On the emotional intelligence of INTjs

[Mauresmo]

A lot has been said about the "emotional blindness" of INTJs and as a strong INTJ, I have yet to find such a fault in myself and from observing many, admittedly historical INTJs, I think that INTJs do possess a great degree of emotional intelligence. You can look at "emotional intelligence" in two ways: either as the ability to think calmly and in a focused manner under pressure, which is purely self-related, or, as the ability to perceive and assess the emotional state of another and influence it, which is a social definition.

As to the first, I think it is axiomatic that INTJs think lucidly under pressure. So the second is the decisve definition. I think of Hannibal, the great Carthinginian general, who wielded a multi-national army and held it together, obedient to his will and fervently devoted to him, a thing which arises not by accident but by policy. How many times, looking at someone, can you, in second, say, "Such-and-such-a-one is such-and-such-a-person" or that they are feeling such-and-such an emotion and that by doing such-and-such a thing, you can influence their emotions in, yes, "such-and-such" a direction. A look, a movement, a word.... All these things give a person away. Is it possible to study emotions using reason? I think so. I am a good judge of people and this has come about through the use of applied reason. Whether what I know comes about with reason used a priori or a posteriori, is unimportant for now.

What INTJs suffer from, is not "emotional blindness", but "emotional inexpressiveness", but this is something which they can get past, to a large extent, but I think it mainly comes about when there is a logical reason to do so: rallying the troops à la Hannibal or Napoleon, gaining some advantage from someone which requires an expression of feeling, though this is limited by the INTJs sense of....honesty....

One does not become a great leader without emotiona intelligence and INTJs do make excellent leaders.

Why do INTJs distrust people, or, wear gloves, as it were, in their presence? Is it because of a sense that there is something inherently threatening in them? A gathering storm? Is it a "matter of hygeine"?

[BlendieOfIndie]

You can look at "emotional intelligence" in two ways: either as the ability to think calmly and in a focused manner under pressure, which is purely self-related, or, as the ability to perceive and assess the emotional state of another and influence it, which is a social definition.

I don't think the first one has to do with intelligence at all. Sure, it might be a good thing to act cool and composed in certain situations, but that's doesn't mean your intelligent. That's like saying "acting polite at a dinner party means your intelligent."

The second definition I can agree with.

"Such-and-such-a-one is such-and-such-a-person" or that they are feeling such-and-such an emotion and that by doing such-and-such a thing, you can influence their emotions in, yes, "such-and-such" a direction.

I such-and-such with such-and-such of such for your such-in-such.
Please replace your "such-and-such"'s with <fill in emotion> or <adjective describing emotion>... You might have a good argument, but I can't understand such and suches. Even replacing by a variable "X" or "Y" would help. SUch-and-such is just too long.

A look, a movement, a word.... All these things give a person away. Is it possible to study emotions using reason? I think so.

Yes. There's a whole field dedicated to this: Psychology. (I'm sure there is a more fancy name for a subsect that studies emotions).

What INTJs suffer from, is not "emotional blindness", but "emotional inexpressiveness", but this is something which they can get past, to a large extent, but I think it mainly comes about when there is a logical reason to do so: rallying the troops à la Hannibal or Napoleon, gaining some advantage from someone which requires an expression of feeling, though this is limited by the INTJs sense of....honesty....

I didn't think either of those conquerers were INTj, but I might be wrong. (I thought Hanibal was ENTj).

At any rate, I don't think conquering requires being emotionally astute. Any idiot knows that his army is not real gung-ho about getting their heads chopped off. And of course this SHOULD be remidied. How would I get them riled up? Send in someone who CAN get them riled up (ENFp, ESFp, ESTp... notice the E's).

Okay, an INTj could get someone excited...mmm... that's kind of a stretch. How do you get someone excited when you can't get yourself excited? I don't think INTj's are emotional idiots, but common, there are plenty of types that are WAY better at reading emotions than us. I would say ENFps are the KING of emotional intelligence. ENTps are next.

One does not become a great leader without emotiona intelligence and INTJs do make excellent leaders.

