• You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

Knowing when to avoid someone: how do you decide?

Z Buck McFate

Pepperidge Farm remembers.
Joined
Aug 25, 2009
Messages
6,048
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
There's definitely truth in the suggestion that people who make us uncomfortable have something to teach us about ourselves - often not directly (ie. not what they want to teach us/what they think we 'should' learn), but rather, indirectly: the fact their existence proves challenging to us personally is proof that there's an opportunity to grow in some way. But just as choosing to continue interacting with someone against our gut feeling can end in growth, it can also end badly for us.

How do you discern the difference between the two? Personal anecdotes welcome. [This is probably an issue that Fs/NFs experience more, feeling obligated to invest attention in people who don't seem to have much ROI (return of investment). Sometimes if a person is really needy and they simply don't have the internal resources to give back, there can be an inherent ROI in simply making another person feel wanted/appreciated in spite of how they can't directly return anything, and I think Fs might be particularly inclined to be charitable in this way (sometimes to our detriment- which is the reason for this thread). Input from Ts who don't relate to that is certainly welcome though, and can definitely help bring perspective. (Also, I'm not implying I think Ts never have this problem themselves).]

(I will post my own thoughts shortly, but I want to put them in a separate post).
 

burningranger

Ambience seeker
Joined
Aug 3, 2017
Messages
248
MBTI Type
ENFP
Enneagram
9w8
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
I think one of the deepest and most natural impulses of our soul is to serve others and help people out of their suffering (altough it doesn't necessarilly have to look always pretty or politically/socially correct or even make you likeable).

What you are describing is a problem of being human and happens at every level of consciousness. There is no one size fits all in my experience. Being an empath I tune into shit in other people that most of the times even they themselves are completely oblivious to. I feel the pull to always help but at the same time people don't stomach love too well...because of our fucked up upbringing we are divided when it comes to love. On the one hand we desperately want someone to tell us it's gonna be alright, to see us for who we are and to show us the deepest of affection....on the other hand we have an ego that was designed to do anything but show vulnerability/weakness...so past a certain point love is really a double bind.

Logically I'd say, anyone that brings you down would be someone you'd want out of your life. Provided your desires allow for other people's freedom you should pursue your happiness without concessions. Communicating when you have a change of heart, but being resolute knowing that you being happy IS what helps others on many many different levels we usually don't even account for. But I don't do that myself...in fact I've spent most of my life not going for what I really want to not make other people uncomfortable with themselves. For me...almost EVERYONE is needy. Our "normal" way of interacting is ladden with subtle energetic expectations of each other...and when you truly just allow others to be themselves and go for what you want...without asking for persmission---humble but embodying full self-worth...people will accept you until you bump into one of their taboos (money is evil, why does he date so many girls, who does he think he is for accepting compliments without feeling even a little bit of guilt and playing it down? etc etc). We have waaaay too many attachments to the people around us...and people for the most part ALWAYS expect something of you.

So it's really a matter of personal value. What do you value most and why? What has helped me let go of toxic people in my life has also ensured I became the subject of jealousy by another group. Usually what snaps me out of it is the impulse to be compassionate on a more universal level (towards the human condition). I know I'm just adding to the collective shadow by keeping myself in a state of unhappiness or of allowing that shit in my life. So the impulse to serve...so in a sense the same impulse that has me caring not to hurt the ones who are needy..is the one that gives me the clarity to see that I serve people much better when I take care of myself.

Maybe it's because I'm a 9, but I really struggle with doing what is good for me personally. It doesn't help that I know that for many people (not all) their wordly drive is really just fueled by subconscious insecurities. The onyl time I've ever felt fulffilled was when I really went for something special and big....like really experiencing bliss and love on a constant basis....but that also requires I do away with many limiting beliefs I've inherited from society and it makes me look weird in they eyes of other. So...that's MY hangup about happiness. I know my joy will get me disapproval on many many levels.

I'd investigate what your belief around happiness is. You need to have a reason to move in the direction you want to go (or logically deem better) which is more powerful than what keeps you in that pattern. Do you believe you are worthy of being happy, even if other people dissapprove? Usually it's some form of that that makes us be where we don't want to be.
 

