Withholding and controlling INTjs

[Rubicon]

LIIs who get their way by withholding things from people when they do something they disapprove of, or not associating with someone until they've changed to meet their standards.. Does this sound right?

[Trevor]

LIIs who get their way by withholding things from people when they do something they disapprove of, or not associating with someone until they're changed to meet their standards.. Does this sound right?

It sure aint typical. Sounds Fj - just speculation.

[krieger]

Does this sound right?

Yes.

[Krig the Viking]

I agree, it sounds feasible. It would be more characteristic of the Dominant subtype, if you're into DCNH (if not, disregard. ).

[buckland]

Yes.

I agree with this.

I was thinking about this a few weeks ago actually. It's not something done intentionally but there is definitely that element of if someone does not live up to my ideals (meant in a "moral" sense), then they're not worth the effort.

[Logos]

I know that LIIs are typically passive aggressive when dealing with conflict, but I think that it largely varies from person to person as to how it plays out tactically. But it still seems to be somewhat manipulative behavior.

[Brilliand]

LIIs who get their way by withholding things from people when they do something they disapprove of, or not associating with someone until they've changed to meet their standards.. Does this sound right?

Yes, although I don't generally think of it as trying to get my way; rather, it's just how I'm inclined to react to something that I disapprove of. In the second case (not associating with someone), it may be that I don't enjoy associating with someone who doesn't meet my standards, so I'm willing to accept not associating with them ever - unless by chance they should eventually meet my standards. Withholding something might be a limited form of the same thing, i.e. "you've made me uncomfortable, so I'm not going to associate with you for five minutes."

[krieger]

Sorry, scrap my answer. I don't agree with the standards and disapproval part, that's more of an Fi thing imo. Witholding information is something I do quite a lot, though.

[tcaudilllg]

LIIs see behavior in a binary context. If you are good, you are not evil. If you are evil, you are not good. IEIs will be willing to argue that people may have good and evil traits and be comfortable with that analysis, but LIIs will never be content with such a vague observation. It must be black and white, light and dark. I sort everyone into two groups, people who meet my standards (good) and people who don't (evil). Although I am willing to revise my analyses given additional data, I generally disassociate myself with people who fail to appreciate my values.

For example, Xerxes is going on my ignore list. I had thought the good outweighed the bad, but after this latest debacle I'm thinking the bad outweighs the good. So, that's the end of that.

[Brilliand]

LIIs see behavior in a binary context. If you are good, you are not evil. If you are evil, you are not good. IEIs will be willing to argue that people may have good and evil traits and be comfortable with that analysis, but LIIs will never be content with such a vague observation. It must be black and white, light and dark. I sort everyone into two groups, people who meet my standards (good) and people who don't (evil). Although I am willing to revise my analyses given additional data, I generally disassociate myself with people who fail to appreciate my values.

Erm... doesn't apply to me.

[Rubicon]

For example, Xerxes is going on my ignore list. I had thought the good outweighed the bad, but after this latest debacle I'm thinking the bad outweighs the good. So, that's the end of that.

The end of Xerxes. The end of a Golden Age.

[MatthewZ]

LIIs see behavior in a binary context. If you are good, you are not evil. If you are evil, you are not good. IEIs will be willing to argue that people may have good and evil traits and be comfortable with that analysis, but LIIs will never be content with such a vague observation. It must be black and white, light and dark. I sort everyone into two groups, people who meet my standards (good) and people who don't (evil). Although I am willing to revise my analyses given additional data, I generally disassociate myself with people who fail to appreciate my values.

For example, Xerxes is going on my ignore list. I had thought the good outweighed the bad, but after this latest debacle I'm thinking the bad outweighs the good. So, that's the end of that.

Such a "binary" system implies a third value, unknown. (or to fit the sorting analogy, unsorted)

It could be said that one of the natural goals of , especially as expressed in -leading types, is to simplify. However, the point of simplification is to reduce to the least significant and/or necessary information. Why would a single dichotomy be the ideal simplification, though? In Socionics we can reduce interactions between people to Introtim/Extrotim for how they would interact on a superficial basis, but there's more than that at play and more worthy of analysis. Similarly, people can be easily divided into more dichotomies more instantly applicable than simple "Good"/"Evil." Even if an LII simplified to "Good"/"Evil," what about a person's utility? Would any working person not contact an "evil" higher-up if they needed their signature? Would the average person disown their own child because the child holds almost none of the parent's values? It is true that some might be strict adherents to the concept of avoiding "evil," but that evil alone isn't going to distance two people fully. LIIs, living in their world of simplification, may group people into categories of desirable and undesirable, but refusal to compromise with someone is merely a sign of immaturity and is not type-related.

[Rubicon]

Yes, although I don't generally think of it as trying to get my way; rather, it's just how I'm inclined to react to something that I disapprove of. In the second case (not associating with someone), it may be that I don't enjoy associating with someone who doesn't meet my standards, so I'm willing to accept not associating with them ever - unless by chance they should eventually meet my standards. Withholding something might be a limited form of the same thing, i.e. "you've made me uncomfortable, so I'm not going to associate with you for five minutes."

