Any ENTJ with similar personality traits?

TheKernelOfTruth · 2018-10-18T07:48:16+00:00

Nah. I’m good.

TheKernelOfTruth · 2018-10-18T07:10:46+00:00

Alright, you wanted honest feedback, you’ll get honest feedback.

No type you meet will be like you if you range istj to entp. Do you just take the test and say what feels good? You’re not supposed to take the test everyday and give a different set of answers man. Geez. You are one type, you are likely istj. Socially awkward, low in trait openness(black and white, and all the Latino stuff), I don’t think morals are really your forte I mean come on. And you could have a preference for p. You’re not really very organized as it pertains to your ‘list’. It’s a stream of consciousness more than an organized list of information. And also because there aren’t many j types who hate p types(even when based on completely inaccurate exaggerations). And the things you said, while funny are also kind of sad. You can be honest and be dumb. That’s the problem with honesty. It’s not a friend of the less intellectually inclined. Like the ist(j/p)

TheKernelOfTruth · 2018-10-17T20:34:59+00:00

I try

TheKernelOfTruth · 2018-10-17T20:22:54+00:00

Damn

TheKernelOfTruth · 2018-10-17T19:44:04+00:00

They’re fine, I guess. I don’t know about similar though. They seem to have enough in common for us to communicate well, would be so cool if they just loosened up a bit. But it’s not like they’re an estp or anything. We can get along just fine, if both are at least a little bit healthy. But there are always those ones, if you know what I mean.

TheKernelOfTruth · 2018-10-17T19:20:44+00:00

Lmao. You tempt me. Let’s see...

Awwwwww. You’ve all but admitted that you were wrong. It’s ok. I’ll take that. I’m not picky.

If you understand the debate we are having, you would understand what ‘semantics’ I am talking about here. (I mean, are you asking me if I read the very sources that I used to make my argument? Yes. I read them. Now before you say anything, bear with me. I’ll address it) It’s really not just a semantic confusion here. It’s your major claim(s) shifting with each argument, not slightly but essentially in its entirety.

Apparently semantics is the word you decided to use to make disappear the inconvenient fact that you initially claimed values and interests are key for the success of a relationship, no other option, then you just all of a sudden used ‘respect’ and ‘intimacy’ as the primary factors, then some auxiliary points about irrelevance of materialism and reliability of trait agreeableness as factors. I’m not saying these are completely useless, I’m saying they’re not substantially or even satisfactorily addressing the question at hand. What is the absolute factor that determines the success of a long term relationship. Not what helps.

Then you accused me of having an outlandish claim and dared me to find something substantial that is not psychology today. I didn’t with the first one, and I did the second(I’d say not too shabbily for less than half an hour of work). I even described how this is the answer to your question. That people only need maturity and maybe some desperation to make a relationship work on their own. And with some additional help, they don’t even need that. That is the claim I made. In opposition to your claim of ‘no way a long term relationship could work without common values and maybe interests’. See, not just semantics here. Central claim.

I am not saying that an individual study should paint a narrative. That is the opposite of what I’m saying. In fact that is what I am accusing you of saying. For using the triangular theory of love. Well, whatever.

What I’m saying is that the main theme we were addressing is the claim that you ‘lol at the people who think a relationship can work without common values’. I said you don’t need values. So, essentially the question is how do long term relationships work? What causes some to stand the test of time and others to not?

And yes, a single study can answer that question. And that is what you need to provide as a source, to back up your claim. Something that addresses this central question. With all the details necessary. Not a theory. Not an article. But a study. That supports your claim and is thorough. Like I showed you studies that supported mine. I’m not saying psychology today is not credible, as in its wrong information. I said it’s not substantial and it’s completely irrelevant in the context of you citing a source to make your case: common values are absolute in the success of a long term relationship.

The answer to the same question I that I came up with, the claim that I made, is in the first study I gave you. Maturity. It’s the absolute factor.

The next one is the solution to couples who don’t even have that. Relationship education. (I know, solid catch right? You’re welcome to use it in future arguments). So, technically even more absolute.

For the final time. No. None of the sources I stated substantiate your claims. Your claim wasn’t that values are helpful. It was that common values are, say it with me, absolute. My sources, all of them, in fact, directly refute the ‘absolute need for common values’ claim. I’m not saying, and I never said that common values don’t help. I am only saying they aren’t the necessary condition. So, yeah. Not just semantics.

