[Allostasis]

A lot of table things are sabotaging Te efforts anyway, so yeah it's dumb.

This, or it is meant to be non-serious.

When you also mention cocky, it means reckless and pompous. If that's what you are, then you really can't be successful strategic thinker. Opportunist at most, even then I'm not sure.

If this is how you understand "cocky," then yes, you cannot be a successful strategic thinker while being that. I see it as "bold" and willing to face risks, which is something neutral.

Confidence, not overconfidence that is mentioned in original table.

I have a concept/principle of unquestionable confidence that I like to incorporate. it is not about having unreasonable beliefs in own abilities or about the world. It is something that is taken as an axiom: No matter how challenging things will be, I will always be able to overcome them. It might require a lot of effort and resources, as I might be not skilled enough at the present moment, but, eventually, it will be achieved. And if it will happen to be physically impossible, then, well, it is what it is.

There is never a need to be insecure or paralyzed by self-doubt or have any other degree of confidence. You just do what needs to be done if you can. It is unemotional and realistic.

it can seem like overconfidence as well. But if unreasonable belief is implied, then yes, of course that isn't very helpful. It has its positives too though.

That's not how world works, you can screw yourself enough for it to be unfixable.

I am not denying that. If you can fix it, you do that. If you can't, you can't. Confidence is not about fixing something that is unfixable or screwing yourself up when you can help it. That is ignorance/recklessness.

Failures usually kill confidence and especially overconfidence or even cockiness.

That depends on how you experience failures, and how you manage them.

For some people, failures, indeed, are emotionally devastating, disheartening, and disappointing. But this doesn't have to be the case. I build confidence not on a belief that reality will obey my expectations/desires. But as the decision and readiness to do what is necessary. I cannot be disappointed. I will work with reality as how it will be. If it will be difficult, then I will invest more effort. If I will fuck up, then I will learn from it and do better next time. I cannot ultimately fail because it depends on my decision to stop. Nothing can force me to make this decision unless the situation is indeed unfixable.

failure is not competence, failure is not a good future either. Morality here is just reflection after the fact.

If you systematically fail and do nothing about that, then you won't be successful for sure. But if you naturally fail during your honest efforts and experiments, then it is normal. It is experience. It is okay to make mistakes and learn from them. Competence builds on experiences and learning.

Incompetent people are those who never learn for whatever reason, even though they could help it.

And ENTJs typically don't have a great value systems, at least here we can't see an ounce of that. Only negative qualities, mostly immature Se, lobotomized Ni and self-deceiving Te. Either that chart is dumb or ENTJs are. I'm betting that chart is dumb.

I don't agree with the chart as well. And I also don't agree with how people see ENTJs and Te in general, so I am on your side here. A lot of it is just stupid stereotypes. ENTJ very much can have a well-developed value systems. Look into Aristotle, who is ENTJ. He wrote a lot about virtues.

This and I'm tired of anti-ENTJ propaganda and other wild bullshit about them. This chart is great symbol of that.

I am tired of that too.

 

[The red spirit]

Would you like resources? I thought you wanted me to denounce the game.

Well, perhaps.

They have a tough exterior and a soft underbelly for the few, like 8s. One is not his/her dominant function. They have Fi they just rationalize it most of the time.

Dude, their first and dominant function is Te. Rationalizing Fi is peak unhealthy IxFP behaviour with insecure attachment.

 

[The red spirit]

If this is how you understand "cocky," then yes, you cannot be a successful strategic thinker while being that. I see it as "bold" and willing to face risks, which is something neutral.

There's only one definition of word "cocky" If that wasn't obvious, then "overconfident" is as obvious as it gets. I personally have no problem with bold people if they have things that back up such behaviour, but cocky individuals by definition don't and it's just bs and that I don't like. Even when bold it's somewhat important to not be as bold as you can be, because you don't want to escalate negative emotional responses and then deal with that.

I have a concept/principle of unquestionable confidence that I like to incorporate. it is not about having unreasonable beliefs in own abilities or about the world. It is something that is taken as an axiom: No matter how challenging things will be, I will always be able to overcome them. It might require a lot of effort and resources, as I might be not skilled enough at the present moment, but, eventually, it will be achieved. And if it will happen to be physically impossible, then, well, it is what it is.

Well then, okay. What would it be if it's actually a failure and mostly due to your own oversight? It's much easier to not be very bold, more vague to leave some margin for yourself.

