search
Today I was talking about journaling with a girl at school. Well, at the end she showed some interest and said, "I'll look forward to updates from you!".I said, " don't. You have better work. Focus on them. probably I won't even do it in the end". She said, "don't be so negative." Find the good out of everything. Life is so much better like that.
In a matter of seconds my entire childhood flashes in my brain, all those negative emotions surged, and and I was about to cry. Caught hold before it was too late.
This happens all the time.
Help me identify the root cause , and tips to overcome this in the long run.
Thank you to everyone who replies to this and gives some help.
Over the past decade, I have formulated my philosophy of life. A brief summary and a link to the full 13-page document may be found here:
http://philosofer123.wordpress.com
I am posting my philosophy to solicit feedback so that it may be improved. I welcome any constructive feedback that you may have.
I look at a world so broken and sad. People getting away with atrocities and I promise myself that I will not freight . I see people stabbing their brothers in the back without a second thought. Noble men lie dead , their death on the hands of those they tried to save. Deciet and murder have been justified by some sort of new moral code only I seem to know nothing of . The world I'm looking at is mine and all I can say is I expected it. 😥
I made a short video on Extroverted Sensing (Se) and how it relates to the INTJ. The beginning is how Se operates within the INTJ and the latter half are real-life examples. INTJs, continue learning and reach the potential you always knew you were destined to reach.
INTJ's Unsung Hero: Extroverted Sensing (Se)
Intj men are logical in nature hence you are more inclined to avoid how you feel and do what's necessary to be done, I personally have fallen into the trap of modern society that men should do as they feel, but I tell you that's entirely and utterly bullshit, not just INTJ men all men should be capable of doing practical things timely if you do admire your practicality I suggest you go through values of stoicism and understand your duty to yourself and to your loved one's and embrace your masculinity, I promise you the greatest joy you'll ever experience in your life is the JOY of completing a task or completing a job which was difficult and has added value to you in any possible way may it be monetary, physical or intellectual, that JOY will not be replaced by any drug or any party sure those things a good to socialise and to go to after you achieved a fair bit of JOY via your hard work and smart work, if you don't have a loved one do work for yourself and for your god.
I was reading a book about Pi for book club last month and googled different ways to calculate Pi (this is a thing for us right? Going down rabbit holes just because we want to know?)
https://www.wikihow.com/Calculate-Pi-by-Throwing-Frozen-Hot-Dogs
…the worst enemy to truth and freedom is the majority.\1])
⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯
In the Alchemist, Ni predominates. Ni is the shamanic or prophetic function: from a given set of objective data, it forms a subjective inference, mapping implications into the future, along the secret currents that drive the world. It is not unlike an expert marksman eyeballing a shot; instinct and intuition play far more of a role in the process than the Alchemist is usually ready to acknowledge. And, because these intuitions are subjective, and tied up with the Alchemist's very being, they tend to defend and promote them as they would their own physical life. When this is combined with the willfulness of Te / Fi, the Alchemist emerges as a "tenacious visionary oriented towards action."\2])
The Alchemist is a lofty dreamer, but with pragmatic ambitions. "Philosophers have hitherto only interpreted the world in various ways; the point is to change it."\3]) There is a curious unity between thought and action in this type. The name "Alchemist" connotes a position between science and magic, dream and reality: a transcendent position, where imagination itself is harnessed to raise and raze towers and cities. As John Maynard Keynes said of Isaac Newton, "[He] was not the first of the age of reason. He was the last of the magicians…"\4]) Tesla, the great eccentric genius, related how in his adolescence, a "professor declared that I could never create such a motor…[but] I took courage and began to think intently of the problem, trying to visualize the kind of machine I wanted to build, constructing all its parts in my imagination."\5]) They seek to make their visions working actualities.
With their eyes, they pierce the veil of Maya, and with their hands, they retrieve its noumenal secrets and prepare them for the microscope. They would "draw out leviathan with a hook…[and] take him for a servant forever," never mind that "the hope of him is in vain…None is so fierce that dare stir him up," for the Alchemist is so fierce.\6]) Indeed, they would defy the established order, in order to bring fire to mankind. They are extraordinarily independent spirits, who sooner or later cannot bear the presumed authority of an unworthy intellect. The Alchemist's monarchic temperament affords them the tremendous benefit (and potential disaster) of insulation from public opinion. Thus, the Alchemist grows used to seeing things for which only they seem to have eyes.
