My response to negative emotion.

[Athenian200]

I've noticed that if I've mentally established a person as no longer being a friend, or haven't established any sort of friendship towards them, and they express negative emotions towards me, it doesn't affect me. Well, it can affect me if I'm concerned that they're in a position to make me look bad and affect my relationships with people I do care about, but I don't feel any concern for them.

Also, if I am friends with a person, and I realize that a situation is going badly, sometimes I just halt my emotions in mid-process, and try to determine how much I value the person in general, and whether anything they've done has made me stop valuing them. If I decide that I still value them, I decide to not be affected by all the negative statements already made towards me, ignore any further slights on their part for the rest of the situation, and simply say whatever I have to say to mitigate their negative response to whatever happened. If nothing seems to work, sometimes I just avoid them for a while, and hope they can deal with it better later on. If I decide that I don't value them anymore, then I just start ignoring them completely, responding in a very minimal and neutral/formal way if I'm forced to interact with them.

Is this unusual? It seems to be from what I've gathered...

 

[Mempy]

I'd have to agree. If someone's being a dead weight, a damper, or negative towards me, I evaluate how much I value them overall. If it's not that much, I do stop spending as much time with them, minimize our contact, and just generally avoid and/or ignore them. If they mean nothing to me and give me no joy, what use are they to me? No, I agree completely there.

And also, even negative opinions of those I care about don't bother me, per se. I evaluate all criticisms objectively for their validity, if I can, and decide whether or not the criticism is accurate. I either conclude that the criticism is accurate and plan to work on it, or that the critic is uninformed or unintelligent and brush the criticism off. Naturally, friends' opinions immediately carry more weight, because I don't keep unintelligent or presumptuous friends.

 

[Sandy]

For me, any kind of negative emotion is painful. As I have gotten older, I am getting better at handling it (pretending that it doesn't bother me). But for the most part, it all hurts, and I wish it didn't.

 

[substitute]

Well athenian, I dunno whether your response is normal, but I must say it kinda scares me.

For me, the overriding response is always first of all, curiosity. I want to discover and understand why they feel that way, what I did and why it offended them, and it's completely intellectualized with zero emotional involvement on my side. I can sometimes get frustrated and annoyed later if they're unreasonable and unforgiving when I try to explain myself and/or apologize, but often it's more a case of wanting to clear my name, than caring too much what they think of me, unless it's someone I've "given the keys", so to speak - i.e. categorized as one of the very few people whose opinions I trust enough to use them as a sorta barometer against which I measure my self-opinion to see how it compares to reality.

Even then though, I tend to still resist the urge to get down and hurt about it, and focus instead on fixing it, working on myself to show them they were wrong (if they were) or that I took it on board and improved, if they were right.

What you describe athenian, if I were dealing with you and knew that was how you worked, it'd make me feel very much on edge and unable to relax with you at all, or trust you. I'd find it hard not to think of your opinion of me as being 'dust in the wind' and subject to seemingly arbitrary factors, and I'd probably just give up trying to please you. Constancy, for me, is an extremely important quality in someone I deal closely with, and I need to know that someone isn't going to go cold on me just because I screw up from time to time. I need to have screw-up space

 

[Kiddo]

I've noticed that if I've mentally established a person as no longer being a friend, or haven't established any sort of friendship towards them, and they express negative emotions towards me, it doesn't affect me. Well, it can affect me if I'm concerned that they're in a position to make me look bad and affect my relationships with people I do care about, but I don't feel any concern for them.

Also, if I am friends with a person, and I realize that a situation is going badly, sometimes I just halt my emotions in mid-process, and try to determine how much I value the person in general, and whether anything they've done has made me stop valuing them. If I decide that I still value them, I decide to not be affected by all the negative statements already made towards me, ignore any further slights on their part for the rest of the situation, and simply say whatever I have to say to mitigate their negative response to whatever happened. If nothing seems to work, sometimes I just avoid them for a while, and hope they can deal with it better later on. If I decide that I don't value them anymore, then I just start ignoring them completely, responding in a very minimal and neutral/formal way if I'm forced to interact with them.