There is never a need to be insecure or paralyzed by self-doubt or have any other degree of confidence. You just do what needs to be done if you can. It is unemotional and realistic.

it can seem like overconfidence as well. But if unreasonable belief is implied, then yes, of course that isn't very helpful. It has its positives too though.

But again, what if there are very legitimate reason why you can't do something or have low chances of achieving something or taking a chance to do something can have disastrous negative consequences? It's not rational to believe just to believe.

I am not denying that. If you can fix it, you do that. If you can't, you can't. Confidence is not about fixing something that is unfixable or screwing yourself up when you can help it. That is ignorance/recklessness.

And yet many things in this world are promised, yet failed to implement.

That depends on how you experience failures, and how you manage them.

For some people, failures, indeed, are emotionally devastating, disheartening, and disappointing. But this doesn't have to be the case. I build confidence not on a belief that reality will obey my expectations/desires. But as the decision and readiness to do what is necessary. I cannot be disappointed. I will work with reality as how it will be. If it will be difficult, then I will invest more effort. If I will fuck up, then I will learn from it and do better next time. I cannot ultimately fail because it depends on my decision to stop. Nothing can force me to make this decision unless the situation is indeed unfixable.

Well, emotions don't matter here. Failure shows that you had not observed everything as well as you though, perhaps weren't as reasonable as you thought. Perhaps your logic wasn't as logical as you believed. Does that not affect your further confidence, when your trust of your main strength has been challenged? Also if you concede that you weren't reasonable, what makes you confident that you will fix that, when your logic perhaps is flawed, an element that should make decisions well isn't exactly as functional as it perhaps was thought to be?

If you systematically fail and do nothing about that, then you won't be successful for sure. But if you naturally fail during your honest efforts and experiments, then it is normal. It is experience. It is okay to make mistakes and learn from them. Competence builds on experiences and learning.

Incompetent people are those who never learn for whatever reason, even though they could help it.

I have found plenty of things in life where you can reason however much you want and change yourself, but nothing will change an iota anyway. Your statement lies on the fact that that others as well as you are reasonable and indeed honest and always trying to be the best they can be, but are people like that? My answer isn't positive to that. Also life often gives you one chance to achieve something, if you fail, you "die". Nobody has time for your logic development.

I don't agree with the chart as well. And I also don't agree with how people see ENTJs and Te in general, so I am on your side here. A lot of it is just stupid stereotypes. ENTJ very much can have a well-developed value systems. Look into Aristotle, who is ENTJ. He wrote a lot about virtues.

It's good that we agree here, thing is that all people have 8 functions and use them, the idea is that there's some natural innate preference for some, but not an absence of some.

 

[Allostasis]

There's only one definition of word "cocky" If that wasn't obvious, then "overconfident" is as obvious as it gets. I personally have no problem with bold people if they have things that back up such behaviour, but cocky individuals by definition don't and it's just bs and that I don't like. Even when bold it's somewhat important to not be as bold as you can be, because you don't want to escalate negative emotional responses and then deal with that.

Agreed then.

Well then, okay. What would it be if it's actually a failure and mostly due to your own oversight? It's much easier to not be very bold, more vague to leave some margin for yourself.

That can happen. I never expect that I am perfectly and consistently accurate. Oversights can happen to everyone, regardless of how confident people are.
The risks related to whatever we are doing are inevitable. That is fine. The optimal level of "boldness" that we should assume depends on the particular problem context and the strategy that we select.

But again, what if there are very legitimate reason why you can't do something or have low chances of achieving something or taking a chance to do something can have disastrous negative consequences? It's not rational to believe just to believe.

Of course. But whether the means justify the end is not a matter of confidence. It is a complexity analysis, evaluating what is rational. It is something that you need to reason about, rather than believe in.

And yet many things in this world are promised, yet failed to implement.

That is a bad kind of confidence that builds on unrealistic external expectations. I am not defending that.

Well, emotions don't matter here. Failure shows that you had not observed everything as well as you though, perhaps weren't as reasonable as you thought. Perhaps your logic wasn't as logical as you believed. Does that not affect your further confidence, when your trust of your main strength has been challenged? Also if you concede that you weren't reasonable, what makes you confident that you will fix that, when your logic perhaps is flawed, an element that should make decisions well isn't exactly as functional as it perhaps was thought to be?

