“Don’t say anything. Don’t say anything!” These are the words running through my mind whenever I watch a movie with a friend.
One of the dilemmas that comes with being an intellectual INTJ is that I have to analyze everything —and not in the silent TiNe way that an INTP would, but in the NiTe way. Introverted Intuition (Ni) is rigged to isolate problems, and as Ni-dominants, INTJs inevitably find something wrong with everything. Te then vocalizes it.
TiNe analyses everything from a logical, but possibility based perspective. NiTe analyses everything in a let’s-look-for-the-weaknesses-and-eliminate-them kind of way. Both logical, just oriented toward different end goals.
As a result, I end up insulting loads of fandoms without realizing it, because my analysis is completely detached from any emotion and purely objective. Of course, the people who get insulted are only insulted because their fanaticism is based off of an emotional or hormonal attachment to said fandom. Therefore, they make themselves blind to the fandom’s fallacies and feel personally attacked when anyone points them out.
I do notice Ne-doms are fairly good at predicting things in film as well, but not quite as good as Ni doms. A lot of times Ne’s will try to predict things, but be slightly off.
For instance, I watched The Amazing Spiderman 2 with an ENFP. She had no clue that Gwen Stacy was going to die, but I figured it out within the first fifteen minutes of the show… ENFP was predicting that Harry Osborn would have feelings for Gwen Stacy…
Non-Ni users trying to predict the future
INFJs are pretty good at predicting things in movies –but different things than INTJs. INTJs will logically predict the sequence of events and isolate what’s wrong with the movie. INFJs will predict the emotional character arc. INTJ says, “that person will die by the end of the movie.” INFJ says, “that person will develop (or spiral downward) by the end of the movie.”
Either way, INFJs kindly predict in a way that doesn’t ruin the movie for everyone else, whereas INTJs logically pick everything apart, telling you what’s going to happen before it does and what’s wrong with the plot etc.
For those who don’t have an INTJ friend to do this for them, let me give a few examples. WARNING: offences dealt to multiple fandoms.
And if you ever do watch a movie with an INTJ who’s comfortable enough around you to comment during movies, you will likely come away thinking something like this:
Popular fandoms: Harry Potter
When asked my opinion about Harry Potter (not sure why people still ask), I launch into my shpeel about how passionately I hate the plot –or should I say, the lack thereof?
If they don’t seem offended, then I give them a detailed explanation for all the reasons, if not, I shut up about there. In the former case, I proceed to explain my firm opinions on why all character deaths should be expressly meaningful and the rules for how to go about it (which J.K. Rowling doesn’t know about).
Hmm…are there any emotions associated with those deaths? Some of them, yes. But the majority…not really.
Then there’s the ending, which is still competing with The Maze Runner for the title of “Worst Book-Ending in History.” Honestly? The wand battle was soooo un-climactic, and the children in the train station at the end just topped it off as a failed ending.
If you’re going to lead up to an ending with seven brick-thick books, the ending has got to be good, and unfortunately, J.K. Rowling failed in that regard (sorry, no mercy for her).
In general, I tend to point out all literary fallacies to people, and it doesn’t always bode well. I’ve accidentally gotten myself into full-fledged debates about the lack of literacy in Harry Potter –usually with hard-core Potterheads (by the way, that term was supposed to cue you into the fact that I’m not a clueless outside observer of said fandom).
I have read the books. I know they’re literary crap. Would have made a nice telly series though.
And yet, just to be nice to you all, I’m typing the Harry Potter characters on this blog.
Historical films: Titanic
In any historical film, it is my natural response to analyze the history. In Titanic, I’m honestly more interested in the historical, real people that are depicted in it, than in Jack and Rose’s fake romance. You hear various names come up in the film: Thomas Andrews, John Jacob Astor, Molly Brown, Benjamin Guggenheim, Jack Phillips, Wallace Hartley etc.
The thing is, I know who all of those people are and can tell you quite a lot about them if you ask. I know because I did a massive research project on the Titanic (for my own personal interest, not school).