Siúil a Rúin

when the colors fade
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
14,037
MBTI Type
ISFP
Enneagram
496
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
There's definitely truth in the suggestion that people who make us uncomfortable have something to teach us about ourselves - ...
They teach me how fast I can run. :D

I don't think we actually need to seek out or try to deal with difficult people. They will come our way no matter what, and we can't stop it entirely. I would say that human beings by nature are more intrusive than wild animals, and we are constantly bombarded with their intrusions, so why increase it? When I'm in the mountains and go on a walk, I know there are bears, coyotes, a mountain lion, and humans with their dogs. The only creatures I fear intrusion from are the latter. It is an aberration of nature to constantly interact and intrude upon others.

Rumi said:
The universe is not outside of you. Look inside yourself; everything you want, you already are.

Edit: I also think there is danger when people internalize the idea of difficult people teaching us something about ourselves. This bothers me a lot because I know that the most controlling and manipulative people are expert at projecting their crap onto others. So, when they encounter someone who is open and trying to accept them and learn, they run rough shot and fuck with the person's head. Some people are psychologically very dangerous and it is simply not wise to get involved. They don't make us stronger, but do everything in the instinctual power to destroy other people. Having lived with narcissistic people and encountered many other people with terrible psychological problems, I would say that a safe distance is really important. I don't think that everything we initially reject reveals something about ourselves, but it is the delight of the people with severe personality disorders to use that to project into other people.

I think our family members who make us uncomfortable can teach us about ourselves because those are the psychological, emotional, and behavioral issues we probably have internalized in one way or another. By watching the processes that cause internal pain for my mother or sister, I have learned a lot about my own internal processes. Strangers/acquaintances with issues don't reveal that much about myself because their experience is so far afield from mine. Family and choice of romantic partners are the place to look for insight about ourselves. Sometime we internalize by overcompensating with the opposite behavior, sometimes by displaying the behavior unconsciously, sometimes by getting overly triggered by it in an irrational way, etc. We may not be carbon copies of the family members who make us uncomfortable, but we have been shaped and influenced by them. With family, we internalized those issues in some manner before our pre-frontal cortex fully developed to process and judge input.
 

prplchknz

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 11, 2007
Messages
34,397
MBTI Type
yupp
It's hard, and i really want to reply to this thread but i don't know how and I'm hoping it takes off. I mean i know how type here click post reply, pretty simple but i don't know the words, i have been burned by people by trusting them when i shouldn't.but yes sometimes people you immediatly don't trust end up being the most trustworthy people. while people you immediatly trust end up being the least trust worthy people. I tend to give people the benefit of the doubt at first but sometimes i can't. sometimes my gut is screaming NOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!! and then i don't.
 

Abcdenfp

Terpsichore
Joined
May 19, 2017
Messages
1,669
MBTI Type
ENFP
Enneagram
7W8
I think when the interaction continuously leaves you drained.
For me , I tend to avoid a person when I feel like the individualy continuously makes me think to myself after " I should have just said no" but when we interact they always convince me of something that is not in my normal mode of operation.
Example :If it's an event they want me to come to and I'm tired (they know I'm tired I've expressed this ) but they push me into going (because they have their own agenda) and when I leave the event I think " you should have just said no I'm tired" but for some reason these type of people convince me into saying yes even though I know I don't really want to. They appeal to good nature or use the fact that I have a hard time saying no to their advantage.
In these cases I realize nothing productive can happen from the interaction and I am giving way more than I am getting. Anyone who takes advantage of my good nature and makes me feel negatively now I'm out of here..
 

Lark

Active member
Joined
Jun 21, 2009
Messages
29,569
There's definitely truth in the suggestion that people who make us uncomfortable have something to teach us about ourselves - often not directly (ie. not what they want to teach us/what they think we 'should' learn), but rather, indirectly: the fact their existence proves challenging to us personally is proof that there's an opportunity to grow in some way. But just as choosing to continue interacting with someone against our gut feeling can end in growth, it can also end badly for us.