Not quite. You see, being competent, intelligent, or talented never guarantees that you are infallible. Failure shows a mismatch between the desired outcome and the real outcome. It happens at any level of skill. You can never predict the future with 100% accuracy, and it is fine. It doesn't mean that you are not reasonable or deficient. It only means that you are not perfect, which is everyone.
What makes me confident isn't the belief that I will never fail but how I deal with failures.

It seems that you are illustrating some kind of fixed mindset, while I suggest relying on a growth mindset. If it happens that I am not as reasonable as I wanted, then it means I should learn to become more reasonable.

I have found plenty of things in life where you can reason however much you want and change yourself, but nothing will change an iota anyway. Your statement lies on the fact that that others as well as you are reasonable and indeed honest and always trying to be the best they can be, but are people like that? My answer isn't positive to that. Also life often gives you one chance to achieve something, if you fail, you "die". Nobody has time for your logic development.

Yes, people are definitely not like that, indeed. People can be arbitrarily different from me, usually very much so. People develop what they prefer based on their needs, circumstances, and natural desires. My statement lies in the potential, not in what other people will or should do. It is up to them.

I don't think life gives just one chance to achieve something, that is true only for a very specific subset of goals, like, "earning six figures while you are 14". Naturally, you will never achieve this if you are already older than 14.. but not all goals are like that.

It's good that we agree here, thing is that all people have 8 functions and use them, the idea is that there's some natural innate preference for some, but not an absence of some.

While my model of psychological functions is somewhat different, the conclusion would be the same. Being Te dom doesn't imply being an unemotional robot that constantly sterilizes all emotions with intellect and has nothing meaningful to live for. That is not a valid variant of maturity, but the opposite of it.

 

[The red spirit]

Not quite. You see, being competent, intelligent, or talented never guarantees that you are infallible.

It sure does help a lot not to fall.

Failure shows a mismatch between the desired outcome and the real outcome. It happens at any level of skill. You can never predict the future with 100% accuracy, and it is fine. It doesn't mean that you are not reasonable or deficient. It only means that you are not perfect, which is everyone.
What makes me confident isn't the belief that I will never fail but how I deal with failures.

It seems that you are illustrating some kind of fixed mindset, while I suggest relying on a growth mindset. If it happens that I am not as reasonable as I wanted, then it means I should learn to become more reasonable.

But you must have some specific reasons why you won't fail, right? I don't think that just dealing decently is enough, you must have concrete solutions to deal well.

Yes, people are definitely not like that, indeed. People can be arbitrarily different from me, usually very much so. People develop what they prefer based on their needs, circumstances, and natural desires. My statement lies in the potential, not in what other people will or should do. It is up to them.

I personally hate potential. Once you give people hope with great potential, they expect a lot. Reality is that potential alone isn't enough, results must be there to back up claims. How high is your potential mostly determines how hopes will go up.

I don't think life gives just one chance to achieve something, that is true only for a very specific subset of goals, like, "earning six figures while you are 14". Naturally, you will never achieve this if you are already older than 14.. but not all goals are like that.

For me that's kinda like that or at least frequently enough.

While my model of psychological functions is somewhat different, the conclusion would be the same. Being Te dom doesn't imply being an unemotional robot that constantly sterilizes all emotions with intellect and has nothing meaningful to live for. That is not a valid variant of maturity, but the opposite of it.

I wish that this were more common on internet, a place where people learn about MBTI.

 

[ENTJudgement]

Why it always that anytime ENTJs are mentioned, there's only like bad qualities mentioned about them. It's like they have Te and besides that they are just braindead or something. I literally know zero of such extremes and ENTJs are often described as caricatures of actual people. Some bullshit makes zero sense, you can't claim to be overconfident and cocky and then magically a strategic thinker. You are one or other, but not both. Like you can't truly be greedy and future oriented. Greed is too short-sighted quality. You can't really be competitive with low empathy either. This whole chart is one big mistake full of oxymorons and cringe.

Why can't you lean overconfident and cocky yet a strategic thinker? Noone is a robot, it doesn't matter what MBTI you are, you're going to have emotions AND thinking together, noone is 100% strategic and thus theres always a lean towards an emotional side, usually you either lean over-confident or cautious.