For instance, Molly Brown was not actually known as “Molly” until after the sinking of Titanic. Her real name was Margaret Brown, but after the event, she became known as “the unsinkable Molly Brown” for her acts of heroism.
Then I hear them say things like “six were saved from the water that day,” and all I can think is –well actually, the academics are still arguing about that.
Oh? Only one lifeboat came back to save the people in the water? Really? I read it was two…
Also, fairly certain there weren’t any Picaso or Monet paintings onboard. –And Jack dear, your comment about Monet’s use of colour is sadly lacking in artistic knowledge. Monet was known for his use of light. He suffered from an eye-condition that made it difficult for him to see his work. As a result, what comes out are all the wrong colours, impressionistic brush-strokes (because he couldn’t see to paint realistically) and a wonderful understanding of exaggerated lighting.
Oh, and the idiots could totally have worked out a way to both fit on that door…
Sci-fi shows: Doctor Who
At the request of a friend, I have watched Doctor Who and to my intense un-surprise, I love it. However…there are times when my science brain gets a bit ahead of Moffat and Gatiss.
My instant response to the Dalek’s evil plan to use a 1930s solar flare to power a massive genetic experiment:
ehmm… excuse me, but Earth’s atmosphere hardly lets any gamma radiation through at all (and no, the ozone hole doesn’t really affect that too much). The most power you could get from a solar flare storm would be disturbances to the earth’s magnetic field (i.e. power outages, the aurora borealis and problems with broadcasting systems).
Not a great plan.
Ten, I think you’ll be alright just letting the Dalek’s muse over that for a little while.
Also…three minutes away from falling into the sun –everyone on board that spacecraft should have been dead hours if not days before they got that close to the sun. It’s not just the heat that would kill them. I won’t even subject you to a rant about just how much deadly radiation comes off stars.
When the stars start dying and Rose is all like, “the shadow is coming!” I can’t help but point out the fact that it would take millions of years for the light from those stars to reach earth (or other places where the tardis happens to end up). That said, those stars would have to have died millions of years earlier.
So when you say “the stars are dying,” what you really ought to be saying is “the stars are dead.”
Fun fact about the nature of wormholes…according to current knowledge (which is limited) wormholes only go one direction. You’d have to have a black hole at one end and a white hole at the other.
The black hole end absorbs everything with a lower mass than itself (pretty much everything everything except bigger black holes). That means that a wormhole on earth would gravitationally absorb the planet. The white hole end would let everything out, but wouldn’t let anything in, so you couldn’t get back.
Besides, you’d be spaghettified (scientific term for death by black hole).
Also, Gallifrey coming back –that close to the earth….well, if that were to happen in real life, the gravity of the larger planet would tear the smaller planet apart pretty quickly. There would be no time for any of the saving that the Doctor did…
Then…we have the Eleventh Doctor, pointing to a blue star and saying that it’s “cold.” If he knew anything about stars, he’d know that blue stars are the hottest stars around. Red ones are cold, genius.
Also, not science related, but Vincent Van Gogh was not a slow painter. He typically cranked out 3-5 paintings in the time that his friend Gauguin (the one he threatened and then mutilated his ear for) could paint one. So our 11th Doctor wouldn’t really have had to wait so long and complain about how slowly time passes.
Bits and bobs etc. I’ll stop now.
Classic Who is much more scientifically accurate than the new stuff, but then…it was written by people like Douglas Adams…
Dear Moffat and Gatiss,
Best regards,
INTJ Anonymous
P.S. I hope that doesn’t discourage you from trying.
Crime shows: Broadchurch
Spoilers for Broadchurch.
I watched Broadchurch ages ago, and in the first episode my Ni was telling me that the murderer was Miller’s husband. I was right…
Can you understand how annoying it can be for me to watch shows that are extremely predictable when I easily foretell what’s going to occur in the tricky ones?
The only reason I was able to continue watching Broadchurch was the fact that the show was really well put together, and although my Ni was predicting things, I didn’t yet have any Te evidence to prove that I was right. Also, Alec Hardy is an INTJ and I like pretty much any movie about INTJs that I can get my hands on.