Is this unusual? It seems to be from what I've gathered...

I dunno. My initial response is to try to change how people feel about me. If I'm in a position where they can constantly make me feel bad, then I'll withdraw until I finally explode. But to be honest, I value everyone, even the anonymous people on these forums. Anyone's opinion has merit and I would want to understand it to the best of my ability. However, there are members in my family who I value highly, and yet I don't give a rat's ass what they have to say about me. I choose to not value their opinion of me because I know they are only seeing part of the picture. But as far as trying to determine how much I value a person; I don't think I really have that ability.

 

[aeon]

Is this unusual?

I do not think it is unusual, but it does seem to me to indicate emotional repression and a lack of emotional health.

I think and feel emotions are not negative until one judges them as such. I value acceptance in this regard in that I need not erect boundary where I would be better served by connection and mutual understanding.

In my experience, purposefully turning off or ignoring emotions, as well as seeing people as things of worth, is harmful to my person and to my relationship with self and others.


cheers,
Ian

 

[Athenian200]

Well athenian, I dunno whether your response is normal, but I must say it kinda scares me.

For me, the overriding response is always first of all, curiosity. I want to discover and understand why they feel that way, what I did and why it offended them, and it's completely intellectualized with zero emotional involvement on my side. I can sometimes get frustrated and annoyed later if they're unreasonable and unforgiving when I try to explain myself and/or apologize, but often it's more a case of wanting to clear my name, than caring too much what they think of me, unless it's someone I've "given the keys", so to speak - i.e. categorized as one of the very few people whose opinions I trust enough to use them as a sorta barometer against which I measure my self-opinion to see how it compares to reality.


Even then though, I tend to still resist the urge to get down and hurt about it, and focus instead on fixing it, working on myself to show them they were wrong (if they were) or that I took it on board and improved, if they were right.

What you describe athenian, if I were dealing with you and knew that was how you worked, it'd make me feel very much on edge and unable to relax with you at all, or trust you. I'd find it hard not to think of your opinion of me as being 'dust in the wind' and subject to seemingly arbitrary factors, and I'd probably just give up trying to please you. Constancy, for me, is an extremely important quality in someone I deal closely with, and I need to know that someone isn't going to go cold on me just because I screw up from time to time. I need to have screw-up space

Uh, I think you misunderstood. I wouldn't just stop valuing someone because they "screw up," it would have to be something to do with their intent. And remember, this would be a difficult to resolve argument. I would be more likely to try and resolve it if I thought I could reasonably do so. In fact at this point, it was most likely a point of tension resulting from inability to solve the disagreement. Here are examples of things that would cause me to value a person less:

* Intentionally acting against my interests, especially without regret.

* Attempting to harm me intentionally.

* Repeatedly doing things that they are aware will hurt me.

* Making me look bad in front of other people, especially if it's deliberate and/or more than once.

* Using my trust in them to help one of my enemies.

* Using my trust in them to benefit themselves at my expense.

* If they disagree with something I believe, being unwilling to accept my disagreement, constantly trying to shove their idea down my throat.

Surely you don't think those things are arbitrary?

 

[substitute]

Surely you don't think those things are arbitrary?

No, they're perfectly reasonable - what I thought seemed arbitrary were your criteria for judging whether or not a person actually intended to do those things. Do you actually make a genuine effort to find out from them their intentions and believe them/give them the benefit of the doubt? Or are you inclined more to be suspicious because your hackles are up from the perceived insult? Cos that'd make the difference...

Sorry, I'm not talking about you as a whole, but just saying it's the impression I'd have to struggle against to keep up my usual benefit-of-the-doubt policy towards people generally

edit - that one about using your trust in them to benefit enemies... not sure I agree with that one always being a bad thing. What if they're trying to reconcile you with an enemy? what if that 'enemy' was only one through a misunderstanding, and this person is trying to mediate, using both your trust and your enemy's trust in them to put your points of view across to each other, benefiting both of you if it ends in reconciliation?