Also we are Te dominant, Ni Aux so why isn't it accurate to put a bunch of shit that shows your most preferred functions? You're a Fi dom so what you prefer (Fi) is not something we give a shit about hence why it's our inferior function so to you, of course we seem Fi braindead, I'm aware of my Fi but it doesn't mean I have to prioritize it.

Why can't you be greedy and future oriented? So all these billionaires got there by not being greedy? All these high rankers aren't greedy? Definition of greedy is "Having or showing an intense and selfish desire for wealth or power." It has nothing to do with short sightedness, thats your personal take and I think you derived at that with your Fi coz you think long term principles and values wise greedy is bad but has nothing to do with many Te doms seeking out wealth and power and thinking + executing long term strategies to get it.

Can't be competitive with low empathy? Huh?

I think you need to use your inferior Te abit more, I'm at a loss lol...

Lastly alot of those traits look good to a Te dom so dunno wtf you're talking about, strategic thinker, future oriented, bounces ideas off others, determined, likes efficiency, plans step by step, prefers the higher ROI over instant gratification good with change, wants a solution, ambitious etc.... are bad? I mean your function stack IS the reverse to ours so might make sense why you view what we deem as somewhat decent qualities as bad.

 

[ENTJudgement]

View attachment 934592

Te five.

 

[ENTJudgement]

I wish I could say it is, but INFJ one is more sane and frankly this is a common trend of describing ENTJs anywhere. The problem I also have is taht they claim to be good leaders, visionaries and other borderline delusion of grandeur stuff, but there's low empathy. A good leader has to have decent empathy, it's necessity. And yet typical ENTJ description also makes them out to be very cold, ruthless, almost alien like. That's not a good leader stuff at all. And cockiness is poison of good vision and good execution. One must be cautious, careful, calculated, but not pompous and careless or even worse greedy prick, who sabotages long term effort.




And yet, in this thread you can't find an ounce of evidence that indeed they can. The picture is of lobotomized animal, who only wants success and would rob you if they could to get it now. I hope it's not too hard to understand how terribly ENTJs are portrayed here and worse than that, those who consider themselves as ENTJs actually agree with this nonsense. Leading to conclusion that ENTJs might indeed not be as great as they think they are, not as competent and bright as they would love to believe, indeed awful leaders that nobody can stand and both strategically and morally bankrupt people. Really, if you think otherwise, why not mention that table is full of shit, why not make remarks or anything. If nothing happens, then it could mean that it's fine.

Each of the MBTI type may have their spin on leading and adopt different strategies, why is one type of leadership "wrong" and another "right"? Thats Fi af, you can judge a leader morally all you want but at the end of the day, some people actually judge leadership by looking at the numbers and when you work in corporate long enough, you quickly realize that everything is run with numbers.

For instance, you want people to think good of your company? Hire public relations staff, they become a figure on your spreadsheet, since hiring them what is the company's standing in the eyes of the public? Has it improved? By how much? With better good will, how much profit can we expect to see? All numbers mate.

Some people may lead differently which is fine but to prove you way is better, there needs to be a list of metrics to evaluate from otherwise how do you prove your way or may way is better? Wheres your list of metrics?

Personally I really don't give a fk about who has what leadership style, when I evaluate, whatever the list of metrics and criteria we're supposed to judge on is what I look at to discern whats effective and it just so happens that most larger businesses use profit as the primary metric and thus Te doms would min/max that, if the most important metric was staff retention and profit didn't matter then you'll see Te doms excel at staff retention instead lol.

 

[568128]

Why can't you lean overconfident and cocky yet a strategic thinker? Noone is a robot, it doesn't matter what MBTI you are, you're going to have emotions AND thinking together, noone is 100% strategic and thus theres always a lean towards an emotional side, usually you either lean over-confident or cautious.

Also we are Te dominant, Ni Aux so why isn't it accurate to put a bunch of shit that shows your most preferred functions? You're a Fi dom so what you prefer (Fi) is not something we give a shit about hence why it's our inferior function so to you, of course we seem Fi braindead, I'm aware of my Fi but it doesn't mean I have to prioritize it.

Why can't you be greedy and future oriented? So all these billionaires got there by not being greedy? All these high rankers aren't greedy? Definition of greedy is "Having or showing an intense and selfish desire for wealth or power." It has nothing to do with short sightedness, thats your personal take and I think you derived at that with your Fi coz you think long term principles and values wise greedy is bad but has nothing to do with many Te doms seeking out wealth and power and thinking + executing long term strategies to get it.