So would you act the same way in the context of a relationship? Say you've committed to someone, or they're a family member - basically, you're stuck in close quarters with a person for life, and you find that their standards don't meet yours - do you think you'd make concessions for them at all?

[Brilliand]

So would you act the same way in the context of a relationship? Say you've committed to someone, or they're a family member - basically, you're stuck in close quarters with a person for life, and you find that their standards don't meet yours - do you think you'd make concessions for them at all?

Maybe... being stuck in close quarters wouldn't be the issue, though; my own prior commitment would be.

[xerx]

For example, Xerxes is going on my ignore list. I had thought the good outweighed the bad, but after this latest debacle I'm thinking the bad outweighs the good. So, that's the end of that.

You'll be back.

[Brilliand]

You'll be back.

[krieger]

LIIs see behavior in a binary context. If you are good, you are not evil. If you are evil, you are not good. IEIs will be willing to argue that people may have good and evil traits and be comfortable with that analysis, but LIIs will never be content with such a vague observation. It must be black and white, light and dark. I sort everyone into two groups, people who meet my standards (good) and people who don't (evil). Although I am willing to revise my analyses given additional data, I generally disassociate myself with people who fail to appreciate my values.

For example, Xerxes is going on my ignore list. I had thought the good outweighed the bad, but after this latest debacle I'm thinking the bad outweighs the good. So, that's the end of that.

4. Good vs. evil. He never does things he considers as evil, and is very intolerable to evil in others. However, his ethical theory is based on his own principles, without consideration for customs and authority. Sometimes his views on problems of good and evil are very original. In any case he consequently acts on them and insistently defends them.

Fun and games...

[tcaudilllg]

You'll be back.

You really pissed me off Xerxes, besides scaring the shit out of me.

[tcaudilllg]

Fun and games...

The problem with those descriptions is that they aren't mutually exclusive.

INFP EM types in general have a fascination with right and wrong, good and evil. Including ENFJ-INFPs.

[krieger]

It's very, very rare for me to identify a person as genuinely evil. I think most INTjs here will tell you the same thing.

[Krig the Viking]

LIIs see behavior in a binary context. If you are good, you are not evil. If you are evil, you are not good. IEIs will be willing to argue that people may have good and evil traits and be comfortable with that analysis, but LIIs will never be content with such a vague observation. It must be black and white, light and dark. I sort everyone into two groups, people who meet my standards (good) and people who don't (evil). Although I am willing to revise my analyses given additional data, I generally disassociate myself with people who fail to appreciate my values.

For example, Xerxes is going on my ignore list. I had thought the good outweighed the bad, but after this latest debacle I'm thinking the bad outweighs the good. So, that's the end of that.

I dunno, that seems pretty simplistic for most LIIs I know. In my case, I judge behaviour according to good vs. evil (comparing their actions to explicit Ti standards of good and evil), and then rank people on a scale according to the ratio of good behaviour to evil behaviour that they have displayed (this would be performed largely by Fi, I think [how I feel about this person], unless I for some reason decided to sit down and logically analyze what manner of man this person is).

However, good vs. evil is not the only scale I judge people's actions by -- there's also competent vs. incompetent, pleasant vs. unpleasant, etc. It's a combination of all these scales that determines who I will or won't associate with. Even then, I rarely push people away unless they're quite low on quite a few scales.

[The Exception]

LIIs see behavior in a binary context. If you are good, you are not evil. If you are evil, you are not good. IEIs will be willing to argue that people may have good and evil traits and be comfortable with that analysis, but LIIs will never be content with such a vague observation. It must be black and white, light and dark. I sort everyone into two groups, people who meet my standards (good) and people who don't (evil). Although I am willing to revise my analyses given additional data, I generally disassociate myself with people who fail to appreciate my values.

For example, Xerxes is going on my ignore list. I had thought the good outweighed the bad, but after this latest debacle I'm thinking the bad outweighs the good. So, that's the end of that.

Erm... doesn't apply to me.

The part about disassociating myself with people who fail to appreciate my values fits, applies to me. The rest doesn't.

[The Exception]

I dunno, that seems pretty simplistic for most LIIs I know. In my case, I judge behaviour according to good vs. evil (comparing their actions to explicit Ti standards of good and evil), and then rank people on a scale according to the ratio of good behaviour to evil behaviour that they have displayed (this would be performed largely by Fi, I think [how I feel about this person], unless I for some reason decided to sit down and logically analyze what manner of man this person is).

However, good vs. evil is not the only scale I judge people's actions by -- there's also competent vs. incompetent, pleasant vs. unpleasant, etc. It's a combination of all these scales that determines who I will or won't associate with. Even then, I rarely push people away unless they're quite low on quite a few scales.

I love the way you think.

+ (insert a really large number here)

[electric sheep]

Controlling LIIs? That's easy!

I pride myself in my ability to assuage especially uptight people. I'm edgy, but still innocent.

