Intellectual Maturity?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Deleted member 16771
  • Start date Start date

giphy.gif
 
OK, so I've just started a PhD in history, and getting to know the other students on my intake; we've socialised three times now, mainly with two others - a girl (26) and a guy (27).

However, I'm actually getting pretty exasperated by the way they have discussions, or rather, the way they take my points.

In essence, it seems like they can't fully engage with difficult ideas in what I would describe as a properly intellectual way - that is, considering some ideas as 'positions', not taking things personally, and engaging with these positions on logical grounds.

For instance, tonight we were talking about the work of some evolutionary biologists in the twentieth century who concluded that the basis of empathy was gene selection - individuals therefore feel more empathetic towards others who resemble themselves (genetically, ethnically, &c.), and the implications this had for the nation state, including the history of the twentieth century as one of massive ethnic disaggregation.

The guy got more and more uncomfortable until he eventually said he had to go, and that was the end of the evening.

I was really really surprised in a bemused way that they seemed to be taking this personally and it made them uncomfortable, as if they had sacred cows; things that ought not to be discussed.

Now, maybe I'm used to discussing things with more mature people, since this kind of discussion is usually enjoyable and engaging, and we come up with interesting 'solutions' and definitions of ethics, &c., but I got the sense that they didn't know how to properly debate.

Anyway, what do you think of this? It's got me annoyed.

Am I being antisocial bringing this challenging stuff up?

Are they intellectually immature?

What? Your thoughts? Experiences?



This scenario is painfully familiar to me. One reason I do not enter into possibly controversial topics is because there is a good chance someone in the group will grossly misinterpret what I said. (I've had this problem on the forum, too, which taught me to be careful here as well, and that is not an insult to the forum.)
I don't have an answer for this. If I did, my comment would have begun, "I use to have this problem...."

Instead of looking at what is wrong with them (such as possible intellectual immaturity) spend some time assessing how you convey your thoughts to others. Ni doms can have a difficult time wording their thoughts. INFJs read people well, but it doesn't mean we can communicate with people well. We are often talented at writing poetry and prose, yet cannot manage to "talk good".

Don't assume that because someone is meant to be your peer they will understand you.
Don't assume that all conversation topics are appropriate just because those present are meant to be your peers.

PS: Now I'm worried I worded this in a way that will make it seem like I think you were the problem. That is not the case!
 
Last edited:
OK so, before I reply to the specific points raised when I get home (a lot to chew on there), I should add that I did talk to @Puzzlenuzzle about this last night, and a lot of interesting things came up which may be of interest to INFJs more generally.

In particular, she thought this was related to the kind of friendships that I want to cultivate, and therefore how I want to make friends; that in other words what I was doing was a kind of 'test' - have the conversations I want to have with them and hope they're on board; that I'm 'projecting' my image of an ideal friend upon them and being disappointed when they don't match that. This as opposed to, say, feeling them out a bit more and taking smaller conversational steps.

It's also related to my own stance of being (overly?) comfortable with who I am and what I find interesting, and in a certain sense 'imposing' that upon them.
 
I'm 'projecting' my image of an ideal friend upon them and being disappointed when they don't match that.

I used to do that all of the time. And really, as much as I would like to imagine otherwise, it's only because I have been fortunate in my friendships that I have—somewhat—stopped.
 
Yes, yes, yes to that. Absolutely true!

Yes, yes, yes, yes to that. From my experience, being aware of this can make things even worse. If you are being too nice/considerate, it's subtlety devaluating and leaves the opponent with an even worse self feeling. And at the same time you take away their momentum to emotionally object to your style, and turns to immature/ irrational passive aggression in order to cope with you.
 
It's also related to my own stance of being (overly?) comfortable with who I am and what I find interesting, and in a certain sense 'imposing' that upon them.

I would definitely think so. You consciously know you're good at this, and your unconsciousness support you - making you genuinely confident. People are usually not backed up by their unconsciousness like that, so they learn to spot each other's act/false confidence making them feel at ease. With you, there are no such evidence, and on top of that, you seem to think in a way that they don't recognize.
 