Can't be competitive with low empathy? Huh?

I think you need to use your inferior Te abit more, I'm at a loss lol...

Lastly alot of those traits look good to a Te dom so dunno wtf you're talking about, strategic thinker, future oriented, bounces ideas off others, determined, likes efficiency, plans step by step, prefers the higher ROI over instant gratification good with change, wants a solution, ambitious etc.... are bad? I mean your function stack IS the reverse to ours so might make sense why you view what we deem as somewhat decent qualities as bad.

It's like the company I currently work for and enjoy working for. All the staff retention policies, the social events, the here have a 250 pound bonus for passing a AZ900 exam, etc, the here we have a pub trip in another city, get a train ticket and a hotel on us off the HR portal. Is it because they care about me and how they feel? No it's because they have multi million pound contracts and because they are greedy for money, they need to retain staff. Its nothing to do with feelings, it's all to do with not wanting to lose staff in a competitive market as that will mean they cannot satisfy their greed.

 

[The red spirit]

Why can't you lean overconfident and cocky yet a strategic thinker? Noone is a robot, it doesn't matter what MBTI you are, you're going to have emotions AND thinking together, noone is 100% strategic and thus theres always a lean towards an emotional side, usually you either lean over-confident or cautious.

Overestimating your capabilities is terrible for future planning.

Also we are Te dominant, Ni Aux so why isn't it accurate to put a bunch of shit that shows your most preferred functions?

Most of those statements are closer to Se dom. ESTP type as well.

You're a Fi dom so what you prefer (Fi) is not something we give a shit about hence why it's our inferior function so to you, of course we seem Fi braindead, I'm aware of my Fi but it doesn't mean I have to prioritize it.

Dude, not this shit again. I'm telling your it's terrible argument to argue about my type, rather than topic of converstation and no, you have Fi and you use it. If you don't, you are either lobotomized or not human and thus typeless.

Why can't you be greedy and future oriented? So all these billionaires got there by not being greedy? All these high rankers aren't greedy? Definition of greedy is "Having or showing an intense and selfish desire for wealth or power."

It gets in a way of future goals perhaps, therefore it's dumb to be greedy and has always been. We humans are stupid and that's also nothing new.

It has nothing to do with short sightedness, thats your personal take and I think you derived at that with your Fi coz you think long term principles and values wise greedy is bad but has nothing to do with many Te doms seeking out wealth and power and thinking + executing long term strategies to get it.

Okay, so tell me mister smartypants how is Bill Gates monopoly fiasco wasn't stupid greed. Dude paid fines and still failed to make Internet Explorer a default browser. Dude lost money, reputability and future plan. That's just one example of moronic greed that is self-sabotaging. There are millions of other examples.

Can't be competitive with low empathy? Huh?

And leader too... then obviously nope.

I think you need to use your inferior Te abit more, I'm at a loss lol...

You yourself kinda sound like inferior Te or Ni and seemingly don't connect dots at all.

Lastly alot of those traits look good to a Te dom so dunno wtf you're talking about, strategic thinker, future oriented, bounces ideas off others, determined, likes efficiency, plans step by step, prefers the higher ROI over instant gratification good with change, wants a solution, ambitious etc.... are bad? I mean your function stack IS the reverse to ours so might make sense why you view what we deem as somewhat decent qualities as bad.

I already told you what's bad and makes no sense, now you are avoiding my statements, backpedalling and cherry-picking statements to support your point. Fail.

For instance, you want people to think good of your company? Hire public relations staff, they become a figure on your spreadsheet, since hiring them what is the company's standing in the eyes of the public? Has it improved? By how much? With better good will, how much profit can we expect to see? All numbers mate.

Dude, are you senile or what? Nobody likes PR, they know they are filthy liars and their effectiveness is basically zero. You want good PR, then don't create stupid situations that land you in hot water. That's how proper people deal with that.

Some people may lead differently which is fine but to prove you way is better, there needs to be a list of metrics to evaluate from otherwise how do you prove your way or may way is better? Wheres your list of metrics?

Dude, you are ENTJ. What metrics . Metrics are for Si in ESTJs.

Personally I really don't give a fk about who has what leadership style, when I evaluate, whatever the list of metrics and criteria we're supposed to judge on is what I look at to discern whats effective and it just so happens that most larger businesses use profit as the primary metric and thus Te doms would min/max that, if the most important metric was staff retention and profit didn't matter then you'll see Te doms excel at staff retention instead lol.