Situation: A leader is required to do something he is not good at.
Unintelligent reaction: Leader does it, trying to act like he is good at it.
Intelligent reaction: Give the job to someone that works for him that IS good at the task.

The president of the US does not do all the work by himself. Other people (the cabinet) tell him what needs to get done. He ultimately decides if it should be done. Then he gives it to someone else.

[Mauresmo]

The first definition is better described as "emotional competence" according to the literature. Acting polite and thinking lucidly are two different things. Your analogy is flawed because "acting polite" is a sign of breeding and good decorum. It is a matter of manners.

If "such-and-such" bothers you, I apologise, but I am French and I was thinking in French, where it is simply tel ou tel. But if I must simplify things for you...

"John is a very emotionally effusive person" or "John is feeling sad, if I give him a video of his favourite game, he will be happy."

Psychology is not the study of emotions and even if it were, my question would be perfectly legitimate as a question of the justifiability of such an endeavour.

Obviously Hannibal is just a name to you. Any reading of the classical accounts will open your eyes to his true personality.

"Conquering" is 50% playing with emotions, the emotions of the enemy, and the emotions of your army. If you think sending deputies to inspire troops will achieve that end rather than demoralising them, you need a whole new education. Any general who sees only the tactics is a bad general.

90% of things are not worth bothering about, but war is not one of them. I do not think you are an INTJH, otherwise you will know that behind the cold stone, there is an inner fire. In such a situation, it would be humanly impossible not to show some "excitement". In any case, as playing with emotions is so vital in leadership, especially in war, it would be negligent of the INTJ not to do so.

ENFPs are far too romantic. They see, then they blind themselves, so what is the point. They are filled with far too many uncertainties, insecurities and ideals to have an accurate image of the world. ENTPs...

Situation: A leader is required to do something he is not good at.
Unintelligent reaction: Leader does it, trying to act like he is good at it.
Intelligent reaction: Give the job to someone that works for him that IS good at the task.

This is the romantic tradition of leadership. Humility is an ideal that no one trusts in another. If the President says, through actions, or speech, that he cannot fathom how something is done, no one will say, "What a decent chap, he is so honest. It's been ages since we had such an open leader. " Any man who would do so would satisfy a false ideal of honesty-this supposing INTJs are not good at the emotional game-and lose the trust of his people. In a critical situation, the worst thing you can do is to say "I don't know". Say you don't, fine. but you keep it within the inner circle and find a solution.

The president of the US does not do all the work by himself. Other people (the cabinet) tell him what needs to get done. He ultimately decides if it should be done. Then he gives it to someone else.

Where did I say the President of the US does everything for himself. This is the 20th century, he is leader of millions, the head of state of the world's only super power, not some isolated tribe, it would be ridiculous to suggest that. If these other people tell him what needs to be done, what is he ultimately deciding? Supposing that we have an utter weakling in the President's seat, even then his personality would be decisively important in the shape of his administration.

[mike_INTJ]

A lot has been said about the "emotional blindness" of INTJs and as a strong INTJ, I have yet to find such a fault in myself and from observing many, admittedly historical INTJs, I think that INTJs do possess a great degree of emotional intelligence. You can look at "emotional intelligence" in two ways: either as the ability to think calmly and in a focused manner under pressure, which is purely self-related, or, as the ability to perceive and assess the emotional state of another and influence it, which is a social definition.

As to the first, I think it is axiomatic that INTJs think lucidly under pressure. So the second is the decisve definition. I think of Hannibal, the great Carthinginian general, who wielded a multi-national army and held it together, obedient to his will and fervently devoted to him, a thing which arises not by accident but by policy. How many times, looking at someone, can you, in second, say, "Such-and-such-a-one is such-and-such-a-person" or that they are feeling such-and-such an emotion and that by doing such-and-such a thing, you can influence their emotions in, yes, "such-and-such" a direction. A look, a movement, a word.... All these things give a person away. Is it possible to study emotions using reason? I think so. I am a good judge of people and this has come about through the use of applied reason. Whether what I know comes about with reason used a priori or a posteriori, is unimportant for now.