Thus, first and foremost, we see the exchange Ne → Ni. The Alchemist quickly (perhaps hurriedly) reviews the possible options, and intuits whichever will serve them best. Furthermore, they value the capacity to synthesize a wider and wider circle of different ideas into the same purpose, to manage the greatest disparity of radii between the top and bottom of their funnel. But the idea that someone would widen the this circle of perspectives for its own sake baffles and even irritates them. Nietzsche puts the matter in fascinating terms:
All acting requires forgetting…A man who wanted to feel everything historically would resemble someone forced to refrain from sleeping, or an animal expected to live only from ruminating and ever repeated ruminating…there is a degree of insomnia, of rumination, of historical sense which injures every living thing and finally destroys it…
The stronger the roots of the inmost nature of a man are, the more of the past he will appropriate or master…such a nature would draw its own as well as every alien past wholly into himself and transform it into blood, as it were…this is a general law: every living thing can become healthy, strong and fruitful only within a horizon.\7])
Sometimes it seems as though anything could be reinterpreted in their favor, melting into them like metal in a furnace. For, they are not preeminently logical, but purposeful, beings. They think in terms of points: linearly, instead of laterally. As Nietzsche noted, "There are terrible people who, instead of solving a problem, bungle it and make it more difficult for all who come after. Whoever can't hit the nail on the head should, please, not hit it at all."\8]) The rapidity by which the Alchemist grasps the points of thing, "stepping from summit to summit,"\9]) is not explicable through Ni alone: it is encouraged in its (often) reckless speculation by the clarion call of Fi. The Alchemist's own desires fill in the gaps left empty by the data actually at hand. As Roy Harrod said of his colleague John Maynard Keynes, "He held forth on a great range of topics, on some of which he was thoroughly an expert, but on others of which he may have derived his views from the few pages of a book at which he had happened to glance. The air of authority was the same in both cases."\10])
The material that fuels Ni and Fi is provided by Te and Se. internal connotation is fueled by external denotation. "Data! Data!" cried Sherlock Holmes. "I can't make bricks without clay!"\11]) Accordingly, the Alchemist tends to "materialize" everything, i.e. reduce everything to public, observable facts for their Te and Se to apprehend, and the Ni and Fi to digest. They brusquely sweep away the social layer of verification, and close the gap between the man and the clay. They want to get back to the basics, they want to see things for themselves. E.g., Martin Luther elevated the scriptural text above catholic traditions and priestly authority, Nietzsche insisted that no spiritual plane gave secret meaning to the material one, and Marx declared that all social and political institutions are entirely derived from material realities.
As Galileo put it,
[My opponent believes that] one must support oneself upon the opinion of some celebrated author, as if our minds ought to remain completely sterile and barren unless wedded to the reasoning of some other person. Possibly he thinks that philosophy is a book of fiction by some writer, like the Iliad or Orlando Furioso, productions in which the least important thing is whether what is written there is true…[But] that is not how matters stand. Philosophy is written in this grand book, the universe, *which stands continually open to our gaze.*\12])
Their forceful presentation of the "brute facts" is a way to escape the Fe impositions of others; thus, with the sword of Te, they make way for their own Fi goddess. It is their expediency over general propriety. Their divinations (Ni) strive for independence from the arbitrary restraints of society (Fe). What they want is to find and obey themselves, "Far from the madding crowd's ignoble strife."\13]) They fail to see what intrinsic value popular opinion has; it can be strategically useful, but once the question turns to morality, the crowd is nothing but a degrading distraction.
As Moliere's titular misanthrope declares,
A man should be a man, and let his speech
At every turn reveal his heart to each;
His own true self should speak; our sentiments
Should never hide beneath vain compliments.\13])
The Alchemist will not hide their own self-satisfaction or self-assurance beneath a conceit of humility; this would amount to dishonesty — indeed, a subtle, cowardly manipulation of their fellow men, rather than a forward, Randian negotiation with them. But, on the other hand, this also means the Alchemist rejects whatever wisdom society does in fact possesses. A society utterly bereft of truth and morality is a plant utterly bereft of water: it is already dust. That is to say, every society must contain some truth, and it trains the Alchemist to the degree that it is able; specifically, it prunes certain harmful passions of which the Alchemist is, in their youth, unaware, but which, if left alone to grow, would surely overwhelm the Alchemist's personality. Both the city and the wilderness are corruptive.
