nevermind". It has less confusion. It's cleaner. It's faster. However, I realize a lot would disagree.

I tend to delete messages. It's not out of secrecy; it's not out of anything else people overthink about. I just imagine it as if I were typing and I spam backspace. I just either found a better string of words to say my meaning or I found it no longer relevant to say.

However I was told that it's weird to do that and only people that are hiding something would do so. I mean, I am sparing people my messy mistakes. I have a lot to hide mostly because I hate it when people are all up in my business. But every word I speak is designed to deliver a message.

I find it annoying because I'd rather suffer the repercussions than stop deleting messages. I might start apologizing if I had bothered someone but goodness I need to delete a clear mistake unless there is relevance for my mistake. It takes space for no reason.

I really don't want nor need to fit into this texting decorum people have. I was accused by xxxPs and several xxFJs that I type drier than their old relatives. The feature of instant messaging and being allowed to draft your words before sending them is best utilized if you are coherent, cohesive, and brief with what you deliver. I hate receiving a bombardment, a rapid fire of notifications only to get "how did you sleep?" Obviously, I answered my INFP friend truthfully: with both my eyes closed and neatly burrito-wrapped by my blanket in the lightless night. If they had asked me that once without the barrage of "heys," emojis, and "I miss yous" I would've answered the same way without suffering a dissonant staccato of dings.

Besides, if they really missed me, they could've called or scheduled a time to hang out. Except they don't. My ENTP friend had already labeled and recognized irregularities and cues in my texting. She knows when I am lethargic, busy, or even sensing something is utterly wrong. When I am tired, I forget to simplify my wording. When I am busy I send voice mails. When she senses that something is utterly wrong, it is when I start using emojis. The most annoying thing with her analysis is that its correct and I feel like I am the butt of the joke. At least I'm comically consistent. Typing this had made it feel unreal, honestly.

This is possibly an inane introvert and thinker problem or an INTJ thing. Or just a me thing. Oh well. I'm still going to be very dry and will delete messages.

[sunstranded]

INTJ: Hurting people's Feelings

Isn't this a fun conversation? The INTJ stereotype hurting people's feelings and walking away. I'm not going to pretend as if people misunderstand me for believing that. They understand what they want to understand. This explanation of that stereotype is for people who want to hear it from an INTJ that is often confused as a kind extravert.

I find hurting people's feelings to be a consequence I cannot fully gauge. If I hurt someone, then I will apologize because that is rarely ever my intention. I expect people to be uncomfortable with criticism but I do not expect them to be hurt or feel disrespected. Especially since I set the scene and context before I give criticism. If I am unable to, I outright do it in a question format.

I am an observant person that will use textual evidence (if chat) and have referrable evidence as much as I can when arguing. If I am asking, I write the exact word down and try to ask about it.

What people seem to keep forgetting is that questions are not accusations even if they feel like it is. Often times when people feel like it is, there is an underlying reason that I can not always know.

For my lack of knowledge in that, I will only apologize if they bring it up to me. I can not know whatever the hell another person is feeling. Sure, I can make an assumption based on the language presented to me but I do not let myself act or react based on an assumption with barely any certainty.

Back to when I had said "I set the scene and context..." this is basically how I ensure emotions are irrelevant in the discussion. Criticism, especially when you think you did well, does hurt. It can even feel very unfair. However, keep those feelings for later because being a self-apologist when subject to criticism makes you feel intolerant to it. I am not saying emotions are useless and will never be relevant but good God, know the appropriate time and space to release those.

People have this tendency to irresponsibly use their emotions and what they are going through as a shield. And I seethe when people start saying "that's valid" as if a one liner can always be comforting. If a reaction is certainly valid, spell out to that person that how they reacted and felt made sense to a third party. Saying "That's valid" alone is comforting no body. Also, after you comfort their reaction to be humane and normal, you aren't the insensitive ass for telling them to know the time and place and do better next time.

When they mention INTJs do not like drama, they meant: INTJs do not get refreshed and do not have fun in needless, irrelevant, and truly aimless drama. It is an inevitable for me that I try to always learn from and give a purpose for but good God it is not something I have fun in. Hence, I always need to set the scene of a criticism with the draw back is that I have to lengthen my criticism to ensure no one gets hurt and they get the message (rarely do they get the message).