 

[Athenian200]

No, they're perfectly reasonable - what I thought seemed arbitrary were your criteria for judging whether or not a person actually intended to do those things. Do you actually make a genuine effort to find out from them their intentions and believe them/give them the benefit of the doubt? Or are you inclined more to be suspicious because your hackles are up from the perceived insult? Cos that'd make the difference...

Sorry, I'm not talking about you as a whole, but just saying it's the impression I'd have to struggle against to keep up my usual benefit-of-the-doubt policy towards people generally

edit - that one about using your trust in them to benefit enemies... not sure I agree with that one always being a bad thing. What if they're trying to reconcile you with an enemy? what if that 'enemy' was only one through a misunderstanding, and this person is trying to mediate, using both your trust and your enemy's trust in them to put your points of view across to each other, benefiting both of you if it ends in reconciliation?

I can't really trust them for their intentions, they could easily be lying. I'll give them the benefit of the doubt if the situation was such that it seems likely to me that it could have been a mistake, and sometimes I'll even give them another chance if they seem remorseful about it. But honestly, if things like that keep happening, then it means one of three things:

1. They're just trying to see how many times they can trick me.

2. They're jinxed, clumsy, and/or incredibly stupid, and are making my life awful.

3. They have no honor, or else no self-control, and thus can't constrain themselves from doing things that are harmful to me.

In any case, it means that I can't trust/be their friend anymore. I would likely pity #2 (if I found out that was the case), but can you really expect me to deal with that?

In that other case... I would have a problem with that, because it would seem like the other person was interfering with my life, presuming to know what I wanted or didn't want, and I would feel offended by that.

Sorry I seem arbitrary... but I am using Fe as an auxiliary function, and you've complained about similar behavior from such types before. So this shouldn't be a surprise.

 

[substitute]

I can't really trust them for their intentions, they could easily be lying. ... can you really expect me to deal with that?

Okay, I can see where you're going there... and that there's not much point going into it atm, cos we're fundamentally different in that regard in that I'm Ne (which tends to trust by default) and you're Ni (which tends not to).

In that other case... I would have a problem with that, because it would seem like the other person was interfering with my life, presuming to know what I wanted or didn't want, and I would feel offended by that.

So do you believe that you always know what's best for yourself? You always trust your own judgement, and believe it not to ever be awry/skewed? Heck, I've had it enough times in my life, where I've said the same thing as you there, but it's often turned out that I really didn't know what was best, and the person who was trying their ass off to help me, and who actually DID help me, I've thrown it back in their face with comments just like that - or else, I've resisted a situation that'd bring happiness and harmony in my life where there was tension, just because of that bit of pride there. I just wonder if there's any room for humility in that sort of attitude... I think the majority of us are, when we're stressed or our judgement is skewed, our own worst enemies!

I just think it's a sorta attitude that means it makes it very hard for people to help you - I mean really help you, not just 'do what you ask' (which isn't always helping, IMO).

Sorry I seem arbitrary...

Well, I did say I wasn't judging you as a whole...

but I am using Fe as an auxiliary function, and you've complained about similar behavior from such types before. So this shouldn't be a surprise.

Yes... that's true. But sentences like that one are a prime example of why: I made it clear that I wasn't saying I thought you were 'arbitrary', but despite this, you sorta reduce all that sincerity and effort on my part to a personal attack/judgement and some kind of personal grudge/axe to grind.

Sorry again, I really don't want you to think I'm getting at you, just this stuff really does puzzle me and I really want to understand it and try to get past the bad impressions I've had in the past from the rather unhealthy Fe types I've known. I'm not attacking you as much as trying to 'pick' you for answers that'll help me deal with both you and other people who are similar to you in that regard.