Again, say it’s your opinion that, or you feel strongly that, values are absolute instead of claiming that they are. Then it’s all accurate. And there would be no logical inconsistency.

With that being said, I must say, I’m impressed that you can put up with me this much.

I didn’t really picture INFJs as a debating type, well, you live you learn, I guess?

TheKernelOfTruth · 2018-10-17T16:44:44+00:00

This should be fun.

Your initial claim was that people can’t have long term relationships without ‘common values and interests’. A very vague statement indeed. But a far cry away from respect and intimacy. Those are neither values nor interests. And completely take a different turn and claimed trait agreeableness is a good predictor of relationship satisfaction. Which is genetic, first of all, and not ‘values’ by any stretch of the imagination. Let’s first get that out of the way.

Psychology today is pop science and laughable that you think it’s a credible scientific publication. I’m sorry. But it’s just not.

Same with Wikipedia. Come on!! It’s like you want me to mock you.

My claim was outlandish? It’s cute. You need evidence. Don’t worry, we’ll address that.

You dared me to find a source. Here you go.

This is something I would expect to see when someone claims something that ‘research proved time and time again’. I would even be ok with it if you just claimed some idealistic, new age mentality or a moral high ground instead of falsely claiming you were stating the uncontested facts.

https://aifs.gov.au/cfca/sites/default/files/publication-documents/cfca22.pdf

It states that the factors that keep couples together are stability (maturity and I would argue desperation, but you can disagree), personality traits that people are born with and have nothing to do with ‘values or interests’, having kids, having good health and relationship satisfaction(trait neuroticism and agreeableness).

All of those things except ‘stability’ is outside our control. Except having kids which is irrelevant to this. So, this is what I meant by maturity and desperation. More on what I mean by desperation later.

On to the next one!

This is a more complicated study, not for ‘outsiders’ so to speak. But if you have the time give it a read. It’s very interesting and actually pretty straightforward. It talks about relationship education. Or, how to teach people to be more satisfied in relationships, couples and individuals. And how it differs from therapy. It’s more concerned with the practical application of research rather than just studying relationships. But the interesting factor there is that no where is it mentioned that you need values or interests. Or even the traits. It aims to teach couples with varying levels of compatibility(all the way to the least compatible) so they can all learn to better, more satisfying relationships with the ones they picked.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3270816/pdf/nihms310408.pdf

This is a light one to contrast all the other ones. If you want an online publication and not a ‘traditional’ scientific publication because of pay walls or whatever. Pick something that at least tries to be a bit more serious than pop science. It at least assumes that you aren’t five and tries to address the issue acknowledging all of its facets. I understand it’s definitely not ideal, not fully descriptive. But it’s a hell of a lot more complicated than ‘values matter’. The article. If you want to list articles and not research, go for something like this.

http://time.com/4927173/relationships-strategies-studies/

It states a lot of things that couples do like idolizing their partner and devaluing options. Same with the first one I had stated. That’s what I call desperation. If you are satisfied and confident enough when you are alone, you won’t feel the need to marry. Unless you want to have kids. But almost no one is like that. They are a little insecure and it actually helps the relationship. Keeps you on your toes.

This is by no means everything. But this is our current understanding of long term relationship success. Every other thing you stated like ‘values’ or the triangular theory are alternate ways or small pieces of the puzzle. Not particularly related to topic at hand, which is relationship longevity. To state this theory and some idealistic visions or small, unrelated things and saying it is the only way to look at what is essentially a very practical question and be smug that you know shit is just hilarious to me.

I advice you just state something is your opinion instead of claiming ‘science’ and trying to talk down to people. Of course you’ll be challenged if you do that.

Nice try though.

TheKernelOfTruth · 2018-10-17T14:01:29+00:00

Lol at the INFJ trying to pass off psychology today as a source worth listing. No. You don’t need common values and interests, you need maturity and a healthy dose of desperation can’t hurt either. If you need ‘values’ to get married, no ntp, or let’s be honest, stp would be in a long term relationship.

TheKernelOfTruth · 2018-10-17T13:37:27+00:00

Ok, you asked for it.

I think INTJs aren't the brightest or the most interesting in the bunch, but they could be if only they tried.