How do you discern the difference between the two? Personal anecdotes welcome. [This is probably an issue that Fs/NFs experience more, feeling obligated to invest attention in people who don't seem to have much ROI (return of investment). Sometimes if a person is really needy and they simply don't have the internal resources to give back, there can be an inherent ROI in simply making another person feel wanted/appreciated in spite of how they can't directly return anything, and I think Fs might be particularly inclined to be charitable in this way (sometimes to our detriment- which is the reason for this thread). Input from Ts who don't relate to that is certainly welcome though, and can definitely help bring perspective. (Also, I'm not implying I think Ts never have this problem themselves).]

(I will post my own thoughts shortly, but I want to put them in a separate post).

This is very interesting to me as I've worked for most of my life in a profession in which persons without this ROI you speak of can be typical, so you deliberately choose to associate and invest in them knowing this, most of the training I've seen has this as an underlying idea or principle.

Its all about creating a series of beliefs which it is hoped will change individuals thinking about this and motivate them to carry on inspite of the reality that there will in all likelihood not be discernable or noticeable ROI for the duration (I've read lots about how this is about embedding the beliefs at the unconscious level, level of deep thinking etc.)

I would question if there is growth to be had from the process of investing in persons with low or no ROI per se, perhaps, I mean its possible to argue that in doing so you would be working your empathy like a muscle and the work out can strengthen it, that's one way of conceiving of it or framing it (which I think is what could be the most important thing in the end, its all about how you think about things, its mostly in the mind/thinking) but there is the alternative way of thinking that suggests that all of that contact is taxing upon a persons resilience, if there are not others bolstering the resilience at the same time then there will be layering up in the unconscious what will prove to be a negative script.
 

Z Buck McFate

Pepperidge Farm remembers.
Joined
Aug 25, 2009
Messages
6,048
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
This is very interesting to me as I've worked for most of my life in a profession in which persons without this ROI you speak of can be typical, so you deliberately choose to associate and invest in them knowing this, most of the training I've seen has this as an underlying idea or principle.

Its all about creating a series of beliefs which it is hoped will change individuals thinking about this and motivate them to carry on inspite of the reality that there will in all likelihood not be discernable or noticeable ROI for the duration (I've read lots about how this is about embedding the beliefs at the unconscious level, level of deep thinking etc.)

I'm not sure I understand what you're saying here, mostly in the second paragraph. Are you saying that you work with people who don't have the internal resources to provide ROI (although getting a living wage for working with them provides significant ROI, I think your point is that they can't really turn to others around them for connection because they're coming from what Fromm refers to as 'scarcity'), and ideally the result of your work is that you help them cultivate such internal resources so that they won't need professional help? And that helping them cultivate such internal resources often works with reshaping beliefs that exist at an unconscious level?


I would question if there is growth to be had from the process of investing in persons with low or no ROI per se, perhaps, I mean its possible to argue that in doing so you would be working your empathy like a muscle and the work out can strengthen it, that's one way of conceiving of it or framing it (which I think is what could be the most important thing in the end, its all about how you think about things, its mostly in the mind/thinking) but there is the alternative way of thinking that suggests that all of that contact is taxing upon a persons resilience, if there are not others bolstering the resilience at the same time then there will be layering up in the unconscious what will prove to be a negative script.

I do think that an actual capacity for kindness - which is to say, the internal resources a person has in them to be kind when an external situation calls for it- is something that needs to be cultivated. But I personally think that starts with one's own perception rather than practicing kindness on others. If a person is kinder to others than they are to themselves, for example, then they're going to have finite internal resources to share. My point here is, I'm not sure I agree that investing in people who can't return that investment will build compassion or empathy (so I think I agree with you about that) - especially if it's done more for ego affirmation than from actual kindness, or done as a knee-jerk response because seeing someone suffer is unbearable. Because that kind of investing is depleting.

I can't remember where I heard this, but I can remember hearing - oh wait, it was a Sam Harris podcast with Paul Bloom (author of Against Empathy: The Case for Rational Compassion) - something along the lines of "empathy is something that can be depleted when used, but compassion is something that only gets stronger when you use it." I don't know how to fully explain that right now if it isn't self-explanatory, so I'm hoping it's self-explanatory.
 