 

[Athenian200]

Okay, I can see where you're going there... and that there's not much point going into it atm, cos we're fundamentally different in that regard in that I'm Ne (which tends to trust by default) and you're Ni (which tends not to).

Tell me about it... do you know how many different, frightening, unreal things I imagine as possibilities when one unexpected thing happens?

So do you believe that you always know what's best for yourself? You always trust your own judgement, and believe it not to ever be awry/skewed? Heck, I've had it enough times in my life, where I've said the same thing as you there, but it's often turned out that I really didn't know what was best, and the person who was trying their ass off to help me, and who actually DID help me, I've thrown it back in their face with comments just like that - or else, I've resisted a situation that'd bring happiness and harmony in my life where there was tension, just because of that bit of pride there. I just wonder if there's any room for humility in that sort of attitude... I think the majority of us are, when we're stressed or our judgement is skewed, our own worst enemies!

Consider the alternative... would you rather be one of those people who turns against themselves and doubts every time another person has a new idea against their position, or someone who can't trust their own judgment enough realize when another person's advice isn't valid for them? I've seen too many people like that who basically lived like slaves because of that very thing, and while I think they were decent people, I still don't want to live like that.

I just think it's a sorta attitude that means it makes it very hard for people to help you - I mean really help you, not just 'do what you ask' (which isn't always helping, IMO).

Well, that's true, but I usually just want friends to discuss things with, ask for advice, maybe even ask for/do favors for once in a while. In my opinion, it's not their responsibility to decide what I want for myself. Although I will want to hear their opinion and take it into consideration, the final decision must be mine. That's just how I am.

Well, I did say I wasn't judging you as a whole...



Yes... that's true. But sentences like that one are a prime example of why: I made it clear that I wasn't saying I thought you were 'arbitrary', but despite this, you sorta reduce all that sincerity and effort on my part to a personal attack/judgement and some kind of personal grudge/axe to grind.

Sorry again, I really don't want you to think I'm getting at you, just this stuff really does puzzle me and I really want to understand it and try to get past the bad impressions I've had in the past from the rather unhealthy Fe types I've known. I'm not attacking you as much as trying to 'pick' you for answers that'll help me deal with both you and other people who are similar to you in that regard.

Oh, I wasn't offended. I was just saying that might be why you perceived it that way, if you did. (Guess I should have made that clearer.) I didn't take it as a personal attack either. It just seemed like you were saying that if I were inclined to be suspicious rather than giving them the benefit of the doubt, then that seemed arbitrary. So I tried to explain why it is that I might make decisions that seem arbitrary, because I am inclined in some cases to be suspicious and not give them the benefit of the doubt.

 

[substitute]

would you rather be one of those people who turns against themselves and doubts every time another person has a new idea against their position, or someone who can't trust their own judgment enough realize when another person's advice isn't valid for them?

Umm... I kinda am like that but it certainly doesn't make me even remotely slave-like Sure it can in extremis, but extreme Ni could make a furtive weasel of a person, doesn't mean all Ni-oids are like that. But consider the alternative:

Tell me about it... do you know how many different, frightening, unreal things I imagine as possibilities when one unexpected thing happens?

I've seen too many people like that who basically lived like slaves because of that very thing, and while I think they were decent people, I still don't want to live like that.

In my opinion, it's not their responsibility to decide what I want for myself.

I agree it's not their responsibility, but that's what friends do, it's what people who care about people do - are you telling me you've never felt compelled to intervene in a loved one's situation where you could see that they were making things hard for themselves and refusing to take advice? If all of us only ever did those things that were our direct responsibility, it'd be a pretty cut-throat world. Oh, wait... lol

It kinda makes me wonder what, when you trust people, you actually trust them for, or to do. I mean, if I trust someone then it means I trust their intentions AND their judgement. Implicit in that is that I trust that any 'tinkering' they decide to do with me or my life is a) well meant and b) probably good for me, so the last thing I'd do would be to resent it.

Although I will want to hear their opinion and take it into consideration, the final decision must be mine. That's just how I am.

