| Socionics Personals |  | Female
Straight
16-25
Oceania
Libra
ENFj |
|  | Male
Straight
16-25
Middle East
Sagittarius
INTj |
|  | Male
Straight
26-35
North America
Pisces
INXj |
| | Join now! |
Who is who?Learn how to convert between different systems
V.I.An introduction into the widely used Socionics Visual Identification technique
TestsA collection of Socionics related tests and quizes
Q & AsAsk a Socionics related question or provide an answer to an existing one
ArticlesVarious articles on the subject of Socionics and Types in general
ForumsWant to discuss Type? Head to Socionics Forums!
|
| Questions & Answers |
| Question #1185435851 | Thursday, 26-Jul-2007 |
|
|
| According to the ISTP uncovered profile, it says that they may need to hurt those they love in order to understand that they love them becaue of the peculiar nature of their hidden agenda. INTPs also have the same "hidden agenda" function ([Fi]). I take this as "wanting to love/like people" but constantly being disappointed and then "hurting" them. Does this imply physical/verbal abuse? -- Anonymous |
|
A1 That applies only to the ISTp. Based on what ISTp's who have written here, they push away people who are in relantionships with them. And some also hurt people to test if the other person will still love them, and so they can trust to love the other person (or something like that, honestly makes no sense to me). I suppose for ISTp it's about finding just the perfect person to love, and nothing else will do in the long run. I'm not sure how excatly they hurt though. For INTp's it's not about hurting people who they love/wish to love. For INTp it's case of severely hurting their own chances of finding someone, partly on purpose/partly indelibrate by just being themselves. For example by being a weird hermit, by dressing badly/weirdly/rebelliously/cheaply/"in whatever their mom tells them to", by being pessimistic and the list goes on. Although INTp's might be charming and funny, and so on. They don't realise it themselves, and therefore they don't make moves to form a relantionship. Because they are clueless, and also blind to the situation. Like someone without any medical training doing a heart surgery blindfolded. INTp's have no idea what to do, and can't see what are the results of the interaction with the other person, except in some very rudimentary fashion. So the INTp thinks they will do more harm than good, if they do something, so they rather not do anything, and just wait for a miracle or someone to tell or show what to do next. Only way INTp can hurt a potential love interest, is their aloof attitude and undelibarate mixed messages and the dissapointment it causes. Even in the case the other person thinks they are very clearly showing interest. INTp's don't see it clearly enough, unless it's blatantly obvious: like telling them in words. Once the romantic relantionship clearly formed, INTp's are much better and know what to do. Although INTp is still sometimes aloof, and don't read all the clues. Wich might hurt the other person, but they aren't that way on purpose. Also so that INTp can love the other person, the other person has to love them also. And INTp might also have high standard about the person they will allow themselves to love. With INTp's the hidden agenda manifests more as in stealthy "plans". That was more about men. I don't know any INTp women, so maybe they stab salted icy daggers through mens hearts  -- Anonymous |
| A2 Yeah, this story is all too familiar. I also get the impression that I put girls off by being so quiet -- they must be getting mixed messages of shy/cold from me. I abhor neighborhood gossip, formal ceremonies, etc. and usually underdress for "special occasions"...I take a strictly utilitarian/"whatever is closest to me when I wake up" (granting it's clean) approach here. The "more harm than good" problem is typical -- I can seldom identify how "gentle" is gentle-enough not to hurt an F-type girl's feelings or put her off...I'm often worried about seeming icy/bitter/detached, etc. which is how I usually come off. I'm usually pretty good with quips. -- Anonymous |
|
|
| A3 Ok. I'm an INTp, and there is a lot in A2s response that is not true in my experience and current understanding. INTps aren't clueless when it comes to relationships, and are (as I have interpreted A2s point) overwhelmed and in awe when they "stumble" onto a relationship. This idea may be theoretically appealing, given the innate non-comformity of INTps, but it doesn't hold up in experience. My understanding is this: INTps are naturally gifted at seeing frameworks and limitations of things. This is often why, when we debate, we attack the very criteria/criterion used by our opponents - because when a criteria changes, everything that flows from it changes. Most non-INTps don't grasp this until it's far too late. The point here is that INTPs are gifted at seeing limitations - not just of opinions, but concepts, visions...whatever. MOST relationships, including those that claim to be based on love, are in fact conceptual business relationships. They are, fundamentally, selfish. Each person fills a need (for the time being) in the other, be it an actual service, or more typically, invoking a certain feeling or enabling one person to adopt the other as part of their identity (i.e. having a hot