Z Buck McFate

Pepperidge Farm remembers.
Joined
Aug 25, 2009
Messages
6,048
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
I think it's important to acknowledge that it's always okay to avoid interaction that we either get a gut feeling about or which we don't even particularly feel any ROI in (return of investment). I don't think it's anyone else's place, ever, to dictate to us where or to whom we 'should' dish out our attention. Worst case scenario: someone believes we are unkind, that we're perpetuating a comfortable echo chamber in which we don't have to challenge our own perception, and/or maybe something else I haven't thought of. But sometimes counterwill is a healthy feeling that protects us when someone feels like they NEED us to kowtow to their perception. If we practice being honest with ourselves, then it isn't as much a threat when someone believes something about us that we don't like.

This is a large part of why this has been on my mind:

I also think there is danger when people internalize the idea of difficult people teaching us something about ourselves. This bothers me a lot because I know that the most controlling and manipulative people are expert at projecting their crap onto others. So, when they encounter someone who is open and trying to accept them and learn, they run rough shot and fuck with the person's head. Some people are psychologically very dangerous and it is simply not wise to get involved. They don't make us stronger, but do everything in the instinctual power to destroy other people. Having lived with narcissistic people and encountered many other people with terrible psychological problems, I would say that a safe distance is really important. I don't think that everything we initially reject reveals something about ourselves, but it is the delight of the people with severe personality disorders to use that to project into other people.

I think even people who genuinely believe their own intentions are good can do significant damage. People often mistake their NEEDING something from others as love or concern for them.

One of my favorite books on this topic is The Gaslight Effect by Robin Stern. It takes work to make oneself resilient to that^ kind of manipulation. For example, if it's important to someone to be kind, then someone who is manipulative can pick up on that (unconsciously) and use the fear of being perceived as unkind to steer shared reality in a self-serving direction. Or if it's important for a person to be 'open', then a gaslighter will use the fear of not being open to steer shared reality in a self-serving direction. According to Stern, the way to shake lose of the gaslighter's hold is to learn to be okay with someone else thinking things about you that you don't like. Just like the quote above by Rumi. I'm forever bringing up the Buddhist slogan, "Of the two witnesses, hold the principle one." If we cultivate the capacity to let others believe whatever they (feel like they) need to believe about us without it effecting what we believe about ourselves - not only does that give other people the room to feel/think whatever they truly feel/think in our presence (which is truly a gift to the world), but it breaks the hold that gaslighters use to steer shared reality in a self-serving direction.

According to Stern, gaslighters need to be Right (her words) and to have their Rightness affirmed by others in order to maintain a secure sense of self; when/where they can't dictate the lion's share of reality, they feel unbearable distress. So they gravitate towards people who are sensitive to external feedback (in other words, people who are exceptionally open to external feedback) and create a sort of vicious cycle that Stern refers to as the "gaslight tango". To those involved, it all happens under the radar of either's perception: the gaslighter simply thinks they are repeatedly pointing out 'the truth', and the gaslightee thinks they are good at taking feedback. But a sort of resentment builds up for the gaslightee - they can't really put their finger on it, but they start feeling resentment/depleted/depressed.

I also think what Gordon Neufeld has to say about (what he calls) an alpha dynamic is germane here too: it's natural to organize attachments hierarchically. Typically (in a healthy relationship/attachment), there are ways in which each person brings their alpha-ness to the dynamic. In a married couple with children, for example: one person might be the alpha at getting the kids to cooperate and do chores/go to bed/etc when they're supposed to; the other parent might be inherently better at managing finances and making sure there is a hefty college fund waiting for the kids when they graduate highschool. In any group of people wherein there is any attachment going on, there's typically different strengths for different things within the group, and those individuals who are particularly strong in their own niche are the 'alphas' of that niche. It becomes a problem with someone feels the need to be alpha without actually having the skills to organically command the alpha position - they achieve it through manipulation or oafish bullying instead.
 

burningranger

Ambience seeker
Joined
Aug 3, 2017
Messages
248
MBTI Type
ENFP
Enneagram
9w8
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
I think even people who genuinely believe their own intentions are good can do significant damage. People often mistake their NEEDING something from others as love or concern for them.

Too true. And this is only everyone that has an expectation of you. Any whatsoever. So if I expect you to respond a certain way to me in return or agree to any of my ideas,,,that's a subtle form of neediness. The subtle supposed unwritten social agreement, that I'm here to meet YOUR needs. This is the law of the universe ultimately ->TOTAL free will....this is also how evil can happen to good people...everything happens by agreement...we CANNOT control another person...so if anything shitty is happening around us....we are subtly/subconsciously agreeing to it in some fashion. Only insofar as we feel we need something from another can we ever be controlled.