What INTJs suffer from, is not "emotional blindness", but "emotional inexpressiveness", but this is something which they can get past, to a large extent, but I think it mainly comes about when there is a logical reason to do so: rallying the troops à la Hannibal or Napoleon, gaining some advantage from someone which requires an expression of feeling, though this is limited by the INTJs sense of....honesty....

One does not become a great leader without emotiona intelligence and INTJs do make excellent leaders.

Why do INTJs distrust people, or, wear gloves, as it were, in their presence? Is it because of a sense that there is something inherently threatening in them? A gathering storm? Is it a "matter of hygeine"?

because as we tend to stick out from the crowd. wanting to be different, not wanting to go with the flow, and being especially good at certain topics -we never blend in. as a result people will either abuse us, ignore us, or use us in some fashion. seeing us as a source of info, entertainment, usefulness, etc.

so as a whole i don't trust people. there is no reason to trust someone without knowing them anyway. i have to observe them before i can trust them. ideally i have to test the waters with them. what makes them mad, what do they like, etc. it's not a matter of wearing gloves, i just found that they are boring to be with. or they don't want to talk about fantasy type topics. or understand them.

hygene, maybe - doubtful. a storm? threating? no. most people are non-threatening and pedantic. they have to prove themselves to me before i do anything else. as a whole it takes a lot of energy talking to someone, i want to use it wisely.

about emotion - have plenty, it just doesn't show.

[mike_INTJ]

What INTJs suffer from, is not "emotional blindness", but "emotional inexpressiveness", but this is something which they can get past, to a large extent, but I think it mainly comes about when there is a logical reason to do so: rallying the troops à la Hannibal or Napoleon, gaining some advantage from someone which requires an expression of feeling, though this is limited by the INTJs sense of....honesty....

I didn't think either of those conquerers were INTj, but I might be wrong. (I thought Hanibal was ENTj).

At any rate, I don't think conquering requires being emotionally astute. Any idiot knows that his army is not real gung-ho about getting their heads chopped off. And of course this SHOULD be remidied. How would I get them riled up? Send in someone who CAN get them riled up (ENFp, ESFp, ESTp... notice the E's).

Okay, an INTj could get someone excited...mmm... that's kind of a stretch. How do you get someone excited when you can't get yourself excited? I don't think INTj's are emotional idiots, but common, there are plenty of types that are WAY better at reading emotions than us. I would say ENFps are the KING of emotional intelligence. ENTps are next.

you get people excited by giving them all a common goal. it would be pointless to simply get them excited. you have to give someone a revenge point. then you get excitement. ideally a good leader won't get excited, as if you cave into emotions, you can lose the war. as yoda says, free your emotions or you'll be blinded with them.

i'm an INTJ/INTp - we do get excited, we do have emotions. we just don't let it show. i know what other's are feeling. i can read their eyes, face, and voice inflection. i can actually feel their pain, localizing who it's coming from is harder though.

One does not become a great leader without emotiona intelligence and INTJs do make excellent leaders.

Situation: A leader is required to do something he is not good at.
Unintelligent reaction: Leader does it, trying to act like he is good at it.
Intelligent reaction: Give the job to someone that works for him that IS good at the task.

The president of the US does not do all the work by himself. Other people (the cabinet) tell him what needs to get done. He ultimately decides if it should be done. Then he gives it to someone else.

maybe that's what's wrong with the country. the president is trying to think for himself and doing for himself....

[UDP]

I don't know what to classify myself as anymore, in terms of MBTI. INTJ/INTP/INTj is more accurate. I like to wear gloves... But I can relate to what Mike INTJ is saying, in terms of his analysis of others.


And, espeically at this point in my life, I have a tremendous luxoury of having as much independence as I want, so people aren't bothering me much right now.

[science as magic]

As to the first, I think it is axiomatic that INTJs think lucidly under pressure.

This I disagree with. I agree that it need not be that we lack in the other areas you mentioned but I doubt there are many inherencies to be found in type.

[mike_INTJ]

As to the first, I think it is axiomatic that INTJs think lucidly under pressure.