[Rubicon]

I'm edgy, but still innocent.

makes me think of that picture of you wearing eyeliner with a sheepish grin on your face :-p

[electric sheep]

Makes me think of that picture of you wearing eyeliner with a sheepish grin on your face. :-p

That's the one!

[xerx]

You really pissed me off Xerxes, besides scaring the shit out of me.

How the fuck did I scare the shit out of you?

[Creepy-Pied Piper]

Removed at User Request

[krieger]

Jeez, with numerous occasions you have demonstrated the opposite. Yes, maybe you inside don't identify them as "genuine evil", but still you label and point the finger at. I think the level of gravity you assign can't be seen unless you have much power - I mean being able to take measures, punish.

What's visible from outside puts you in a different category than the other LIIs, imo. The ethical judgment seems the same, with the difference that you're rather proactive in that - have categories of "bad" people prepared - much like LSIs. LIIs don't even have the mentality developed enough in such way to be able to tell what kind of bad someone is, more than "idiot" or "annoying". You have a rich judgmental vocabulary and can make refined differences between infractions.

You and maritsa are the only ones I ever put in that box. Like I said: very rare. You two are a special breed of stupid.

He just doesn't need crap in his life...

Very well put. INTj rejections always operate on this motive.

[Krig the Viking]

My LII will separate himself from people that are harmful to him but it takes a while really for him to get to that point and I don't think he'd admit he's trying to send them any kind of message. He just doesn't need crap in his life...

Yes, exactly.

[Logos]

My LII will separate himself from people that are harmful to him but it takes a while really for him to get to that point and I don't think he'd admit he's trying to send them any kind of message. He just doesn't need crap in his life...

Well said. If I avoid people who do not meet my standards of behavior, I am not trying to send them a message, nor do I particularly care to do so. I am not a moral enforcer. I am not in the business, or any business really, to try and change people through passive aggressive behavior. But I usually avoid certain people so that I can reduce the amount of (social) drama and stress in my life.

[buckland]

My LII will separate himself from people that are harmful to him but it takes a while really for him to get to that point and I don't think he'd admit he's trying to send them any kind of message. He just doesn't need crap in his life...

Yep, but this is frequently labeled as passive aggressive/elitist/snobbish etc

[buckland]

Well said. If I avoid people who do not meet my standards of behavior, I am not trying to send them a message, nor do I particularly care to do so. I am not a moral enforcer. I am not in the business, or any business really, to try and change people through passive aggressive behavior. But I usually avoid certain people so that I can reduce the amount of (social) drama and stress in my life.

Thing is, do you ever use that as a cop out, not trying hard enough as you're aware of your (possibly projecting here) awkwardness and therefore don't try. This is different to knowing a person relatively well and then finding out that any further time spent with them is wasted forever (which also happens, a bit more frequently as well).

I mean, I know 2 ILEs relatively well, and I though both were giant asses when I first met them and now really enjoy their company.

[krieger]

The problem with those descriptions is that they aren't mutually exclusive.

INFP EM types in general have a fascination with right and wrong, good and evil. Including ENFJ-INFPs.

There is a special connection between you and the ENFj type, tcaudilllg. A dual type theory that would classify you as INTj-ENFj is something I have no difficulty accepting. It would be intuitive to me.

[Logos]

Thing is, do you ever use that as a cop out, not trying hard enough as you're aware of your (possibly projecting here) awkwardness and therefore don't try. This is different to knowing a person relatively well and then finding out that any further time spent with them is wasted forever (which also happens, a bit more frequently as well).

I mean, I know 2 ILEs relatively well, and I though both were giant asses when I first met them and now really enjoy their company.

I am on amicable terms with most people I know. I do not think I am on bad terms with anyone. I think that they are mostly good people, but I find the drama that they surround themselves with to be infectious. So controlling the amount of time that I spend with certain people allows me to keep the drama and behavior I'm not particularly a fan of down to a minimum. I am sure that I have used it has a cop out for engaging in social situations though.

[RSV3]

My LII will separate himself from people that are harmful to him but it takes a while really for him to get to that point and I don't think he'd admit he's trying to send them any kind of message. He just doesn't need crap in his life...

Well said. If I avoid people who do not meet my standards of behavior, I am not trying to send them a message, nor do I particularly care to do so. I am not a moral enforcer. I am not in the business, or any business really, to try and change people through passive aggressive behavior. But I usually avoid certain people so that I can reduce the amount of (social) drama and stress in my life.

Yeah, this is pretty much exactly what I do as well.

[tcaudilllg]

There is a special connection between you and the ENFj type, tcaudilllg. A dual type theory that would classify you as INTj-ENFj is something I have no difficulty accepting. It would be intuitive to me.

You see me on this forum, but you don't see me in real life. I'm much more excitable than an ENFj EM type is. You should see me after watching something like CNN. Oh man politics... whew, I go stomping around my apartment acting out fantasies of me being in a situation such that I can actually do something about what happened... and then I'm like to come on here after I've cooled down, and write about it.

But I have no taste for negative emotions. I avoid them, and try to avoid situations where I can't. Depression, if entertained, is liable to overcome me.

[Crispy]

Yeah I'm way more into comedy than drama.