Why does F function has to be demonized for you in Ts? That's not normal even for F inferiors. And your leadership style described is classical ESTP, not ENTJ in slightest. There's no foresight, logic is just subjective and so-so, it's pragmatic, kinda cruel and very blind to any actual strategic and long term planning. If you have no staff retention, then you can't even invest into RnD properly, which will eventually lead to company surviving on driving prices down, living on shitty profit margins and eventually dying in like 5 years.[/QUOTE]

 

[Hachitarou]

This is actually funny because I nailed this bingo (except for the question mark, because I prefer both delayed and instant gratification) and I dislike the one that people make - it's nonsense and more of Se-dom:

 

[Hachitarou]

Why it always that anytime ENTJs are mentioned, there's only like bad qualities mentioned about them. It's like they have Te and besides that they are just braindead or something. I literally know zero of such extremes and ENTJs are often described as caricatures of actual people. Some bullshit makes zero sense, you can't claim to be overconfident and cocky and then magically a strategic thinker. You are one or other, but not both. Like you can't truly be greedy and future oriented. Greed is too short-sighted quality. You can't really be competitive with low empathy either. This whole chart is one big mistake full of oxymorons and cringe.

Hm, not quite sure about that. But being confident and boastful usually lead to a greater performance for the ENTJ's competency, mostly because they need to fuel their motivation by such a narcissistic tendency. So yes, you can be both, and it doesn't matter considering these values are not mutually exclusive and therefore work very well in practice.

 

[Hachitarou]

This ENTJ likes to troll and have fun. I see a lot of positive videos and information posted about the strengths of ENTJs and the ways they show care, etc. Perhaps you are focusing on the negative.

They have the best jokes in the world, change my mind - no, you can't.

 

[ENTJudgement]

This is actually funny because I nailed this bingo (except for the question mark, because I prefer both delayed and instant gratification) and I dislike the one that people make - it's nonsense and more of Se-dom:
View attachment 934603

Great minds think alike

 

[The red spirit]

Hm, not quite sure about that. But being confident and boastful usually lead to a greater performance for the ENTJ's competency, mostly because they need to fuel their motivation by such a narcissistic tendency. So yes, you can be both, and it doesn't matter considering these values are not mutually exclusive and therefore work very well in practice.

I knew one ENTJ (was my math teacher) and that certainly wasn't a trait of her. The best way to describe her was that she was dead focused on certain goals and firmly followed proper reasoning to get there. She wasn't boastful at all, indeed quite modest. It was this tunnel vision. She kept ignoring a lot of Se opportunities, Fi was very limited, stiff. She was very hard working and dedicated, indeed anti-definition of evil. Perhaps it was just me, but her Te didn't feel brutal at all. She just did what she thought made sense and Ni helped to stay on track. Indeed she was competitive, but very far from cut-throat competitive. More like formal, professional and just sensible. She was also firm against bullshit and made it stop immediately, consequently gaining authority for that. Some thought that she was cold, but all times highly professional with minimal warmness. Despite that, she was kinda cool with various questions and gave decent sensible answers. I had zero problems with her job, but some ExTP type did have due to their class clowning qualities and some attempts at bullshiting and cracking jokes. They quickly got shut down and put to order for that with bad grades and extra homework. I haven't seen that class so orderly before with other teacher, at the same time it felt somewhat dead. That class absolutely came alive with EXXP type of teachers.

It might be just my observation, but ESTJ teachers generally were warmer, more human like, more animated, more talkative, but at the same time somewhat less sensible, a bit not as firm on goals, but on specifics, but easier to bullshit with. Meanwhile, INTJ teachers were much more sweet, much more tolerant of random class stuff, best nerdy jokes, in terms of order strict, but by far more focused on end goals, rather than hard logic. Also INTJs were typically more willing to be in outside of class (like events, excursions and etc.) activities than ExTJs, but still highly avoidant of those. Oh and besides nerdy jokes, INTJs were absolute best at set ups and roasts. I have seen so many XNTPs getting medium-rared in chemistry classes and whole class was dying that absolutely no other type could match (it was a good reason to study too). ENTJs are just too much business and professionalism for that, meanwhile ESTJs were either completely not joking or kept it brief and only mildly roasting.