Also, I get this odd sort of self-depricating satisfaction from watching other people make fun of INTJs. Not sure why, british habits perhaps.
In general, I’ve been able to successfully predict the majority of crime shows that I’ve watched. I watch Sherlock and predict half of what’s going to happen before it does, but continue watching it because it’s hilarious.
Wallander is also pretty predictable for me…but I still like it for some reason. Kurt Wallander is just an interesting character…quite the crier too.
The same goes for mystery novels. I read the Da Vinci Code and predicted EVERY. SINGLE. OCCURRENCE. Possibly because I know basically everything there is to know about Leonardo da Vinci, but still –the suspense was ridiculously unnecessary.
As a result, I will never read Dan Brown again.
Finale
Obviously, I should clarify a few things.
Firstly, no, I did not have to look all of that up on google.
Secondly, I actually like some of the fandoms that I just insulted. The thing about me is that I have the capacity to still like something even when I can see it’s flaws because I there are usually good things that I can still appreciate about it.
For instance, I love the costumes in Titanic. I love the fact that most of the history was displayed correctly (even if some of it wasn’t). I love the fact that the entire movie isn’t solely devoted to the fake romance –you get little snippets of the story that belonged to the real people as well.
I love the characters in Doctor Who (and the humour). Even though they get some of the science/history wrong, when they do manage to talk about science properly, my brain gets excited and starts smiling internally. Also, Doctor who is just so elaborate and amazing that I’m willing to look past the problems in order to enjoy the fun that exists in that realm
Anyway…there’s a fast of Ni dominant watching movies for you.
The Book Addict's Guide to MBTI: 
Watch “shang chi legend of the 10 rings” it’s a damn sieve weaved with social programing and is almost completely predictable and it’s a children’s movie (they weren’t even dealing with a complex plot, hell there were bits inspired by “how to train your dragon”)
LikeLike
Ok, but how much did you predict of Game of Thrones?
LikeLike
I can relate to this SO MUCH. My husband finds this very annoying, because sometimes I stop the movie we are watching to explain him my theories and he protests “Don’t spoiler me again!” And I’m like “They aren’t spoilers as we’re watching this movie at the same time! I do not KNOW this, I’m just quite sure, because it would be the “right way” to develop this plot”. And I get upset too because I find so offensive (In a funny way) that he prefers to watch the movie/chapter rather than listen to my theories, which I find quite interesting…!
LikeLike
I agree with you on Harry Potter, though I’m still a huge Potterhead.
LikeLike
In my humble opinion, stating how fiction deviates from all sorts of (academic?!) details is not just pointless, but quite annoying. I think you might not be so mature an INTJ as you claim to be, as a true Ni dominant would not bother with the details but focus on the big picture and appreciate the product for the overall picture and feel, not how many boats rowed out to save people when the Titanic sank (a completely irrelevant event historically, only interesting when translated into fictional drama). It reminds me of my INFJ cousin who stated to hate Star Wars because there are no (gas) explosions in space. I mean: seriously, THATS your issue with Star Wars???!!!
LikeLike
*wrote this 2 years ago when I was an 18-yr-old idiot*
LikeLike
Honestly, I don’t mind discussing the logic/science/psychology behind tv shows and movies. It can be absolutely fascinating. But at the same time I prefer that whoever I’m watching with respects my comfort if I ask them to NOT pick apart every little inaccuracy. So all things in moderation, I guess.
LikeLike
spiel
LikeLike
Yes?
LikeLike
For some reason I want to watch a movie with you (only as an idea), the amount of information you can provide is astonishing, it would make it so much more interesting. I bet you must be surprised to read that, until you know I am also an INTJ. Thankfully I also have a friend with whom I can talk about plotholes in the series we like (he is an ENTJ though).
I can understand why people would dislike that sort of thing, I once was introduced to the sherlock series by a friend and she was dumbfounded to see me deduce that the one responsible for the murders in the first case was a taxi driver (though I could only do it after Sherlock asked himself something that immediately led me to an “easy” answer, thank you Ni) even though I had lost the first few minutes of the episode. She looked at me with disdain after that.