Control issues?

I wonder - I can't recall whether you've said in the past that you're a Christian? I was just wondering how, if you are, you'd square that attitude with that faith, since essentially what God asks us to do is to let the final decisions be his, and not ours; to let him show his love for us through the people he sends to care and protect us. As I say, for me, that's a matter of trust, and since you say you're talking about people here whom you trust, I just really am puzzled about what you trust them for, or what they're supposed to do with that trust.

Oh, I wasn't offended.

Good, cos I like you

 

[Athenian200]

Umm... I kinda am like that but it certainly doesn't make me even remotely slave-like Sure it can in extremis, but extreme Ni could make a furtive weasel of a person, doesn't mean all Ni-oids are like that. But consider the alternative:

Well, I guess I just couldn't be that way. It's not because there's anything wrong with it, it's just that I couldn't bear it.

I agree it's not their responsibility, but that's what friends do, it's what people who care about people do - are you telling me you've never felt compelled to intervene in a loved one's situation where you could see that they were making things hard for themselves and refusing to take advice? If all of us only ever did those things that were our direct responsibility, it'd be a pretty cut-throat world. Oh, wait... lol

I would feel bad for them, but my belief that they had final control over their life would permit me to let them make their choice, and if it were the wrong one, I'd just say, "Well, what did I tell you?" I might still try to console them afterwards, maybe help them understand where they went wrong. See, I think it's important to let people learn from their own mistakes, so that they have to become better at making the right choices. That's actually better for them in the long run, I think.

If I were to go around mitigating the impact of every bad choice a friend made, then how would they ever learn right from wrong without real consequences? Also, by intervening, I'm taking responsibility for their lives from that point on, meaning that they can blame me for whatever goes wrong with things.

It kinda makes me wonder what, when you trust people, you actually trust them for, or to do. I mean, if I trust someone then it means I trust their intentions AND their judgement. Implicit in that is that I trust that any 'tinkering' they decide to do with me or my life is a) well meant and b) probably good for me, so the last thing I'd do would be to resent it.

You are right to question that. I only trust people to a certain point. I always hold back a part of myself. I relate to people on certain terms, and expect certain boundaries to be respected. In return, I try to respect their boundaries. So when I say I trust someone, I mean I trust them to a certain point.

Control issues?

I wonder - I can't recall whether you've said in the past that you're a Christian? I was just wondering how, if you are, you'd square that attitude with that faith, since essentially what God asks us to do is to let the final decisions be his, and not ours; to let him show his love for us through the people he sends to care and protect us. As I say, for me, that's a matter of trust, and since you say you're talking about people here whom you trust, I just really am puzzled about what you trust them for, or what they're supposed to do with that trust.

Very simple. I don't personally believe in God, because the idea really doesn't fit into my understanding of things. Also, I have no compelling reason to consider believing in something like that. It seems a little too far-fetched for me. Lastly, I've seen religions like that can cause people to hold extreme views on certain issues more often than they would otherwise.

 

[substitute]

See, I think it's important to let people learn from their own mistakes, so that they have to become better at making the right choices. That's actually better for them in the long run, I think.

But how do you decide who it is that's making the mistake? You, for not trusting them? Them, for trying to help someone who won't be helped? You, for getting into the situation in the first place, or for not asking for help?

I just think there's a whole 'interdependence' thing about humanity you seem not to be 'getting', it's as if you sorta really think you can go it all alone...

Also, by intervening, I'm taking responsibility for their lives from that point on, meaning that they can blame me for whatever goes wrong with things.

You're not, you're just taking responsibility for your own actions. By implication yes, that means the effect of those actions on that person's life, but as I say this is the whole point of TRUST to me. If I can't trust someone to do that, and if they can't trust me to, when the time's right, then as far as I see it, there is no trust.

I only trust people to a certain point. I always hold back a part of myself. I relate to people on certain terms, and expect certain boundaries to be respected. In return, I try to respect their boundaries. So when I say I trust someone, I mean I trust them to a certain point.