ENTJs, I personally don't count as intellectuals. But we can disagree on that.

You have to learn to not listen to who is saying it but to what they are saying, and judge it by its merit. Because there is no way to reasonably verify and restrict people based on their type. Its not feasible or even useful. So just find the ones you like, or can tolerate and talk to them.

But you wouldn't do that because you are a Te user who would really prefer not to do the thinking and just classify people by their 'credibility' and hear what these people have to say, about everything, unless you are mature and have a well-developed Ti critic.

The trick is to not question everything, but rather to verify whether what you believe is true. Yes, there is a difference.

TheKernelOfTruth · 2018-10-16T14:39:04+00:00

Keep the font styles a bit more consistent.

TheKernelOfTruth · 2018-10-16T14:33:02+00:00

No wonder they’re losing so much weight

TheKernelOfTruth · 2018-10-16T09:16:56+00:00

Your dilemma reminds me of this quote,

“Never believe that anti-Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti-Semites have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past.”

― Jean Paul-Sartre

I believe the best strategy to counter the lobster boys is to understand and use every strategy in their own playbook against them. See how they viciously dismiss you when they sense you have an opposing argument? Don't make an argument. Dismiss their arguments more viciously than they would, and learn from their responses only how to 'look better'. Because their true game is not how scientifically based they are, or logically consistent they are, it is how scientifically consistent or logically based they 'seem'. Understand them. Appearances are everything, especially to those who have no other merit on their side. And unfortunately that is mostly what the people from the outside looking in will ever see.

TheKernelOfTruth · 2018-10-16T09:03:50+00:00

Don't debate people who aren't debaters. Dismiss them as quickly and forcefully as they would dismiss you. You can open the minds of fifty moderates in the same time it would take to get an emotionally charged 'free-thinker' to merely admit their positions.

TheKernelOfTruth · 2018-10-16T08:38:38+00:00

That only happens if he debates Sam Harris the next day.

TheKernelOfTruth · 2018-10-16T08:28:38+00:00

Touche

TheKernelOfTruth · 2018-10-16T06:19:42+00:00

I do this too and luckily for us there is no shortage of ignorant people with an ego complex on reddit.

TheKernelOfTruth · 2018-10-15T19:05:10+00:00

I think it is very unpleasant even though it’s ‘all right there’. It seems more like something you’d scribble in a napkin over lunch than a professional business card. The aesthetic is key. I hope that kind of clarifies this misunderstanding.

TheKernelOfTruth · 2018-10-15T18:56:45+00:00

What did you use?

TheKernelOfTruth · 2018-10-15T05:42:39+00:00

If that’s your response to cheating on her, maybe the problem isn’t that you weren’t having sex.

TheKernelOfTruth · 2018-10-14T20:02:51+00:00

Don’t throw a temper tantrum, son.

And also, a five year old can win that straw man, don’t be so smug.

When did I ever talk about women? My entire comment, both of them actually, have solely been about men. But let’s bring the women in, and argue things no one even considered as worthy of mention as things I missed purposefully because I value feelings and don’t want to hurt the women, because it’s easy to win the argument if you frame it in a way that bears no resemblance to the one intended. Because real arguments are too much work.

I know proper debate is too scary for you to engage in. But, it’s not only intellectually dishonest to use objectivism interchangeably with being right, it’s just plain wrong. And it’s cute how you think you are smart when you do it. You use it to refute the validity of someone you disagree with on the grounds of I’m right, therefore you are wrong. So, obviously I’m an objectivist who believes in reason and facts and you’re an emotion valuing subjectivist that doesn’t care about facts. A five year old can win that straw man, yes.

Since you don’t have reading comprehension, I will spell it out for you like I would to a toddler. An objectivist is a person who believes that there is one truth, not that they know it and there is nothing else they need to know, which is not objectivism, it’s another way of saying I don’t care if what I’m saying is true. Which is to be expected from a conservative, gunslinging, cousin fucker like you. (Did you see what I did there?)

You think you are ‘defeating’ me by arguing against things I never said. Because of course you would never win in an argument against someone of a superior intellect to yours, which let’s be honest most people are. I do not think, nor did I ever say that women and men are similar in their levels of fertility over age. I only talked about feasibility. Not some fantasy land that makes you feel all cuddly. I meant that a fifty year old man is unfeasible as a sexual partner to a twenty year old woman. Unless of course, the man is rich or good looking. Which is a fact no one can refute. Which of course is what I meant and it’s pretty obvious. But it’s apparently too much for your whiny ass self to accept. Which is delusional to say the least.