LikeLike
It’s funny you should say that. Now that I live apart from my parents/siblings, they’ve all changed their minds and decided that they miss this aspect of watching movies with me.
LikeLike
I have a list of movies/shows I think you’d love. I’m an INTJ and also have the same “issues” as you. My list contains movies/shows that I enjoy and/or shock the hell out of me (things I never saw coming). I’ve compiled them for myself and others.
Do you have a list of movies, shows or books? I’d love to check them out.
LikeLike
“All character deaths should be expressly meaningful and the rules for how to go about it.” I completely agree, but it’s hard to find sources that don’t tell you to kill your darlings… Can you elaborate on your opinion? And maybe some sources you find helpful?
Love your site, btw – I can’t stop reading the character analyses! So fun :)
LikeLike
Elaborate? I could go on about this for hours. How about I write a post about it?
LikeLike
That would be wonderful! But I understand you’re not feeling well, so no rush. I hope you feel better soon.
LikeLike
Interesting to have this explained! This holds true for my best friend, who is an INTJ. Reading books or watching movies with her is ordinarily very enjoyable; I am an INFJ, and often we make a sort of game out of seeing how much content we can predict between the two of us.
With regards to Harry Potter, I am curious as to what you think of Rowling’s writing style, separately from how well or badly she can drive a plot. It seems to me rather disjointed, and though she admittedly creates a fantastic world, the writing itself is littered with pointless, often distracting adverbs. Perhaps it’s a bit nit-picky, but overall, I think it reads like an interesting concept that is poorly crafted.
LikeLike
I’m not an INTJ but watching a movie with me can be a similar experience (much to my husband’s chagrin. He calls me a movie killer). I especially love how you took on J.K. Rowling’s meaningless deaths and the utterly craptastic drivel masquerading as Book 7. I’m a huge Potterhead (and remain so partially out of sentimentality despite the obvious flaws) but other fans clutch their pearls when I call out Deathly Hallows for being so hideously slapdash. I’m not sure I’ve ever met anyone who agrees with me on that point, so, thanks for saying what I’m saying!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yeah, I didn’t like “42” much either. But Season Five started out kind of… bleh. *sigh* Am working towards things. Hopefully.
I think part of it is that while Matt Smith is a fantastic Sci-Fi actor, he’s not as good a historical actor. Tennant and Eccleston were both amazing historical actors (with experience with Shakespeare… I am starting to see a pattern here.) I feel like the writing sort of took a hit as well. It’s got quality still… but the character development seems to drag. I like the characters and all, but it didn’t have the passion and energy of the first four seasons. I think Rory has the best character development, really. And Amy’s best episodes so far were “The Beast Below” and the one where she ends up being caught in an alternate timeline and dying because they could only save one Amy. That episode hurt on a very deep level, and not just because of the pathos of older Amy–it hit home because of the moral dilemma. Which one do you save? Both of them have the right to live. And the Doctor lied to them to save Amy from the earlier point in her time stream. That’s why the Tenth Doctor needed Donna, and I’m kind of sad that Amy doesn’t exactly end up filling the role in the same way…
Wow. Sorry about that. Anyyyyway.
LikeLike
I’d definitely agree about Rory as having the best character development. He was one of my favourite companions because of it. I never particularly liked Amy though.
LikeLike
I feel like they could have done better by Amy. “Amelia Pond–that was a perfect name!”
LikeLike
Doctor Who: The only universe that has a plot ball :)
I may have been talking about a different episode, but I don’t remember the TARDIS ever being three minutes away from falling into the sun. I was talking about “End of the World” (season 1 episode 2).
Yeah, somehow I missed that it was one of 10’s episodes. I know which one you were talking about now, and I quite agree with you. That gif is very appropriate for that.
I don’t remember saying anything about philosophy.
LikeLike
That was supposed to go as a reply to your’s. Oops.
LikeLike
I am an INTJ and I completely understand most of what you are saying. This would explain why I enjoy movies a lot more when I watch them with my INTP friend, even though he doesn’t point out the problems in the middle of the movie. Now, of course, there are things here that I haven’t experienced, and I don’t get into much modern culture, so I haven’t read or watched any of the storylines you mentioned except for Doctor Who and Sherlock.