Hm, I'd say the same thing with most people, but if we're talking about my closest loved ones then no, I trust them implicitly. It sorta sounds like the way you do things is pretty lonely... I mean, like you're sorta flailing around in a hostile world, afraid and alone... as if you're actually afraid of being happy... or being happy and having to thank someone else for any of it. It kinda does sound pretty cold to me... and I'm supposed to be the cold NT!

Very simple. I don't personally believe in God

Oh, okay, that's all you needed to say. If I'd known that I wouldn't have said that at all.

But you say an awful lot of "I've seen.... can...." and so you sorta push it all away as if you think that anything that can be extreme, will be - like you daren't take any risks or really trust anything in fact - perhaps even yourself? Cos I mean, in the end, anything we enter has a risk of going wrong (even if it has an equal or higher chance of going very right), either abstract or concrete things, and we 'go in' trusting in our own ability to navigate the course and avoid the pit traps and obstacles, picking locks on the way and whatever. I wonder if you live in a sort of state of mind where you just sit still, stagnate even perhaps, for fear of going into any new territory in case 'something' (is it you?) fails to prevent it from going extreme.

 

[Athenian200]

But how do you decide who it is that's making the mistake? You, for not trusting them? Them, for trying to help someone who won't be helped? You, for getting into the situation in the first place, or for not asking for help?

For me, it's simply that on some level, I would rather make a poor choice, and know that it was because I did what seemed right to me, and take the responsibility, than to make a good choice because I felt coerced into it by someone else. In the latter case, I would feel like I'd surrendered my destiny to another person's whims, and I could never forgive myself for that.

I just think there's a whole 'interdependence' thing about humanity you seem not to be 'getting', it's as if you sorta really think you can go it all alone...

It isn't that I won't accept help from other people or don't want anything to do with them, it's that I like the security of knowing that I could get by without them if I had to. And that I would have the inner certainty to remain myself rather than violate everything I once stood for, if I were asked to by someone I cared about.

You're not, you're just taking responsibility for your own actions. By implication yes, that means the effect of those actions on that person's life, but as I say this is the whole point of TRUST to me. If I can't trust someone to do that, and if they can't trust me to, when the time's right, then as far as I see it, there is no trust.

That definition pegs me to a pretty narrow board then. If that's the case... then I've never trusted anyone or anything, and probably never will. That's such a narrow definition, though, and I prefer other definitions.

It sorta sounds like the way you do things is pretty lonely... I mean, like you're sorta flailing around in a hostile world, afraid and alone... as if you're actually afraid of being happy... or being happy and having to thank someone else for any of it. It kinda does sound pretty cold to me...

In a sense, we are all alone with our own thoughts. I don't fear happiness, but I do find it difficult to feel happiness. It just seems so irreverent most of the time. When I am happy, I can express it easily, though.

But you say an awful lot of "I've seen.... can...." and so you sorta push it all away as if you think that anything that can be extreme, will be - like you daren't take any risks or really trust anything in fact - perhaps even yourself? Cos I mean, in the end, anything we enter has a risk of going wrong (even if it has an equal or higher chance of going very right), either abstract or concrete things, and we 'go in' trusting in our own ability to navigate the course and avoid the pit traps and obstacles, picking locks on the way and whatever. I wonder if you live in a sort of state of mind where you just sit still, stagnate even perhaps, for fear of going into any new territory in case 'something' (is it you?) fails to prevent it from going extreme.

What, you've never heard of Murphy's Law? Well, I do tend to find out as much about a new situation as I can before entering it, and it takes me a long time to feel comfortable in it after I've entered. I don't specifically avoid them, however.

 

[substitute]

For me, it's simply that on some level, I would rather make a poor choice, and know that it was because I did what seemed right to me, and take the responsibility, than to make a good choice because I felt coerced into it by someone else.