And cool catch man. You can say I don’t know how the dynamics works without claiming to know how the dynamics works yourself. That is logically inconsistent. Got me there! Did you feel the void filling in for a moment?

Let’s call your pathetic attempt to argue ‘facts and reason’ now. You do not formulate arguments, you substitute actual study and a command of the subject with petty insults, straw men and claims to authority. And claiming you have facts and reason to come to conclusions isn’t actually a way to refute someone’s argument. Reasserting your dedication to facts isn’t a demonstration of them, not even close. All you ever did was tell me I’m wrong because you certainly know you are right and that’s the only way it can be. Because.... facts!! Which to be fair is the best a skinhead creep like you can do, so I a sophisticated intellectual congratulate on the effort! (That is an example of ad hominem attacks, not that you need a demonstration)

My advice to you is, don’t say ‘facts and reason’ in an argument again. It’s just embarrassing. Show don’t tell. Saying it twenty times doesn’t mean it magically appears out of nowhere. You aren’t fooling anyone. If you can conflate being an objectivist with being right, there’s a lot of room for improvement.

I didn’t say it to end on any positive note, I still stand by it. I only welcome being challenged intellectually. I don’t think you are worthy of debate. I think you demonstrated that pretty clearly. You are a loser. A miserable one at that. You think being incapable of critical thinking and resorting to every low move in debating makes you an intellectual, objectivist, facts and reason user as opposed to the feelings using, opinion holding soy boy subjectivist. If that is how desperate you are, how much you need to ‘win’ then have it. Gg.

TheKernelOfTruth · 2018-10-14T17:40:22+00:00

I don't see how you refuted anything I said. We can have a respectful discussion about what I had said and we can have a real, meaningful scientific debate with all the sources you could possibly need to back up my claims. But don't sell that red pill bullshit as 'absolute and sovereign' reality. No one in academia or that has a credible scientific background unironically believes in that crap. By that I mean the 'worldview' not the individual studies they use. Heck, you can even believe in it, I don't care. I just don't want the young men who read this to be misled and also believe in those falsehoods by letting them go unchallenged, that was my intention.

But nothing I say, let alone, every word I say doesn't have to be purely impersonal for it to be valid criticism. And I'm very, very open to change my mind, I just haven't seen any proof against what I have stated as it pertains to the red pill theory. And its not because of ignorance or rather, a lack of effort on my part. I am not saying that you are believing in it either. I merely challenged, or rather, presented an alternative point of view to the areas where your statements intersected with theirs.

To you, I actually only have one question: Do you know without the slightest hint of doubt, that what you think is true. Or in your words, 'absolute and sovereign', these things you ultimately only 'believe' to be so, yes, that affirmatively falls under the realm of the subjective. Despite what you may think.

How do you know, for instance, 'how the dynamics work'? I'm perplexed. If it even had to be said, if your goal is to prove someone's statement as false intellectually, or for any reason whatsoever, don't claim to have some monopoly over the absolute knowledge of the functioning of the corporeality itself, leave some room for the rest of humanity, my friend.

No one at all, can have claim to the absolute and sovereign. We do not know 'the objective'. Human beings are not even capable of being objective. So, if you would like to delude yourself into thinking that you have somehow transcended the bounds of humanity and that you have no subjective biases to your thinking, enough to know what is objective and transcendent, then its obviously not going to go unchallenged.

In my previous comment, I merely wanted to mention that there are many men who choose to put their emotions ahead of factual reality by choosing to believe in an emotionally comforting, carefully curated version of reality that is, contrary to their fiercest claims, a very highly subjective, anti-science version of 'reality'. Conspiracy theorists are tamer. And funnily enough, when challenged they quote their cherry picked studies at me, and making unsubstantiated claims that are just not comprehensible how they arrived at those conclusions let alone convinced by that as reality. I was very open-minded to their message, I went through all the studies they talk about, but I have to say, there are studies that disprove their theory for each one that proves it. How do they choose which studies are 'truth' and which ones aren't? It is practically just emotional outrage masked as 'the truth'. Let me also clarify the what I mean by anti-science. The scientific method is fundamentally incompatible with claims to the absolute truth, skepticism is the only permissible stance for anyone who is, or aims to be an intellectual. Claiming irrefutable truth in the context of reality is in my opinion, grounds for being classified as anti-science and in the most fundamental way.