But I wanted to counter a few of your comments on Doctor Who. Some of them were dead on, but others weren’t that bad, or you pointed out the wrong inconsistency, or my memory of the episode is cloudy, so here goes:
I thought the Dalek generator was orbiting the earth (though I seem to remember earth being between it and the Sun)
Maybe I’m thinking of the wrong episode on this one, but there were shields on that ship that blocked out the heat and radiation. Now, they would probably have died almost immediately after the shields went down, but that’s not what you were saying.
Weren’t the stars ceasing to ever have existed? In that case, all of the starlight between them and the earth would cease to ever have existed. Now, there are other problems with that, like fact that Astronomy would never have existed, and I’m sure some couples met in an observatory or something like that, which could make for a completely different population in the entire earth, and, later, the entire universe, among plenty of other problems, but we’ve seen paradoxes ignored and fixed and other stuff before….
Not sure what episode you are talking about with the wormhole, but I agree with your science there.
Yeah, both Gallifrey and Earth would have been destroyed in short order there. I was really surprised that they didn’t do anything about that when I watched that episode (and I think I got told to stop commenting).
The blue star….I would highly doubt that the creators really thought that the blue stars were cold…that is just wrong on SOOOO many levels…but given some of the other people in this world……..
And I (intentionally) don’t know anything about art.
LikeLike
I apologise for any inaccuracies that may have come across in my knowledge of the Doctor Who plot-line (Wait…did I say line? that would suggest…oh dear…a linear progression from one point in time to another. We cannot have that.).
I wrote this article when I was fairly new to Doctor Who, so I didn’t know about the TARDIS’s shield system.
Dalek generator? I’m pretty sure we’re both thinking of different episodes here.
From a philosophical perspective however, you’re completely correct.
LikeLike
I agree with most every other point you brought up, Arvid, but I feel like I should point out that the whole ‘blue star being cold’ thing was probably a way to indicate that the dream in the TARDIS was, in fact, a dream. It certainly brought me to that conclusion almost the moment I heard it said. And it actually fits, because even in dreams (that are influenced by) Time Lords there are bound to be certain things that don’t follow the logic of our waking world/s. So yeah, that’s kind of an exception, I think.
LikeLike
That’s exactly what I thought about the blue star being ‘cold’ in that episode (Amy’s Choice, right?). I am a massive Whovian and despite being a huge science nerd, I am an even bigger sci-fi geek. I enjoy fictional worlds because they are unrealistic and often not logical (I’m actually an INTJ… so if it’s COMPLETELY irrational, I will probably hate it). Everyone hates watching book-based movies with me. I will always be the one saying: “That didn’t happen in the book! Who’s this character? They don’t even exist! Is Kili falling in love with a figment of his imagination?”
Yes, this was what I was like watching The Hobbit films. Don’t even get me started on the horribly inaccurate Percy Jackson films (praise the Lord, they stopped making them after Sea of Monsters). I was just watching Rogue One the other day and I predicted every single thing that happened. It was so obvious that all the protagonists would die… Whoops! Sorry if I spoiled anyone who hasn’t seen it yet. My parents were so annoyed because, as a Te user, I had to verbalise all my thoughts. They have this rule, that the first time we watch a film, it should be in silence so that we can ‘enjoy the film’. My father is a Film, Television and New Media teacher, and he often comments on the way a film is made and the character arcs, narrative structure, etc. Even he agrees that there should be no ‘running commentary’ the first time we watch a movie.
My INTJ-T friend, being more turbulent, while I’m assertive, isn’t as bad as me. It’s hilarious when we’re watching something together. She loves my running commentary and even joked that I should be an actor or film producer/director, just so I can do the audio commentaries. Personally, I’d love to be a screenwriter for Doctor Who and Sherlock… Unfortunately, by the time I get anywhere near that, Sherlock is likely to be cancelled (unless I just make a new series…)
LikeLike