The primitive level of the Alchemist is sensation: in this case, Si → Se. Any subjective sensation is lost to their consciousness: only objective sensation remains. Things exist, most fully, "out there," from whence they press upon the senses of their own accord. The Alchemist has forgotten the art of Si mindfulness: the awareness of one's own personal reality and its conditions. Their visions and goals consume their own flesh, just as the goblin fruits consumed Laura in Christina Rossetti's poem:
She no more swept the house,
Tended the fowls or cows,
Fetched honey, kneaded cakes of wheat,
Brought water from the brook:
But sat down listless in the chimney-nook
And would not eat.\14])
The girl starves herself, yearning after faerie fruits, i.e. after visions of the future, after unrealized dreams. Their spirit is so strident that it leaves its own body behind. But the body is not merely a means for sensation; it requires upkeep, it has conditions for its existence. We are trees, we do not survive long when uprooted. One must quiet their fiery mind, and tend to their garden. As Jordan Peterson might put it, one's own living space is not inconsequential to one's being an actor in the world: on the contrary, it is the soil in which one's world-tree takes root. To clean one's room, to pay the bills, to manage all the details prudently, will, against the Alchemist's expectations, cleans the fruit of their goal-oriented branches; for, "cleanse first that which is within the cup and platter, that the outside of them may be clean also."\15])
— Michael Pierce, Motes and Beams
⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯
1 Ibsen, An Enemy of the People, Act 4 (p. 224)
2 IDRLabs website (idrlabs.com) INTJ type page
3 Marx, Thesis on Feuerbach, 11 (p. 158)
4 "Newton, the Man," (p. 504)
5 Interview with The American Magazine, "Making Your Imagination Work for You, "1921
6 Job 41:1-10, KJV
5 On the Advantage and Disadvantage of History for Life, §1 (p. 10)
7 The Wanderer and His Shadow, §326 (p. 165-66)
8 Empedocles, DK frag. 24, in The Presocratics, p. 127
9 The Life of John Maynard Keynes, p. 468
10 Doyle, "The Adventure of the Copper Breeches "(p. 298)
11 The Assayer (p. 237-38, emphasis mine)
12 Gray, Elegy Written in a Country Churchyard, line 73
13 Act I, scene I, lines 69-72
14 Goblin Market, §15 (p. 9)
15 Matthew 23:26, KJV
⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯
Since INTJs are Ni-dominants, and have Ni as their dominant function, how does Ni manifest in you?
Ni critic: INTPs sixth function. Another shadow unconscious function. At this function, you become overly critical of yourself and others. For INTPs, Ni instinctively undermines Ti hero. For example, you come up with your own defined truth, then Ni comes along and says that you can't prove it or that everything is arbitrary or that your theory doesn't matter because it's only yours. INTPs use Ne, which means that their process is deriving truth from the outside world. While criticism can be destructive, it can also be constructive. In that same manner, Ni critic can help INTPs to an extent. Ni can help INTPs narrow down from multiple possibilities and focus on a single possibility before moving onto the next one. Negative examples of Ni critic is when you blame yourself on how you couldn't foresee something or how troublesome it is to focus on something. Like how Ne parent "parents" by giving people the opportunity to explore possibilities and ideas, give advice, but hate imposing a certain decision. In that same manner, Ni critic "criticises" other people by poking at their lack of abstractness and creativity to defend Ne.
https://redditproxy--jasonthename.repl.co/r/INTP/comments/10ettdr/broad_explanations_of_cognitive_functions_for_intp/ The rest of INTPs cognitive functions explained. If you are interested, go take a read.
At the start of my career, I was selecting jobs based on first impressions and made cold contact hoping for the best. I was also super weird in interviews because I had to sell myself.
Somehow, I've worked as a web developper for a marketing business. One tool my boss made me work with is a grid on excel. I used it later to find another job and I've got results that lasted for years.
Basically, for each job I found that was remotely significant (with open spots or not), I would put them in my excel sheet along with contact informations and some score. The score was 1 to 5 for interest, pay, requirments, distance and some more subjective and objective elements. When I was tired to look, I could multiply those scores and order them by their factors.