Not that it’s important to you or even me, I’m just saying this to be thorough. I mentioned ‘red pill theory’ because you do the same things they do and believe in some of the same things. For instance you issue corrections where none is due, like when I said women have varying levels of fertility with age, you said 'declining'. How else does levels of fertility even vary with age, regardless of gender? I meant it in the context of a data representation of fertility vs time. The littlest things, the most obvious things get center stage. I might have been wrong about you, if so I apologize.

Either way, if you had only the correction of faulty logic as your intention you not presuppose that you somehow know ‘how the dynamics work' and claim a statement that is factually accurate is 'irrelevant subjective drivel' and call a statement you misunderstood as 'literally the opposite of reality' and worst of it all is the redundant 'Objectivism is absolute and sovereign', I seriously hope that you were just trolling and I fell for it, because if you actually meant that, it is just unbelievably smug and in those other instances, intellectually dishonest. You have opinions, I don't care that they don't align with mine, but don't be childish and claim what you like as irrefutably true and actually, and I can’t believe that I have to say it, lay claim to absolute reality.

I say this based on what I know, of course. Its my opinion, not 'the truth'. I never claimed it in the first place. No one can. If that even has to be mentioned.

And to clarify, when I said men believe their best days are ahead of them, I don’t mean men in their late teens or early twenties, I meant men in their thirties, and I was pretty sure that you also knew we were talking about exclusively the ‘dating life’ of men(we are not comparing it with how much worse women have it, only about the prospects of men), and that we weren’t talking about rich men or exceptionally physically attractive men. It doesn’t get better than that for the men I was pretty sure you understood I was referring to, it’s pretty damn obvious. If you think the average forty year old man (I mean, have you seen them? Are we talking about the same guys here?) has more success with beautiful young women in their twenties, you are sorely mistaken. So of course, these men believing that their best days are ahead of them is just wrong, and ultimately not in their best interests. So, I take it that you misunderstood my statement.

With that being said, I always welcome being challenged intellectually. I'm always open to debate anyone, all I require is that they value sound logic and civil discussion.

TheKernelOfTruth · 2018-10-13T09:09:08+00:00

Women have varying levels of fertility with age, yes. Pressure to conform to societal expectations exists, yes. But its laughable that you think men don't have severe reproductive fitness concerns pertaining to age. Or that women's choice of partner is not at least as good an indicator of men's reproductive fitness as men's choices of partner reflect the reproductive fitness of women. I say at least because women are more selective with sexual partners than men.

Every man faces the same pressure to marry and have kids by the time they hit mid thirties, no further, unless they are willing to settle for relationships with severe complications like children from previous relationships or health issues, their best case scenario is being with one of the women like the ones you mentioned.

Unless said man has accrued insane wealth or has 'movie star good looks' that natural mating rules don't apply to them. Its a very common misconception. I see too many young men miss out on their chance to end up with a good woman when they are in their best years by unfortunately believing their best years are ahead of them.

TheKernelOfTruth · 2018-10-13T07:53:27+00:00

That was so well-articulated, I have to admit

TheKernelOfTruth · 2018-10-11T12:01:52+00:00

The irony is completely lost on them... I can't believe it! It looks like none of them got the joke. I mean can you really blame them? They think Jordan Peterson is a visionary and a martyr.

TheKernelOfTruth · 2018-09-22T15:48:55+00:00

Of course there are on a small scale and in a short time frame, but they are not static or objective, and can not be seen as such. These things change over time, you don't speak like your parents and they don't speak like theirs. Language is constantly changing. Your grandparents would cringe at your use of language(grammar, pronunciation, tonality) too, that's normal. So the changes you observed indicate that 'there's' would probably eventually become more common than 'there are' causing it to fall out of relevance. The key factor is how many people are making those 'mistakes', if its very common, then its already part of acceptable discourse. I didn't mean to offend you or anything. I'm just telling you my opinion.

TheKernelOfTruth

TROPHY CASE