Thank you for the comment. ~ Joel

@@Personalityhacker I wasnt going to say anything but I've been through a whole lot to come to that realization. I'm 35 and my hair is mostly white, where I have the remnants of brown fading so quickly it seems. I stopped dying my hair and I love my authentic self. It's just a thing. Ok! I'm done!

Yeah too many mistyped INTJ out there all over the world. It seems like people tend to associate INTJ with great people, while in reality not all of these great people are INTJ, but they're certainly the best version of their type. In my country people even can type a well developed ESFP/INFP as INTJ just cus he is famous, smart, & great but if you look at his cognitive functions, his favorite functions are Se & Fi or Fi & Ne. Being an INTJ does not guarantee you will be a great person. You can be any type & be a great person. You have to study cognitive functions & see what it means.

Thanks for the comment. I agree. It seems that people who are high achievers set bigger goals than most. Reasonable goals are baseline in my opinion. ~ Joel

I wish I had an INTJ manual, when I was born. I didn’t get to pick the color of my skin, my IQ, my personality, my metabolism or my parents. I struggle in school, always daydreaming or think about 50 different scenarios/ outcomes, felt like a time traveler, always in the future or the past. Ergo got bad grades in school, o had better things to think about. Transformation about age 20, brain clicked on, got a BS, DDS, Residency in Pediatric Dentistry. Fast forward, now retired, self reflecting. Grew up in a trailer, which by the way did nothing for my self esteem, always had high expectations for myself. Built a business, focused on systems and efficiency, best outcomes, putting my pts first. Never thought I’d be deca millionaire. So speaking of transformation really resonated with me. My kindergarten teacher called me quiet, shy, immature, daydreamer. She should have just called me an INTJ.

@@prydegirl Sounds like a lot of experience in overcoming challenging initial conditions that you pushed through and demonstrated to yourself the ability. ~ Joel

I considered self love a lie as well. The idea of love itself necessitates a relation. If you don't have a second party there's no relation so there's no love. The idea of self love also doesn't just work. If you are gonna use affirmations as some do it doesn't actually change anything. Which means self love isn't actually reality. You can't use self love to get rid of depression. That doesn't work that way. The limbic system and the inflammation of the amygdala is still there. So self love is a lie and delusion. So I don't trust in the idea of self love or self confidence or anything self related. Let's consider the logic of it. If love is directed outwardly and in the context of a relation it's akin to a whitehole whereby it expands. But if we turn it inward as self love that then contracts. So then my question is if love is expanding then turning it inward as self love results in a blackhole that can never be filled or satisfied. So the idea of self love doesn't work. One has to love, trust, etc. If they became self related and have the self as the reference point it will never be enough it will only increase the demand and expectation of that thing. The problem with the idea of self love is also that it creates a dialectical tension of opposites. If love is outward and expansive and gives. To turn it inward as self love and contracting and taking. It then transmutes love into self love which creates the duality of having both at the same time. One could say demand and supply but the supply is exhausted for the self. This then creates a conflict and opposition between what one has or needs and how that can be supplied and provided in this way the duality and division of the self appears in the form of I have to get X to have Y. This creates a conditional which maintains a false duality when in fact you don't have to look at what you need and you can just supply whatever you can. You can just give Y without needing X in return. In that way you became a source and self sufficient. Otherwise the moment you need something you became limited. That is if you can't get X then you will never be able to have Y. But you can just eliminate that conditional by starting from giving Y by embodying love.

@@AnnonymousPrime-ks4ufSelf love does exist and some people have better access than others because childhood experiences play a big role in being able to do it. It may be looked at as narcissism to those who can’t access it.

@@AnnonymousPrime-ks4uf Cognitive differences play a part in it aswell. You saying love has to be outward just doesn’t make sense to me because it doesn’t. I’m guessing you’re xNTP meaning you’re looking through the lense of Fe. Which is why you have the assumption that love must be expansive and outward instead of Inward(Fi)

@@SublimeShape I. a (1): "strong affection for another arising out of kinship or personal ties" (2): "attraction based on sexual desire : affection and tenderness felt by lovers" (3): "affection based on admiration, benevolence, or common interests" b: "an assurance of affection" II: "warm attachment, enthusiasm, or devotion" All definitions are from Webster dictionary. They all are in reference to someone else. Tell me how can you have affection arising from personal ties in 1a, attraction based on sexual desire in 2a, admiration or common interests in 3a, assurance of affection b, II enthusiasm and devotion all coming from and for the self? All those definitions of love are based on a relation and that is with someone else. A relation can't exist within the self. A can't have a relation with A itself. A and B can have a relation which could form C that could link them together. In this way looking by the form of A+B=C that is a relation. But with A there's no relation. By itself A will always be equal to A. So it can't be something different from itself to have a relation with itself. A=A and not B or C. There's no relation for A to have. As such self love lacks a relation and since A=A then there's no love involved but only the self. As such the self lacking a relation can't have love for itself. There's no logic in self love. It is nonsensical and a delusional absurdist claim. Pride: 1. "a high or inordinate opinion of one's own dignity, importance, merit, or superiority, whether as cherished in the mind or as displayed in bearing, conduct, etc." 3."a becoming or dignified sense of what is due to oneself or one's position or character; self-respect; self-esteem" Quite funny that the definition of self love is the same as that of pride. "A high or inordinate opinion of one's dignity, importance, superiority, weather as cherished in the mind or as displayed in bearing, conduct, etc". This is awfully similar with the definition of love "affection based on admiration, benevolence, or common interests". Now if we remove the relation with the other here and turn love inward we get admiration for oneself. So self love and pride are the same thing. In this sense then for pride it would also apply the relation A=A which always equals only the self just as pride is always self centered. In that way when someone says have self love is equal with saying be prideful.

Thank you for adding this perspective to the conversation. ~ Joel

Thanks for sharing this. ~ Joel