This I disagree with. I agree that it need not be that we lack in the other areas you mentioned but I doubt there are many inherencies to be found in type.

i agree, i work terribly under pressure. my mind stops. however to outsiders, they may see something as a pressure situation. if i had planned it out already, it only looks like i'm calm under pressure, as i already thought of that scenrio and made a plan for it.

[MysticSonic]

I think lucidly in situations others would find themselves discheveled, and muddily in situations others would find themselves to be lucid.

[FDG]

I think lucidly in situations others would find themselves discheveled, and muddily in situations others would find themselves to be lucid.

Personally, I'm the best at thinking lucidly when there is something TO DO, but bad when I have to think "lucidly" about feelings.

[tcaudilllg]

I've learned that trust can be established very quicky: just remember that only 1 out of 3 people you meet can be trusted, and that that 1/3 always agrees with you in principle.

[mike_INTJ]

I've learned that trust can be established very quicky: just remember that only 1 out of 3 people you meet can be trusted, and that that 1/3 always agrees with you in principle.

i've found it's more like 1 in 35 can be trusted, and even then you have to observe carefully. i know many at work, they call you a friend, then behind your back - they get stabby. amazing what things comes out of her mouth when the other person can't hear.

the person i work across from told me she knows i talk about her behind her back. then i told her, "yeah, i do". of course then i'll make a joke of it when she's suspicious, sometimes they get paranoid. it's fun to watch. i figure since they most likely do the same to me anyway, it's ok for me to do it to them.

[tcaudilllg]

I've learned that trust can be established very quicky: just remember that only 1 out of 3 people you meet can be trusted, and that that 1/3 always agrees with you in principle.

i've found it's more like 1 in 35 can be trusted, and even then you have to observe carefully. i know many at work, they call you a friend, then behind your back - they get stabby. amazing what things comes out of her mouth when the other person can't hear.

the person i work across from told me she knows i talk about her behind her back. then i told her, "yeah, i do". of course then i'll make a joke of it when she's suspicious, sometimes they get paranoid. it's fun to watch. i figure since they most likely do the same to me anyway, it's ok for me to do it to them.

Right, but those people you trust. Even if you trust them to talk behind your back, you KNOW they will. They won't disappoint you, they won't surprise you or think they "need to teach you a lesson". That's rapport, and trust.

[Mauresmo]

What I meant by my reference to "hygeine" was that, sometimes there is a feeling that another person, in their mendacity, their pendantic nature, will cause one to be "untrue" to oneself-to use an overly romantic word-to fraternise with them. It is probably true that, 90% of the calmness in the middle of the storm is due to the storm, it's nature, duration, etc, having been planned for and predicted. It is like when someone buys you...a car, but you saw it coming, it is hard to feign suprise! I always say, planning is everything.

Leaders do not need to be too emotional, emotions distort focus, they must play with emotions, but not be played by them. There is no one easier to beat that an angry man. He is frightening in his rage, but it is rage that is going everywhere, it has no direction. I do think INTJs are not the emotional dunderheads that they seem, rather, that it is a case of a preference for reason and a fear of the "destabilising" nature of emotions when it comes to seeing clearly, thinking correctly, staying in control of the situation in the head. Who has ever judged correctly with emotions.

Most people are not to be trusted, either because they are scoundrels or incompetent.

[BlendieOfIndie]

The first definition is better described as "emotional competence" according to the literature. Acting polite and thinking lucidly are two different things. Your analogy is flawed because "acting polite" is a sign of breeding and good decorum. It is a matter of manners.

The point I was trying to make was that acting a certain way in a given situation has no correlation with intelligence. Sorry if it wasn't a good analogy.

Psychology is not the study of emotions and even if it were, my question would be perfectly legitimate as a question of the justifiability of such an endeavour.

Psychology certainly encompases the study of emotions. I don't think I actually argued your logic on this point, I just made a jackass comment... I guess I was in a bad mood??

"Conquering" is 50% playing with emotions, the emotions of the enemy, and the emotions of your army. If you think sending deputies to inspire troops will achieve that end rather than demoralising them, you need a whole new education. Any general who sees only the tactics is a bad general.

Yeah, manipulating the emotions of either side is extemely important. No question about it. I guess I am thinking more about general purpose situations (not just war... which is what you are talking about). I was trying to say INTj's are not usually a "Rah, Rah, rah!", build up other peoples emotions type of person.