OK so, before I reply to the specific points raised when I get home (a lot to chew on there), I should add that I did talk to @Puzzlenuzzle about this last night, and a lot of interesting things came up which may be of interest to INFJs more generally.

In particular, she thought this was related to the kind of friendships that I want to cultivate, and therefore how I want to make friends; that in other words what I was doing was a kind of 'test' - have the conversations I want to have with them and hope they're on board; that I'm 'projecting' my image of an ideal friend upon them and being disappointed when they don't match that. This as opposed to, say, feeling them out a bit more and taking smaller conversational steps.

It's also related to my own stance of being (overly?) comfortable with who I am and what I find interesting, and in a certain sense 'imposing' that upon them.

Step back and assess people.
Befriending those completely unlike us can be rewarding, even if we cannot connect with them on deep levels.

Yes, yes, yes, yes to that. From my experience, being aware of this can make things even worse. If you are being too nice/considerate, it's subtlety devaluating and leaves the opponent with an even worse self feeling. And at the same time you take away their momentum to emotionally object to your style, and turns to immature/ irrational passive aggression in order to cope with you.

Changing the phrasing of what you say can change a person's interpretation of the the topic you're raising.
In some cases people just hear what they want to hear, though.

It better not to bring up controversial conversations with people we don't know well.
I can definitely see how the topic Deleted member 16771 was discussing with his peers would make some uncomfortable.
 
OK, so I've just started a PhD in history, and getting to know the other students on my intake; we've socialised three times now, mainly with two others - a girl (26) and a guy (27).

However, I'm actually getting pretty exasperated by the way they have discussions, or rather, the way they take my points.

In essence, it seems like they can't fully engage with difficult ideas in what I would describe as a properly intellectual way - that is, considering some ideas as 'positions', not taking things personally, and engaging with these positions on logical grounds.

For instance, tonight we were talking about the work of some evolutionary biologists in the twentieth century who concluded that the basis of empathy was gene selection - individuals therefore feel more empathetic towards others who resemble themselves (genetically, ethnically, &c.), and the implications this had for the nation state, including the history of the twentieth century as one of massive ethnic disaggregation.

The guy got more and more uncomfortable until he eventually said he had to go, and that was the end of the evening.

I was really really surprised in a bemused way that they seemed to be taking this personally and it made them uncomfortable, as if they had sacred cows; things that ought not to be discussed.

Now, maybe I'm used to discussing things with more mature people, since this kind of discussion is usually enjoyable and engaging, and we come up with interesting 'solutions' and definitions of ethics, &c., but I got the sense that they didn't know how to properly debate.

Anyway, what do you think of this? It's got me annoyed.

Am I being antisocial bringing this challenging stuff up?

Are they intellectually immature?

What? Your thoughts? Experiences?

You're fine if someone gets upset it's their problem. I try not to discuss ideas with people whom I haven't sized up. People are offended easily these days I think it's just a sign of the times. By bringing up "challenging stuff" maybe you just need to understand your audience better and not assume they have a position at the table.

My experience is to watch and observe and look for reasons as to why I would talk to them. I also use a relational que through small talk to make them feel comfortable. It's like sex you need foreplay.
 
Gaze said:
By looking at their view as just wrong, you won't learn anything or grow in your own development as an intellectual. :)

This is what most (not all) people say to me. Even though I explicitly state, over and over, that Im just having a conversation and not endorsing any positions. Ive just learned that if the person I'm talking to does not get it the first two times, then don't talk to them again. Its not my responsibility to keep reassuring them that I'm not trying to attack them.
 
Several things I would like to share from my own way of thinking, which may or may not be for everybody(or anyone but myself).

I like conversations of sharing about each other. I dislike debates. I get a bit "en garde" when a conversation turns toward the debate road.