Do a mindcheck of how many million little expectations did the people who claim to love you have on you.....only a person truly happy with their lives can ultimately have no expectations from you...in fact, I'd go so far as to say....love IS having no expectations from another. "you are free to do whatever the fuck you want to do"
 

Lark

Active member
Joined
Jun 21, 2009
Messages
29,569
I'm not sure I understand what you're saying here, mostly in the second paragraph. Are you saying that you work with people who don't have the internal resources to provide ROI (although getting a living wage for working with them provides significant ROI, I think your point is that they can't really turn to others around them for connection because they're coming from what Fromm refers to as 'scarcity'), and ideally the result of your work is that you help them cultivate such internal resources so that they won't need professional help? And that helping them cultivate such internal resources often works with reshaping beliefs that exist at an unconscious level?

Sorry for the confusion, I think you made better points about my work than I could have, what I was talking about was essentially the contact between persons who have internal resources and those who do not, how the person with the internal resources prevents them becoming depleted. My post was confused and confusing, sorry.

It is the role of the professional to assist in developing those resources and the unconscious or automatic thinking is a big part of it, although I was talking too about the "help for the helper" if that makes sense, I should say that these are ideas which are "standardised" if that makes sense, like its not a tailored idea arising from an awareness of MBTI type.

I do think that an actual capacity for kindness - which is to say, the internal resources a person has in them to be kind when an external situation calls for it- is something that needs to be cultivated. But I personally think that starts with one's own perception rather than practicing kindness on others. If a person is kinder to others than they are to themselves, for example, then they're going to have finite internal resources to share. My point here is, I'm not sure I agree that investing in people who can't return that investment will build compassion or empathy (so I think I agree with you about that) - especially if it's done more for ego affirmation than from actual kindness, or done as a knee-jerk response because seeing someone suffer is unbearable. Because that kind of investing is depleting.

I can't remember where I heard this, but I can remember hearing - oh wait, it was a Sam Harris podcast with Paul Bloom (author of Against Empathy: The Case for Rational Compassion) - something along the lines of "empathy is something that can be depleted when used, but compassion is something that only gets stronger when you use it." I don't know how to fully explain that right now if it isn't self-explanatory, so I'm hoping it's self-explanatory.

These are questions with some complexity to it, I have read some interesting disagreements between Freud and Erich Fromm about this, Freud considered that everyone had only so much by way of internal resources, therefore you could not be expected to give to others, or too many others, and he thought the maxims about "love others as you love yourself" were simply impossible and harmful to anyone who seriously attempted to live that way.

Fromm on the other hand said that beginning with the fact that it is "as you love yourself" you would have to love yourself first and therefore would have the necessary resources and would not be depleted by any contact with someone who could not reciprocate or who was actively draining of others.

This is something that I think about a lot, I mean seriously a lot, and I cant say that I'm totally convinced of either Freud or Fromm's positions, I did think that Fromm's suggestion that Freud was unconsciously just channelling the economic maxims of his present day about exchange and investment of money but sometimes I think it was just Fromm being a bit clever with Marx's idea of basis and superstructure and grafting that on to psychology (but then Fromm's whole characterology was a bit like that).
 
Joined
May 19, 2017
Messages
5,100
If my gut tells me about someone it is usually in the form of my brain screaming out a word like 'psycho' or 'sleazebag'. The lesson is my intuitive flashes are about 90% correct. I don't go against my gut.
 

Amargith

Hotel California
Joined
Nov 5, 2008
Messages
14,717
MBTI Type
ENFP
Enneagram
4dw
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
For me, my gut acts like a warning bell which i then use as a baseline to flesh things out. It comes down to 5 questions:

1) do they provide useful intel/services?
2) can i help them?
3) just how toxic/harmful are they - to me and to others - and i to them?
4) is there potential for personal growth AND are they/i ready and willing or actively avoiding it?
5) how much are they a part of my life - how close are we and how often do we have to interact?

The answers to there questions lead to the proper course of action to take, ime.