wife makes me the envy of those around me, having a CEO husband makes me successful, etc etc). INTps grasp this. We grasp the overwhelming BULL**** of most relationships, and that they aren't in fact relationships at all. They are mutual business exchanges - and as long as they are in effect, the relationship continues. When something changes - when one person needs something the other cannot give or won't give, then the relationship almost always decays and unleashes a kind of hell that could never, ever be born out of such 'love'. THe fact that the majority of marriages now end in divorce is beautiful circumstantial evidence to support something so obvious to any INTp with eyes. Does this make us unromantic? In a superficual way, yes, of course. But in a deeper way, it makes us META-ROMANTICS, because we are actually holding out for a relationship - for a love - that surpasses limitations and that isn't subject to mechanical supply and demand dynamics. *This is why most mystics who emphasize union with God have been, in my study, INTps*. These INTps simply found a source for their love in something that did not have limits. What the majority of people call "love", to an INTp, simply isn't love. Just because 90% of people call it something doesn't make it something. INTps simply refuse to buy into a definition of something that doesn't make sense and doesn't hold true in reality. This is why INTps, if they are VERY lucky, find an expression in metaphysics or the mystical. Few do, though, and that's why INTps grow old and "alone" - they are no more alone than the rest of society, but they have fewer structures to hide behind (i.e. robotic and massochistic extended families, etc.). Sorry for the rant, but the notion that INTps are love-phobic simply doesn't hold up in reality. INTps simply see the structures - see how people in relationships reduce each other to commodities and then see how those pieces fit a particular desire - and wonder, over and over and over: this is love? it...it can't be! -- Anonymous |
| A4 That was a bit of an over-dramatization. Long story short, I didn't say I'm hollow, unaware or "love-phobic." Remarks of societal reprisal like "hey, at least I (ex: stick needles up my @$$) while you won't even (ex: bludgeon your head with a tire iron)" give me no consolation; I'm critical of college dorm-room romances born when two heads wake craned over the same toilet bowl; my voice is probably the one sadly answering "Is there any 'sense' in the world?" with "All too much" or "All too human"; etc. A3, you say "INTps simply refuse to buy into a definition of something that doesn't make sense and doesn't hold true in reality" and that "most mystics who emphasize union with God have been, in my study, INTps" -- if I interpret you correctly, you are saying that the "religious/philosophical" INTp is likely to be a reluctant metaphysical monist. "Returning" to the normal world was my point of departure in A2. I won't bother repeating since A3's comment covered many bases at once. -- Anonymous |
| A5 actually, i meant to type 'a1' and types 'a2' by mistake. soooo...sorry. also: i understanding nothing of your response. -- Anonymous |
| A6 To A3: ...likely to be a reluctant metaphysical monist: "But in a deeper way, it makes us META-ROMANTICS, because we are actually holding out for a relationship - for a love - that surpasses limitations and that isn't subject to mechanical supply and demand dynamics." They "wonder, over and over and over: this is love? it...it can't be!" So you are expressing disappointment with the merely animal spectrum of human emotions...no? "MOST relationships, including those that claim to be based on love, are in fact conceptual business relationships. They are, fundamentally, selfish." You suspect at times that there can't be another way, and dread it...no? -- "The fact that the majority of marriages now end in divorce is beautiful circumstantial evidence to support something so obvious to any INTp with eyes." At one time most marriages began by arrangement and before that rape -- and there's nothing new under the sun. "Each person fills a need (for the time being) in the other, be it an actual service, or more typically, invoking a certain feeling or enabling one person to adopt the other as part of their identity (i.e. having a hot wife makes me the envy of those around me, having a CEO husband makes me successful, etc etc). INTps grasp this." -- There's nothing to "grasp." Welcome to the Hobbesian jungle. "Does this make us unromantic? In a superficial way, yes, of course." -- For better or for worse, that superficiality is what determines whether a conversation will or will not continue...it's senseless expecting others to mind-read. A1 wrote: "Once the romantic relantionship [has] clearly formed, INTps are much better and know what to do." -- I don't think this implies cluelessness. It does however describe me pretty well. ***** As for the "more harm than good" statement...wouldn't that be an over-arching theme for INTps who look at most enterprises as failed/doomed from the start? -- Anonymous |
| A7 a6: you're an INTj. -- Anonymous |
| *Please note that the opinions expressed are not necessarily those of socionics.com* |
|
| Would you like to add anything? |
(When posting, we ask you to make the effort to qualify your opinions.)
|
|
