EDIT for all the people finding this post: I didn’t write the quoted text myself. It’s found at the page linked below, on the 16personalities.com site. I specifically picked the negative section because lots of personality quizzes give glowing praise as results, and the 16personalities site is one of the only ones I found that explicitly pointed out weaknesses in each personality type. Don’t take yourselves too seriously, folks. Life is short and we’re not saving lives here. END EDIT
No one can be accurately fit into one of sixteen personality types, but whenever I take a Myers-Briggs assessment now and then I usually get INTJ, strong on the I and J. Instead of titling this post with words that give the type a positive slant, I think it’s more precise (and fun) to label and describe INTJs as most people who aren’t INTJs would assess it—externally, in others. Because, honestly, interacting with humanity can pretty taxing, but that may be my I talking.
Arrogant – INTJs are perfectly capable of carrying their confidence too far, falsely believing that they’ve resolved all the pertinent issues of a matter and closing themselves off to the opinions of those they believe to be intellectually inferior. Combined with their irreverence for social conventions, INTJs can be brutally insensitive in making their opinions of others all too clear.
Judgmental – INTJs tend to have complete confidence in their thought process, because rational arguments are almost by definition correct – at least in theory. In practice, emotional considerations and history are hugely influential, and a weak point for INTJs is that they brand these factors and those who embrace them as illogical, dismissing them and considering their proponents to be stuck in some baser mode of thought, making it all but impossible to be heard.
Overly analytical – A recurring theme with INTJs is their analytical prowess, but this strength can fall painfully short where logic doesn’t rule – such as with human relationships. When their critical minds and sometimes neurotic level of perfectionism (often the case with Turbulent INTJs) are applied to other people, all but the steadiest of friends will likely need to make some distance, too often permanently.
Loathe highly structured environments – Blindly following precedents and rules without understanding them is distasteful to INTJs, and they disdain even more authority figures who blindly uphold those laws and rules without understanding their intent. Anyone who prefers the status quo for its own sake, or who values stability and safety over self-determination, is likely to clash with INTJ personality types. Whether it’s the law of the land or simple social convention, this aversion applies equally, often making life more difficult than it needs to be.
Clueless in romance – This antipathy to rules and tendency to over-analyze and be judgmental, even arrogant, all adds up to a personality type that is often clueless in dating. Having a new relationship last long enough for INTJs to apply the full force of their analysis on their potential partner’s thought processes and behaviors can be challenging. Trying harder in the ways that INTJs know best can only make things worse, and it’s unfortunately common for them to simply give up the search. Ironically, this is when they’re at their best, and most likely to attract a partner.
I received an email asking to promote the results of a poll, as seen in this post from the Daily Beast. Even though I’m actually doing what was requested by linking to it in this post, I responded to the email and declined because I’m not into charities I’m not personally involved with, and because the ham-handed interpretation of the poll was ludicrous.
Here’s my email response:
Thanks for reaching out to me, semi-personally, but the poll results are garbage. Not that it’s necessarily Grammarly’s fault, since polls are a wildly inaccurate at quantifying a complex series of attributes that comprise an intuitive-knowledge sort of area like language or writing. But it also presumes a standard of what “better writing” could be that not everyone may agree with. Yet, since it fits conveniently with TDB’s leftoid, feminine-primary readership, it works out in your favor.
Good luck, and I hope Grammarly sells the appropriate number of subscriptions this month.
An important contextual note on the “feminine-primary” phrase. There’s nothing wrong that I can see, by definition, about women (or men) getting together by themselves, separate from the other sex. Societies around the world have been doing that since time immemorial because there is benefit to it. Whether that could be called “x-primary” organization in the modern sense matters little. This isn’t a technical, academic paper.
But the wholesale “gathering together” of one sex has been met with more politicized/socialized approval for a good many decades, to the detriment of the other sex. An artificial and “forced”, as opposed to naturally-occurring and self-organizing, favoring of one over the other will always cause an imbalance in a binary system. The subject was already on the docket given the nature of the poll and the title of the post so it’s not an untoward gesture to give it a mention.
I am currently on the first draft stage of Retardo Montalbán, and I have onboarded Jill Domschot as the semi-formal editor of the project. We have a verbal agreement for services and payment, where I will remite payment at the end of her editing duties. So this public post carries with it the accountability factor—mostly on my end—to uphold my part of the bargain in good faith.
Before I go deep-diving into Retardo I’m going to finish the dead tree version of Bored in the Breakroom. The ebook version is still free and I don’t foresee it ever being not free, but the print version will have bonus stories and will obviously carry a cost. But that cost is heavily in your favor after the dolphin apocalypse arrives and there is no electronic grid to speak of.
When you see a beautiful chalice, it has a double beauty. If it’s well made, it has beauty for what it is. But if you know what it is, it also has beauty because you know what it’s meant to be filled with. The present world is like a chalice. God has made it as a thing of extraordinary beauty. But…we know what it’s going to be filled with. We should therefore celebrate the present beauty of the world, not in the sentimental way that denies the presence of evil and chaos and horror and death…Christian art ought to be able to say that the world is a place of great beauty, and also a place of great pain; but to do so in the light of the fact that the world shall one day be full of the glory of the Lord.
Once in a while, Relevant Magazine will post something not so completely drenched in Millenial Christian cheese sauce that it’s worth noting. Via Wintery Knight, “What If Having an Extraordinary Life Isn’t the Point?“:
Some have grown tired of the constant calls to radical change. They are less sure they want to jump on the next bandwagon or trail-blaze new paths. And yet, in a culture of revolutions and free choice, little trust and tradition have been preserved to give people the stability and community they desire. We have become caught between these two poles of desiring some kind of normalcy and yet desiring absolute freedom and autonomy.
The new redemption: salvation by fireworks. Someone should point out to SOMA-junkie Christians (I’ve known plenty) that 99% of all of Judeo-Christendom throughout history, by nature of what is ordinary versus extraordinary, have lived unremarkable lives. Unremarkable, that is, to the rest of humanity. No one cares or is affected by how awesome I thought the stars were last week, except maybe those who might read something I would post about them. But the affect on me was undeniable. Check the frame of reference: extraordinary to me, utterly pointless noise to the rest of the world.
C.S. Lewis’ idea that we live in the shadowlands was an accurate statement for his time, but in this Age of iPhone a new lens is needed. We live in a dun-colored small town—Taupeville&—where we live restless, comfortable lives of drab, monochrome unimportance, looking for the newest carnival of lights around the corner.