Sometimes, i ll also return to a person or use an interval system if im not ready or thwy are not ready yet for the more challenging work ahead, or they prove to be too toxic to me - kind of like an exercise program.

I only avoid those that are actively avoiding to grow or too toxic for me to bear due to my own personal issues ( making it impossible for me to help the or vice verda, for now) or too much in my periphery with nothing to really offer as the cost/benefits just don't add up - just yet. This evaluation, however, is always in flux, and changes as circumstances change.
 

Siúil a Rúin

when the colors fade
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
14,037
MBTI Type
ISFP
Enneagram
496
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
I think it's important to acknowledge that it's always okay to avoid interaction that we either get a gut feeling about or which we don't even particularly feel any ROI in (return of investment). I don't think it's anyone else's place, ever, to dictate to us where or to whom we 'should' dish out our attention. Worst case scenario: someone believes we are unkind, that we're perpetuating a comfortable echo chamber in which we don't have to challenge our own perception, and/or maybe something else I haven't thought of. But sometimes counterwill is a healthy feeling that protects us when someone feels like they NEED us to kowtow to their perception. If we practice being honest with ourselves, then it isn't as much a threat when someone believes something about us that we don't like.

This is a large part of why this has been on my mind:

I think even people who genuinely believe their own intentions are good can do significant damage. People often mistake their NEEDING something from others as love or concern for them.
This is somewhat tangential, but a point I've been wanting to share in a similar context. What I've learned in my experience and in my work with professional counselors is how profoundly important respect of individual will is. If the issue someone is facing is related in any way to having their will suppressed, then the absolute worst thing a person can do is to force their own will onto that person to "show them the light". This may surprise people, but in abuse counseling, it is professional policy (with adults) to not report the perpetrator when a victim confides in the professional. It is foundational to their therapy to find the will within themselves to report the person hurting them. The main exception is if there are children involved and then there is a legal requirement to report because the children's brains are developmentally not responsible for this level of judgment and will. There may also be some exceptions if imminent death is likely. If you take charge of a victim's circumstance and force them to 'be safe' or force them to take an action against their will, you are actually further compromising them. People have to have ownership over their own psychological processes and this model of someone being a cowboy, riding into town, and setting everything straight in the stranger's brain, and then riding away the hero is completely and utterly absurd. I get that people think they know the truth and all, but they don't. Each person's life is hugely complex and those snap judgments with forceful application are not credible, but it happens online All. The. Time.


One of my favorite books on this topic is The Gaslight Effect by Robin Stern. It takes work to make oneself resilient to that^ kind of manipulation. For example, if it's important to someone to be kind, then someone who is manipulative can pick up on that (unconsciously) and use the fear of being perceived as unkind to steer shared reality in a self-serving direction. Or if it's important for a person to be 'open', then a gaslighter will use the fear of not being open to steer shared reality in a self-serving direction. According to Stern, the way to shake lose of the gaslighter's hold is to learn to be okay with someone else thinking things about you that you don't like. Just like the quote above by Rumi. I'm forever bringing up the Buddhist slogan, "Of the two witnesses, hold the principle one." If we cultivate the capacity to let others believe whatever they (feel like they) need to believe about us without it effecting what we believe about ourselves - not only does that give other people the room to feel/think whatever they truly feel/think in our presence (which is truly a gift to the world), but it breaks the hold that gaslighters use to steer shared reality in a self-serving direction.

According to Stern, gaslighters need to be Right (her words) and to have their Rightness affirmed by others in order to maintain a secure sense of self; when/where they can't dictate the lion's share of reality, they feel unbearable distress. So they gravitate towards people who are sensitive to external feedback (in other words, people who are exceptionally open to external feedback) and create a sort of vicious cycle that Stern refers to as the "gaslight tango". To those involved, it all happens under the radar of either's perception: the gaslighter simply thinks they are repeatedly pointing out 'the truth', and the gaslightee thinks they are good at taking feedback. But a sort of resentment builds up for the gaslightee - they can't really put their finger on it, but they start feeling resentment/depleted/depressed.
This is a very clear way of laying it out. I have experienced it, in smaller ways in professional contexts, but one relationship in particular. The moment I started to break free was the moment I let go of my identity as a 'good person'. That might be taking it too far, but if you are in the middle of it, it can be a first step. I remember once telling the person, 'you can no longer manipulate me with guilt because I am now already settled at feeling like a horrible person." It was in that context I started listening to Marilyn Manson because he outrageously makes people think he's a horrible person with complete abandon. It gave me a kind of strength to connect to that. I still want to do good actions in the world, to make choices to provide help or listen, but I've let go of the "good person" identity and am now just "a person". It leaves a person way too vulnerable to people who want to control because guilt is one of the deepest, most powerful motivators. I now have a mix of reactions to judgment, and sometimes can find something in me to actually enjoy it. It can be funny sometimes, even when the person is serious.