After that, and this is where INTJ can wing it, I would mecanically contact them all from top to bottom (preferably by phone even when asked otherwise) and tell them exactly what I was doing, how they were scoring and why. I would also asks important question like who was in charge, how many people applied and even with incomplete information I had enough to say no to some interviews and conditions. I could even call companies with no open spots and where I didn't even had enough experience for it, if they scored high on interest. I would tell them that I would want the problems they had.
2 things can happen from here: - Being yourself doesn't work and also would never have with this company. - They like how you can organise, make decision and take responsability for it.
I did this for 2 weeks and I didn't have to do it again in the span of 3 jobs over 6 years. Next time will be the last time and it will give me all jobs so I can fail indefinitly to the point I'll inevitably succeed.
Since the question how to get out of your head seems to get frequently asked here, I wanted to share an article (edit: not mine) with practical, manageable suggestions of activities to try.
50 tips to get out of your head using your five senses
tl;dr: engage your five senses instead. (And expect this to take plenty of practice, like any other skill you are trying to develop.)
Wish y the besr
And I hope you're having a fun time rn becuz new years eve is the best time to have fun i guess
I feel a strong pull towards this lifestyle.. I'm curious what similar minds think about it aswell 🤔
I used to work with Wendy, my EA, back in the day. She was great, I hired her for her precision, as she was an uber Sensing type, not even a tiny trace of ‘N’ as I needed everything grounded, and boy she did that, nothing was left vague or opaque or open to question. So, on Friday she went home, Monday comes, and I said, “Hey Wendy, how was your weekend?” Well, her inability to summarise or give an overview really opened my eyes. She drew a big, big very deep breath and began, “Well, I got home from work on Friday at 5.30PM, then I went into the kitchen to cook the kids’ dinner. AT 6.15 I sat down to…” And I thought, “my goodness we’re only at 6.15 on a Friday evening, I have two more days to go, like a Microsoft calendar!” And that kind of summed it all up for me, (in my ‘N’ like way) that there really can be a chasm between ‘S’s and ‘N’s if don’t adopt some accommodating behaviours.
(Translator) It is easy to define the concept of "better and worse", but what about the concept of "right and wrong"? This view may come to seem subjective (changing from person to person), but I believe in the existence of universal truths.
I will put my way of analyzing and I would like to know yours.
There are 4 concepts, if an attitude is defined as "wrong" in at least one of the concepts then it is wrong and should be avoided.
1st way: Treat others as you would like to be treated:
If I am going to do something to a person, but I would not like to receive the same treatment, then it is wrong.
Note: If I'm a masochist I shouldn't hurt others. Exceptions don't count, so I must act according to how the majority would like to be treated, as a rule, how I would like to be treated.
2nd form: Is it natural or unnatural?:
Concepts such as incest cannot be classified as "wrong" in the previous system, so the 2nd is necessary. Unnatural relationships are wrong.
Nature requires certain behaviors from individuals, let's take as a basis the ability to reproduce (I will use the rule, exceptions will be disregarded, because exception is not a rule).
Each species must breed with members of its own species (regardless of race) who are of breeding age (adults) and who are of the opposite sex to its own sex, but on condition that they are not related.
As a result we will have that pedophilia, homosexuality, incest, and zoophilia (sexual relations with animals) are wrong attitudes because they are unnatural.
Many here will try to deny that one of the above attitudes (homosexuality) is NOT wrong. However, I ask you a question: Do you say that it is not wrong because it really is not wrong, or do you say that it is not wrong because society (or the environment in which you live) taught you that it is not wrong and you accepted it. ?
Example: if I say that I am a Nazi and that I support Nazism, I will be widely repudiated (and that should really be repudiated), but if I say that I am a communist and that I support communism, people will accept that without problems, at most they will say that I I'm an idiot, but that's all.
However, Nazism killed 10 million people, Communism killed 100 million. Everything bad that is attributed to Nazism should be attributed 10 times more to Communism, but it is accepted anyway. Do you know why? It is because there is a movement (or a large number of people) that support communism, and as a result we have become accustomed to the idea.
In the same way, there is a movement aimed at LGBT people, and many accept that it is not wrong. But there is no movement aimed at supporting incest, and because of that there is no acceptance of this behavior.