In all these, I recognize things that can hurt people but I won't apologize unless I got the cue to do so. I also put effort in avoiding that situation which makes my frustration realized. The very reason my frustration is apparent is when the context is set to be professional and leave emotions for later but people would use it to invalidate whatever insight I said.

[sunstranded]

INTJ: Pleasantries

Now to appear even more like I'm going against what I just previously said, I want to complain how needless I find pleasantries. I wonder if this is some INTJ thing that only INTJs do. Even as an INTJ, I don't know and would be hesitant to claim so.

Anyway, I just encountered two of the most... needless and tiresome experience so far in the new realm I am in. By this I meant, I just got a whiplash of thing that happened to me before (that I am able to recognize as the most needless and tiring bullshit ever) but in a different context.

Anecdote Z:

I was in an event and just politely left at the time it was supposed to be done because it exceeded it. In this event I found it very annoying that newcomers felt very excluded and that the prompt for the whole thing (why the event even was interesting to me in the first place) was not only discarded and forgotten but also the existence of the event and its execution proves the prompt. In the short most sensical way to put it, the people in the event were proving the prompt that they wanted to disprove by whatever the hell they were doing. Also known as a waste of my time.

Anecdote Y:

In a meeting, I find myself having to stretch what I want to say just to spare people's feelings because they will stop listening if I ruffle feathers. Either that, or misunderstandings and needless pettiness and fights will hinder progress. It is utterly annoying because if I ever stretch what I want to say, it is inefficient for them to understand. I find it important to establish emotions as an irrelevant matter in the present discussion of work. Handle that emotional wreckage and damage after. Good god.

By all this, it is clear now why an INTJ can might as well be painted as the always dissatisfied perfectionist that will break bones and feelings because of it. I argue against such an observation. Analyze further. Why am I dissatisfied? Not because I want perfection but I recognize that potential that equalizes our capacity with the most of what it can reach. That is not perfection. It may be more of an ideation or ideal conception but unlike dreamers I live my dreams awake. I also do not break bones and feelings without a payoff I deem worthwhile despite the pain. I make calculated moves, get hurt now cry later but at least we are getting somewhere.

Anecdote Z and Y, if I had failed to show it by being vague on my story telling for the sake of my privacy, they both show how I get frustrated and annoyed but I keep it in until it is appropriate to let it out. We've asked these people for their time and I find it rude to use it all up for the sake of my feelings alone.

Furthermore, I value self-awareness and belongingness even if my self-awareness and comfort in it is the reason I often find myself not belonging anywhere. I learned early on that exclusion that guests may feel because of execution is a justified because the gauge of execution being good is not just a smooth operation but every guest finding the event worth their while. And what I find people forget when pleasantries are no longer softening up the blow is that I am deemed cruel and all about myself when in reality I am telling them useful criticism that is actually constructive because wasting someone else's time is more insulting to me. Hence, I always give constructive criticism because insults are wasting someone's time and headspace. But even then, I only give criticism when prompted to or if it is worth saying since it is a conscious decision for me to speak something, know how to speak it, and make sure there's little chance of it being misused.

So when pleasantries in the form of sugarcoating and having to be so very careful about someone's feelings to the point you pay the price of the criticism being misunderstood or not taken at all, it is really annoying and utterly useless. I do not need a perfect dialogue, a perfect event, a perfect anything. All I really care for is not using my lack of sugarcoating as a lack of care for pleasantries and politeness. It is not brutal honesty. It's accurate constructive criticism that some people can receive as brutal honesty. If I was being brutally honest then I would not think of ways to be constructive about it and even spend headspace to think of ways to improve.

For the given anecdotes, I did not give my constructive criticism because it is not asked of me and I have confidence that people can find it out on their own. However, those anecdotes, if I am ever asked for criticism, I will give it and give it to them as constructive criticism. However, my intent does not guarantee that their interpretation would see that.

[sunstranded]

INTJ: Small Talk

I spoke about wasting time in the last one, now for the [arguably] most tedious ritual this society invented for the sake of pleasantries. There is a use for this, building rapport. Hence, I don't want to be stereotyped as an INTJ that hates small talk. I'd rather be stereotyped as someone that won't talk unless prompted to.