90% of things are not worth bothering about, but war is not one of them. I do not think you are an INTJH, otherwise you will know that behind the cold stone, there is an inner fire. In such a situation, it would be humanly impossible not to show some "excitement". In any case, as playing with emotions is so vital in leadership, especially in war, it would be negligent of the INTJ not to do so.

Point taken.

So maybe my whole misunderstanding with most of your post was that I wasn't really thinking in the context of war.

[Kirana]

A lot has been said about the "emotional blindness" of INTJs and as a strong INTJ, I have yet to find such a fault in myself and from observing many, admittedly historical INTJs, I think that INTJs do possess a great degree of emotional intelligence. You can look at "emotional intelligence" in two ways: either as the ability to think calmly and in a focused manner under pressure, which is purely self-related, or, as the ability to perceive and assess the emotional state of another and influence it, which is a social definition.

i think i might disagree. i don't think 'emotional intelligence', as what is usually meant by people, is the definition you gave above. the above is more like an analysis of emotion and behaviours, and how to manipulate or manage them in others. it's something INTjs do with everything, and many of us manage to do it with emotions and behaviours.

i think what is meant by 'emotional intelligence' is a capacity for greatly understanding the feelings of others, what makes them feel better, what their emotional needs are and knowing how to provide it, ability for making people feel at ease, ability to manage own emotions and the emotions of others in a social setting, how to say things in ways best suited for the feelings of the audience etc. Fe, if you want to put a tag to it. it's something i see in my friend, who is ESFj (which i think gives her unfair advantage in the emotional intelligence area - but that doesn't disqualify her from the credit of learning to wield it with skill, the way i use my Ti with great skill). this is something difficult to me. i can recognise people's emotions if i try, i may even know how to predict it and how to manage it and how to use it - but it's a cerebral knowledge. this is enough if you're leading from a distance, and top down, but not enough if you have to do it yourself, one-on-one, and where the relationship is level.

of course, the skill can be learned, but i do not believe that INTjs have a natural advantage. functions aside, we are a minority type and rarely have a head start in working out how others feel and about what. our preoccupations, fears, areas of confidence, values and modes of thought are very different from the majority, so it takes more work to understand the emotions and feelings other people have or attach to things that we do not feel much about.

[Waddlesworth]

I took one look at the initial post in this thread and I had a pretty good idea of what I was going to type.

INTj's are INCONSIDERATE of what other people are feeling, especially when it is about them, plain and simple. So when you say "people say INTj's lack emotional intelligence... I disagree with what they think(feel?) and believe INTj's are actually emotionally superior" or whatever, you're just reinforcing the point.

Now judging types lack a complete idea of the "big picture" they "feel" something, with their whole being, but they only see a logical justification for it, they don't typically see that it could be brought upon by some generalized anxiety or a multitude of factors. From my own experiences INTj's like to pretend(and can often justify it to themselves) that they have it all together, and that they are more aware of their behaviors than everyone else. This gets on everyone's nerves because it IS NOT TRUE. When an INTj walks out of a room all high and mighty everyone else waits for them to leave and then goes "what the hell was his(her) problem?"

From my own experiences with INTj's their self-proclaimed supremacy if often based in unconscious insecurity. But this is true for virtually everyone on the planet, many INTj's just have trouble seeing that. :wink:

[MysticSonic]

I think there's pretty good evidence on here that INTjs possess fairly little emotional intelligence.

[BlendieOfIndie]

I think there's pretty good evidence on here that INTjs possess fairly little emotional intelligence.

Thank, you.

Making people feel on edge is usually sign of emotional ignorance. How good are you at pleasing other people? I would like to please people sometimes, but I end up screwing it up alot. I don't understand when a girl is flirting with me, and I end up acting in inappropriate ways. Not on purpose.

Sometimes I say things with a complete innocent attitude (from my perspective). Then I see the other person has a weird reaction, and I'm like... did I do something?? What happened? Was I an ass, or am I just overanalyzing what I perceived their reaction to mean... you got the point.