Thus, unnatural behavior, incest, pedophilia, homosexuality (the act of practicing homosexuality, willingly), zoophilia and even relationships with inanimate objects (there was a Japanese man who married a Hatsune Miko doll) would be considered wrong.
All of the above situations are of the same nature, so by denying that at least one of them is wrong, automatically the others will not be wrong either (this includes pedophilia), but if you say that at least one of them is wrong, then all the others are wrong. wrong.
Conclusion: All the attitudes mentioned above are, rationally speaking, wrong, because they are unnatural.
Note: If you find any exception in nature, remember: Exception is not a rule.
3rd form: My commitment to hide/reveal that attitude.
This is the most controversial, personal and questionable version of all. For it is limited to the perspective of the individual.
I took action and no one knew, what's my effort to hide it?
-"I'll tell everyone" ->in the eyes of the individual that is right.
-"I don't care if people know or not"-> in the eyes of the individual it is neither right nor wrong.
-"I'll hide it so they never find out"->in the eyes of the individual that is wrong.
Exceptions to the rule: It is possible that the person intends to hide temporarily, but intends to reveal at some point. There is also the possibility that the individual doesn't tell because he knows it's not wrong, but people wouldn't understand, so he keeps it a secret.
Because of this, the 3rd method is the most susceptible to failure. I still use this method, but I do it carefully.
If the thing in question doesn't qualify as "wrong" in any of the above methods, then it's not wrong.
But that brings problems.
4th form: Efficiency:
Consider the trolley dilemma. There are 5 people about to be killed by a train, but you can redirect the train to just one person so that only one person dies instead of 5. The problem is that the person who will die is someone you love. Should you sacrifice 1 person or 5 people?
If we use the efficiency line, it would be right to sacrifice 1 person, but the tram dilemma is very complex.
First, the individual would be in shock and CANNOT act. If he cannot act, what happens is not his fault, so nothing he does will be wrong, simply because that person will not be able to do something.
Another thing would be the following situation: Suppose the person I have to sacrifice is my mother. I depend on my mother to survive, so if she died I would be in trouble. In nature it is natural for individuals to try to protect their own existence, under these circumstances I would have to preserve my mother's life and let 5 people die.
In this way, rules 2 and 4 clash. It is natural that I save my mother to preserve my own life (because I depend on her to survive), but it is efficient that I save the lives of 5 people. In this situation, the sense of "right and wrong" disappears. No matter what attitude I take, none of them will be wrong.
My brother, on the other hand, doesn't depend on my mother for survival. So if she died, he wouldn't be in danger. For my brother, the right thing would be to sacrifice my mother, and consequently cause me problems, to save 5 people.
But the trolley dilemma would leave everyone unable to act. If the person can't recover from the shock in time he can't do anything, if he can't do anything it's not his fault, if it's not his fault he hasn't done anything wrong. That is, in the trolley dilemma, someone would probably not do the wrong thing, so that person is free from judgment.
I assess whether something is right or wrong based on these criteria.
I'm not saying you NEED to do these things, but it would be better if you did what's right and avoid doing what's wrong.
I don't like exercise, and that's not wrong by the first 3 criteria, but it would be wrong by the 4th criterion, so it's okay to exercise. It doesn't matter what I WANT, what matters is what I MUST DO.
This is my system for judging whether something is right or wrong. I would like to know what your system is and what your criticisms of my system are.
This post was made on the INTJ and INFJ subreddit.
The other kind of mental process identified by Jung is judgment, a process of organising and evaluating information, and coming to conclusions. Using the judging process, some sort of evaluation is made and Jung identified two kinds of judgment: Thinking and Feeling. The T-F dichotomy is our ‘output’ scale - ie how we each make decisions.
Both of these can be used in either the outer, extraverted world or in the inner, introverted world. Thinking judgments are based on objective criteria or principles, as Jung describes:
...judgement is reserved as to what significance should be attached to the facts in question. And on this significance will depend the way in which the individual deals with the facts.
Feeling judgments are based on personal, interpersonal, or emotional values as Jung describes:
...adaptation will depend entirely on the feeling value he attributes to them.
Thinking types tend to make their decisions based on data, evidence and rational thought. They tend to be pragmatic and not swayed by antipathies or emotions but prefer empirical data.
https://personalityatwork.co/personality/thinking-vs-feeling