My first father-in-law was a really neat fella, and funny. He didn't care in the slightest what people thought, but was introverted and whimsical. There was a lady in his church with psychological issues that thought he was evil, having affairs, etc (very absurd judgments). So what did he do? He would wink at her anytime she saw him in town, just to mess with her head and rile up her indignation. He was my hero for that, and it is how I want to be.

I also think what Gordon Neufeld has to say about (what he calls) an alpha dynamic is germane here too: it's natural to organize attachments hierarchically. Typically (in a healthy relationship/attachment), there are ways in which each person brings their alpha-ness to the dynamic. In a married couple with children, for example: one person might be the alpha at getting the kids to cooperate and do chores/go to bed/etc when they're supposed to; the other parent might be inherently better at managing finances and making sure there is a hefty college fund waiting for the kids when they graduate highschool. In any group of people wherein there is any attachment going on, there's typically different strengths for different things within the group, and those individuals who are particularly strong in their own niche are the 'alphas' of that niche. It becomes a problem with someone feels the need to be alpha without actually having the skills to organically command the alpha position - they achieve it through manipulation or oafish bullying instead.

One last, somewhat tangential - but related idea, is the concept of normalcy. There are so many unhealthy power imbalances that hide behind 'normalcy'. People can be especially effective at gaslighting when they know every buzz word to bring people back to feeling like everything is normal and fine. People can do absolutely anything and then put on a smile, reassure everyone this is all 'normal' and people believe it. It leaves the person on the wrong end of the power imbalance feeling further gaslighted. 'Normalcy' is a specific social and psychological skill and people who excel at it can be the most effective gaslighters.
 

Sacrophagus

Mastermind Fieldmarshal
Joined
Jul 11, 2017
Messages
1,702
MBTI Type
ENTJ
Enneagram
854
This is a very clear way of laying it out. I have experienced it, in smaller ways in professional contexts, but one relationship in particular. The moment I started to break free was the moment I let go of my identity as a 'good person'. That might be taking it too far, but if you are in the middle of it, it can be a first step. I remember once telling the person, 'you can no longer manipulate me with guilt because I am now already settled at feeling like a horrible person." It was in that context I started listening to Marilyn Manson because he outrageously makes people think he's a horrible person with complete abandon. It gave me a kind of strength to connect to that. I still want to do good actions in the world, to make choices to provide help or listen, but I've let go of the "good person" identity and am now just "a person". It leaves a person way too vulnerable to people who want to control because guilt is one of the deepest, most powerful motivators.



Good people don't always survive.
Whatever you want to protect, whether it is yourself or people you love, someday you'll be confronted by a difficult choice. Goodness Vs Justice.
You know Justice needs to be pursued, you want to make it happen, but the goodness inside you doesn't allow you. C'ertainly when you see the people you love that you deem as "home", or as an extension of your own ego, suffering because of that idleness, it becomes even more excruciating.
You have to do what you have to do, and fuck being good if it means letting unmitigated rotten dirtbags roam the Earth as if they were exempt from punishment. An Eye for an Eye, a tooth for a tooth, good for good, and evil for evil.
When you choose this road, you're not good, nor evil. You stand by what is right. Justice.
Just like being a friend today does not mean you still are when you pick someone who's not your size, anyone, and harm them. The law is absolute.

You'll make some choices later in life to protect what you have to protect and ask yourself "Am I evil?". It's natural. It will happen. Good people would've prefered that things were never this way.
I say Good people and not humans, because you have millions who are going to prove you wrong. Others would even make you think that humans are inherently evil. I'll stick with Good people.