As for maturity of intellect? Reminds me of a 25 year old intelligent, good looking, and wholesome young lady trapped by boys that want to play. Makes me want to say sometimes, "stop pushing her and grow up". Do they seek older men for their understanding? Maybe some do. I sense a lonely person surrounded by people. People are all different, and things are always changing. Think about razors for shaving. Sometimes maybe we must change with the changes(or make our very own razors).

Man I was talking with one fine morning at a hunting camp acknowledged he felt the same as I regarding something. I did drag him away before asking. Yet, he let things lay the way they were. He said, "I believe when in Rome, do as the Romans do" and that he was just a guest. Said that was how they had done for years.

My advice: try a different approach and engage a little differently. Most importantly, try not to do this:
It's got me annoyed.
 
Several things I would like to share from my own way of thinking, which may or may not be for everybody(or anyone but myself).

I like conversations of sharing about each other. I dislike debates. I get a bit "en garde" when a conversation turns toward the debate road.

As for maturity of intellect? Reminds me of a 25 year old intelligent, good looking, and wholesome young lady trapped by boys that want to play. Makes me want to say sometimes, "stop pushing her and grow up". Do they seek older men for their understanding? Maybe some do. I sense a lonely person surrounded by people. People are all different, and things are always changing. Think about razors for shaving. Sometimes maybe we must change with the changes(or make our very own razors).

Man I was talking with one fine morning at a hunting camp acknowledged he felt the same as I regarding something. I did drag him away before asking. Yet, he let things lay the way they were. He said, "I believe when in Rome, do as the Romans do" and that he was just a guest. Said that was how they had done for years.

My advice: try a different approach and engage a little differently. Most importantly, try not to do this:

This is a bit cryptic, I'm not sure what you're trying to say.
 
This is what most (not all) people say to me. Even though I explicitly state, over and over, that Im just having a conversation and not endorsing any positions. Ive just learned that if the person I'm talking to does not get it the first two times, then don't talk to them again. Its not my responsibility to keep reassuring them that I'm not trying to attack them.

I think that some people just don't accept that positions aren't opinions; I suppose it's just too unnatural or counterintuitive.
 
It better not to bring up controversial conversations with people we don't know well.
I can definitely see how the topic Deleted member 16771 was discussing with his peers would make some uncomfortable.

To be honest I think that this is a huge problem - the forum has died, if it ever existed, and I sometimes feel like the body politic doesn't behave like one.

The result has been that certain ideas have been driven underground, where they thrive away from scrutiny, rather than being properly discussed in the open. Politicians are therefore able to 'talk in code' to certain constituencies, and the whole thing keeps tending more and more towards a rather artificial political polarisation.

The 'no religion or politics' rule I've always found rather unfortunate. Can we not just scrap it and cultivate the public forum? Or do we need to insist on these secret little echo chambers of uncritical thought for the sake of politeness?
 
I've ended conversation with "we're in different paradigms here, there's no point" that's why I value knowing who your talking to first. It's like assuming a doctor is good based on the paper they have on the wall. You're probably annoyed because you enter into situations assuming your own ultruism/thinking "this is basic stuff". I've had the problem of assuming/projecting certain aspects of my own life as well, they have become innate and sometimes taken for granted in my own reality. Alot of people in this world are not where they should be. Take time to gently figure out how and why they tick. Critical thinking seems to be lost in the age of media.
 
I think that some people just don't accept that positions aren't opinions

They will to some degree if you guide them appropriately though it may not be "good enough" for you personally at any point.
I highly doubt they are incapable of engaging in debate to any degree whatsoever.
You must have patients with others, sometimes in unexpected ways, if you wish to continue along a path with them.
But perhaps it just isn't worth it to you to do so (which is ok). Everything comes at a cost.
It might be too costly(time wise) to understand the circumstance meticulously enough and get them to engage how you want.
All relationships take time. They are an investment. The more you invest the better your returns, theoretically. Some things are money pits.
 
Back
Top