I thought it was P's that valued processes and means more than ends

In the latter case, I would feel like I'd surrendered my destiny to another person's whims, and I could never forgive myself for that.

See, you talk about being averse to extremes and yet this is extreme language if you're supposed to be talking about someone you love and who you believe loves you and cares for you, who you say you trust. I know that if I care about someone, it's certainly not mere whimsy that I based my decisions regarding them on! Likewise, if someone cares about me and I ask them to sort something for me and 'delegate' a sorta discretionary power to them, I don't imagine them making these decisions that affect me based on whims.

It isn't that I won't accept help from other people or don't want anything to do with them, it's that I like the security of knowing that I could get by without them if I had to. And that I would have the inner certainty to remain myself rather than violate everything I once stood for, if I were asked to by someone I cared about.

Again, the extreme language - we're talking here about maybe being put in a room where you have to talk to someone, it's hardly clubbing baby seals is it? And having a strong enough reaction to that kind of situation just because it wasn't your doing that put you there, could also be a sign of it actually being about you being afraid to go through a bit of conflict/negotiation to sort something out, thereby sorta wanting the person who set you up to have 'sheltered' you from this necessary situation.

btw I don't think anyone can get by totally without other people - not even introverts I hope you never go through a situation in your life where you realise just how true that is... hurts to be in a situation where you desperately need someone really close that you can totally trust, and to not have anyone... to be alone, by your own doing. Been there

That definition pegs me to a pretty narrow board then. If that's the case... then I've never trusted anyone or anything, and probably never will. That's such a narrow definition, though, and I prefer other definitions.

Well no, I thought you were talking about special cases of trust - your closest loved ones. Obviously I don't go around trusting everyone to that extent and I don't think anyone does (at least if they're sane!), and average people I give a sorta 'interim' trust, but like I say, my closest friends and family - no holds barred. This is especially the case with those people I choose to be 'under' - such as in the case of people I promise obedience to. I have to completely trust that the decisions they make that affect my life, will be good ones that benefit me in the long run. It's not easy to trust someone that much, but I think that learning to do so and reaping the rewards is an experience that I'm much the richer for.

In a sense, we are all alone with our own thoughts. I don't fear happiness, but I do find it difficult to feel happiness. It just seems so irreverent most of the time.

That's a very odd thing to say! Happiness is irreverant?? LOL If you hadn't just said you weren't religious and that was the only sentence I'd ever heard from you, I'd be supposing you to be one of those Puritan types - you know the ones who believe any kind of merriness, bright colours, dancing, fun etc, is all 'the devil's tools'?

What, you've never heard of Murphy's Law? Well, I do tend to find out as much about a new situation as I can before entering it, and it takes me a long time to feel comfortable in it after I've entered. I don't specifically avoid them, however.

Thank you for sharing all this, I know you must've felt pretty grilled here and I apologize for that, but it's given me a real insight into just how different two people can be!! Pretty much all of the workings of your mind seem to be very alien to me when you explain them, and yet in everyday banter on the forum we seem to get along well enough In a way you've cleared some things up, but I think it's only raised even more questions now!! LOL

Anyway I'll leave you alone now

 

[Athenian200]

I thought it was P's that valued processes and means more than ends

Perhaps it depends on which kinds of processes and which ends are in question?

See, you talk about being averse to extremes and yet this is extreme language if you're supposed to be talking about someone you love and who you believe loves you and cares for you, who you say you trust. I know that if I care about someone, it's certainly not mere whimsy that I based my decisions regarding them on! Likewise, if someone cares about me and I ask them to sort something for me and 'delegate' a sorta discretionary power to them, I don't imagine them making these decisions that affect me based on whims.