For me, my gut acts like a warning bell which i then use as a baseline to flesh things out. It comes down to 5 questions:

1) do they provide useful intel/services?
2) can i help them?
3) just how toxic/harmful are they - to me and to others - and i to them?
4) is there potential for personal growth AND are they/i ready and willing or actively avoiding it?
5) how much are they a part of my life - how close are we and how often do we have to interact?


How would you react if evidence proves that the person you cherish the most harmed someone else, but did not harm you? Would harming someone else equate to harming you too?
I find it easier to let someone off the hook if they did something I don't like that involves me personally,I would turn the other cheek once, and let them go because the good deeds they do for others redeemed them, for now.
 

Flâneuse

don't ask me
Joined
Jan 16, 2014
Messages
947
MBTI Type
INFP
Enneagram
9w1
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
Being dishonest about their motivations and trying to take advantage of me/seeing me as more of a pawn than a person are the main ones. I can come across as naive and malleable and have an unfortunate tendency to attract people like this. I've given certain people too many chances in the past, but now I'm very comfortable with permanently doorslamming someone after the first offence. There's a big difference between making a mistake out of weakness and coldly using someone, and doing the latter usually indicates an underlying character problem (narcissism, lack of empathy, etc.) that is unlikely to change anytime soon, and that they will almost certainly do it again if given the chance.

Also, while I can deal with people who are emotionally intense, even people who have mild-to-moderate anger issues or are testy and rude, I can't deal with guilt-tripping, paranoia, making accusations out of nowhere, black-and-white thinking that swings between positive and negative (especially towards people), and/or extreme neediness. I've found people like this are harder to completely walk away from with than coldly calculating manipulators because they're genuinely hurting, but I think of my own well-being first and usually my presence in their life isn't helping them anyway because their problems are ultimately internal and require looking within at themselves.
 

Frosty

Poking the poodle
Joined
Apr 6, 2015
Messages
12,667
Instinctual Variant
sp
Usually when it becomes... something that I dont think will get better continuing on the same way as it continues. Doesnt mean I dont feel bad, guilty, avoiding someone- because I think most people are worth getting to know. But when something is consistantly getting in the way of that honestly happening- then its time to take a break I think.

I never like thinking its forever. But sometimes Im honestly too forgiving. Thid isnt a humble brag or anything- its a real problem that causes me to... leave things open too long and let them get worse. Lets me look the other way for too long- and ignoring a problem... sometimes it helps- to give it air- but not always.

Anyways. I dont like cutting people away. I really hate it. But sometimes- its honestly for the best. Usually not forever. But. Sometimes it is just best for all involved imo.
 

Z Buck McFate

Pepperidge Farm remembers.
Joined
Aug 25, 2009
Messages
6,048
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
Too true. And this is only everyone that has an expectation of you. Any whatsoever. So if I expect you to respond a certain way to me in return or agree to any of my ideas,,,that's a subtle form of neediness. The subtle supposed unwritten social agreement, that I'm here to meet YOUR needs. This is the law of the universe ultimately ->TOTAL free will....this is also how evil can happen to good people...everything happens by agreement...we CANNOT control another person...so if anything shitty is happening around us....we are subtly/subconsciously agreeing to it in some fashion. Only insofar as we feel we need something from another can we ever be controlled.

Do a mindcheck of how many million little expectations did the people who claim to love you have on you.....only a person truly happy with their lives can ultimately have no expectations from you...in fact, I'd go so far as to say....love IS having no expectations from another. "you are free to do whatever the fuck you want to do"

I feel compelled to add the caveat (nitpick) that "no expectations" is a form of expectation in itself, which can belie its own kind of neediness. :cheese:

For me, I think it's a matter of how many expectations is the person being forthright about. It's not even possible to get close to someone - or even become a steady acquaintance with someone - without expectations. I suspect individuals tend to gravitate towards those whose expectations jive the most with their own without a tremendous amount of directly discussing them, because directly discussing expectations is exhausting and it's just a lot easier to get to know people who seem to know what to expect and who inherently meet our own expectations. But anyway, I have started to trust my gut when my gut feeling tells me there's something fishy going on with another person's expectations.
 
Top