Meanwhile, this chart much better describes stereotypical thug like PE teacher, who is always insecure, always wants to prove something and is giving a hard time for everyone except few mates for no reason and is forceful of random crap, that nobody cares about. Efficiency be damned, but grades can be cooked, absences too. They would lie, cheat to get ahead. I has ESTP PE teacher, who was less extreme version of what I just said, but yeah.

 

[ENTJudgement]

ENTJs are just too much business and professionalism for that

If only, I wish I could remain all business and professional at all times and not be bored outta my mind, that shit u see is probably ENTJs during work hours.

 

[568128]

If only, I wish I could remain all business and professional at all times and not be bored outta my mind, that shit u see is probably ENTJs during work hours.

Surely it's same with everyone. Who they are at work and outside work are different. Different focuses etc.

Who I am at work.
Who I am in the gym
Who I am with friends
Who I am with family
Who I am with a partner

All different facets of me. All different but all a part of me.

 

[The red spirit]

If only, I wish I could remain all business and professional at all times and not be bored outta my mind, that shit u see is probably ENTJs during work hours.

Perhaps, but I don't know. I swear that teacher was like living schedule. Nobody really knew anything about her personal life. She was quite defensive of it too. Perhaps just an individual thing. Anyway, I have one distant relative, who is ENTJ and he's still all business when needed, but more charismatic outside of it, somewhat more chill, but still I could sense some rather certain desire for stiffness, for orderliness and for sense. Not that he was tense, but just kinda upright like no P type would be. And I could sense that he really cared about being proper, he was typically well dressed, very caring about image, looks. Car was very tasteful, a bit fun, premium, but also somewhat common and in excellent shape. Overall just very nice and well developed taste of things and intangibles, that is also very J in a fashion. That Se was very different from rather vulgar Se of ESTP. And I call those people stiff, but like you know, I'm a P type and am much more permeable, soft with rules, overall more holistic than hard, ordered and separated. What is J in my eyes, might feel like much less of J to you as ENTJ.

 

[ENTJudgement]

Surely it's same with everyone. Who they are at work and outside work are different. Different focuses etc.

Who I am at work.
Who I am in the gym
Who I am with friends
Who I am with family
Who I am with a partner

All different facets of me. All different but all a part of me.

Yeah pretty much that + different per person I interact with, you've differentiated the different environments but each individual gets a different side as well, i.e I'm different interacting with my mom vs my dad yet they both belong to the "family" classification which has a set of allowed behaviors etc...

 

[ENTJudgement]

Perhaps, but I don't know. I swear that teacher was like living schedule. Nobody really knew anything about her personal life. She was quite defensive of it too. Perhaps just an individual thing. Anyway, I have one distant relative, who is ENTJ and he's still all business when needed, but more charismatic outside of it, somewhat more chill, but still I could sense some rather certain desire for stiffness, for orderliness and for sense. Not that he was tense, but just kinda upright like no P type would be. And I could sense that he really cared about being proper, he was typically well dressed, very caring about image, looks. Car was very tasteful, a bit fun, premium, but also somewhat common and in excellent shape. Overall just very nice and well developed taste of things and intangibles, that is also very J in a fashion. That Se was very different from rather vulgar Se of ESTP. And I call those people stiff, but like you know, I'm a P type and am much more permeable, soft with rules, overall more holistic than hard, ordered and separated. What is J in my eyes, might feel like much less of J to you as ENTJ.

Rules are made to be broken and I really don't give a shit about rules other ppl have set up unless I personally agree with it but rules are rules, policy is policy, laws are laws, get caught = get rekt.

Image is only important when you're trying to get something done IMO, for instance, if I'm trying to install some network equipment which requires alot of lifting, I'm not gonna wear my expensive shit but if I'm going for a job interview then I'll wear what nets me the best chance of landing said job. People who dress inappropriately for the situation just seems silly to me and would raise my suspicion, are you here to work or look good?

Having a nice car can easily just be a hobby thing, I'm an enthusiast but I'd pick a GTR over a Rolls Royce for the driving experience etc... but won't be buying a badge car that drives like a fkin boat just for image unless my clients care about that shit then I'll drive an ice cream truck if thats what they expected, like don't give a shit at that point, just tell me what u expect and what you're offering, if I like the deal then I'm complying to the agreement, applies in all and any circumstance, includes emotional shit like be nice = higher salary? Ok I'll be nice, lul, EZmoney.