I guess to me, love and trust don't mean what they do to you. It just means that I've chosen to value them, and give their needs/requests a certain amount of priority. I do feel a sense of emotional warmth from this, and I worry about how they feel... I just wouldn't let them have an equal say in my life as I do because of it, and decide things for myself while accepting their input. I try to consider everything other people say very carefully, though, and I take all criticism/ideas very seriously, and I double check several times to see if I can find what they're talking about. It may not be pure love and trust, but a lot of people probably don't have that.

btw I don't think anyone can get by totally without other people - not even introverts I hope you never go through a situation in your life where you realise just how true that is... hurts to be in a situation where you desperately need someone really close that you can totally trust, and to not have anyone... to be alone, by your own doing. Been there

Oh, I didn't say I wouldn't have other people in my life, I just said I wouldn't totally trust any of them. That doesn't mean I wouldn't have any sort of established ties or anything with them, though.

Well no, I thought you were talking about special cases of trust - your closest loved ones. Obviously I don't go around trusting everyone to that extent and I don't think anyone does (at least if they're sane!), and average people I give a sorta 'interim' trust, but like I say, my closest friends and family - no holds barred. This is especially the case with those people I choose to be 'under' - such as in the case of people I promise obedience to. I have to completely trust that the decisions they make that affect my life, will be good ones that benefit me in the long run. It's not easy to trust someone that much, but I think that learning to do so and reaping the rewards is an experience that I'm much the richer for.

I would never choose to be "under" someone in quite that way. I'd work under someone in a company, knowing they could only instruct me in how and when I do my job, and not in anything else.

That's a very odd thing to say! Happiness is irreverant?? LOL If you hadn't just said you weren't religious and that was the only sentence I'd ever heard from you, I'd be supposing you to be one of those Puritan types - you know the ones who believe any kind of merriness, bright colours, dancing, fun etc, is all 'the devil's tools'?

Well, it isn't that so much, as that I don't want to look too silly. I just want to ensure I'll be respected.

Thank you for sharing all this, I know you must've felt pretty grilled here and I apologize for that, but it's given me a real insight into just how different two people can be!! Pretty much all of the workings of your mind seem to be very alien to me when you explain them, and yet in everyday banter on the forum we seem to get along well enough In a way you've cleared some things up, but I think it's only raised even more questions now!! LOL

Anyway I'll leave you alone now

Oh, not at all. I really like answering questions and explaining things. I didn't feel badly. Trying to explain them to you actually helps me understand them.

 

[substitute]

Oh, not at all. I really like answering questions and explaining things. I didn't feel badly. Trying to explain them to you actually helps me understand them.

Yeah, that's another very unusual thing about you... I mean, you just really don't come across very INFJ to me at all - I've never known any other INFJ to be that way and I can't imagine say, cafe or Eileen saying half the stuff you have here, but if I imagine you as maybe INtJ or maybe even xNTJ, things fall into place a bit more... just a thought

 

[Athenian200]

Yeah, that's another very unusual thing about you... I mean, you just really don't come across very INFJ to me at all - I've never known any other INFJ to be that way and I can't imagine say, cafe or Eileen saying half the stuff you have here, but if I imagine you as maybe INtJ or maybe even xNTJ, things fall into place a bit more... just a thought

I considered that, but I don't think I'm quite as ruthless or oblivious to feelings as the average NTJ. Also, I don't find expressing Feelings towards others to be difficult or painful. Often I even enjoy it.

Finally, I've never tested as having particularly good Te or Fi, although I admit there might be some inadequacies and poor assumptions in most of the functional order tests.

 

[substitute]

I considered that, but I don't think I'm quite as ruthless or oblivious to feelings as the average NTJ. Also, I don't find expressing Feelings towards others to be difficult or painful. Often I even enjoy it.

Finally, I've never tested as having particularly good Te or Fi, although I admit there might be some inadequacies and poor assumptions in most of the functional order tests.

Hm, but there's a cultural gender bias generally that tends to mean that if females seem to be only barely F, it probably means they're T, with greater F-itude because of a) culture/gender and b) hormones (trust me, I KNOW what a difference they make!!).

I wouldn't say NTJ's are always oblivious or ruthless. I know a few who aren't -
Think of Captain Picard