Language is one of the things I study and of course, language transcends readable things. It can pragmatic over semantic and most of the time it is. Thus, I utilize small talk merely as a careful way to get into deeper conversations. I also study humor in language though this one a lot more informally, I can see its utility in this small talk ritual.

What I had meant to say in deeper conversations was merely: conversations with meaning and nuance, authenticity. It does not need to be academic, factual, logical. And good heavens would I want an emotionally deep conversation. Dear god no. It just needs to be an honest one. Once pleasantries are done, I want to move on to authenticity. Otherwise, I would only talk once prompted to.

Weather is only interesting to me if people are willing to deep dive into willful ignorance and individualistic desire being the undermentioned cause of climate change. Someone's personal life detail is only interesting to me if we're in a personal context and if I genuinely give a shit. I often don't. Not because I hate people, I just don't know these people to care.

I have an ISTJ friend, they told me I was pretty badass to be very cutthroat. Coming from an ISTJ? I had to quickly reflect. I personally know other ISTJs and ESTJs that are even more cutthroat than me. I suppose it's because of that environment that I could be more cutthroat than the ISTJ friend of mine. They had mentioned they cannot do it because people have feelings and will lie about their feelings for some crazy reason. It is a sentiment we share. The social game is just too confusing that often times being on our own is a lot better.

Small talk ritual only becomes the most needless and annoying thing in existence when it bleeds through: (1) critical thinking; (2) opinion generating; and (3) established relationships. By this I mean to say that I have no room for small talks if it has been established in (please do not interpret this to be charged with romance) the relationship I have with someone that I find surface level conversations that stay that way to be mundane, a waste, and I'd rather be in utter silence.

For people's opinions, what I hate the most especially in this digitalized, fast-paced and age, are people that would take someone else's opinion as there own and the worse variant of that is if they are unaware that their opinion is following this seemingly brainless horde as they try to "stand out." The point in having your own opinion is to not stand out. You can agree with someone but good god have your own takes as to why. Further more, I find it tiresome that people would judge others in such superfluous and superficial ways. I find that utterly tiring. Small talk bleeds through this because small talk is superficial and light, designed so to build rapport or to just be polite. However, having your own opinions in anything does not and will never excuse you for scrutiny and opposition. Highly likely, I'd rather have people shut up than have opinions and then scream and wail their emotions towards my direction because I wanted to test the rigor of their opinion. Good god, this happens to me too many times. I get accused for being a perfectionist, an asshole, a jackass, a smartass, a know it all, just because I asked questions to test the foundation of someone's thought. If they were shook, good for them. They can repair it and be better. If they utterly got demolished, good for them. They can rebuild a better one. If they are complaining why I broke their foundations, then maybe they should've avoided engaging with me or just had better opinions. Again, this sounds like intellectual prejudice and intolerance but I can listen to someone's well thought out opinion that is completely different from mine and might even be quite insane to hear.

Exhibit A: I know someone that does witchcraft and another person that believes in astrology. I often find myself understanding them better and even see patterns in beliefs and thought processes that I cherish to this day.

Whenever I feel like someone has this inexplicable aversion to critical thinking, I avoid it altogether and just suffer the inane situation of needless and stuck small talk. I personally prefer it if people would critically think and I do not care if they ramble on and on to just get their thoughts sorted. I am patient enough and would even throw questions and words to help them out. That is what I value, critical thinking. If small talk bleeds into someone's critical thinking, they walk with an infection: a wrongful justification or weaponization for their ignorance.

I am no healer, I might even consider myself to be an ineffective antigen that might strengthen the infection rather than end it. All I am is a person looking for authenticity and a practitioner for strong immune system from the plague we like to call "ignorance."

As I have mentioned, language transcending words and sounds, I often mask and filter my words because people in society are often subjected to unfair judgements and rushed generalizations. I do not want to make them even think I am one of those people, hence, I find small talk and even my word choice and delivery very important to rapport.

However, it would be a very rare case that I start small talk. My principle of not wasting anyone else's time because I don't want mine wasted goes above all, which means I often just ask very important questions.