trust first, relationship first ?

[redacted]

I've noticed that whenever debates are had about trusting people's motives (a large part of what stops some people from letting people 'in'), the argument tends to split into two sides:

People to whom one has to prove oneself before trust is given; "always potentially guilty". They might really like you, but they will take a long time before they trust you enough to believe you genuinely like/care about them.

People who give benefit of the doubt by default; "innocent until proven guilty". They may not necessarily like you or respect you, but they give a basic level of trust as standard, gratis.

The first group tends to be dominated by people with introverted perceiving functions, extraverted judging functions and dominant Fi. The second group, people with extraverted perceiving functions and Ti.

It seems to me that Ne and Se are trusting functions while Ni and Si - but especially Ni - are untrusting ones. Perhaps dominant Fi, due to its intense vulnerability and sensitivity, often counterbalances the 'auto-trust' default of Ne in the INFP.

But don't forget the ENTP - the ambivert - Both task and people oriented! ("my task is people/people are my task")

i definitely take the "innocent until proven guilty stance". but that doesn't mean i'll want to be friends with everyone.

for me, friendships aren't so much about trusting people as just seeing what they have to offer me.

 

[INTJMom]

I was so tempted to click "I am so tempted to try and skew your results!"

But alas, I didn't.

I almost put in a poll option with your name on it,
but alas, I didn't.

 

[substitute]

for me, friendships aren't so much about trusting people as just seeing what they have to offer me.

I hear that from INFJ's a lot... it's curious to me because it's just so alien to the way I think. It's okay, I fully acknowledge I'm the freak!

 

[Totenkindly]

Here's some more info on the DISC types

Active/Task -oriented - NT
"D" - Dominating,

Passive/Task -oriented - NF
"C" - Cautious,

Active/People -oriented - SP
"I" - Inspiring,

Passive/People -oriented - SJ
"S" - Steady,

Additionally, equivalences were made to the LaHaye (since I noticed you mentioned them once) types, and I translated them into MBTT types.

ha ha ha ha ha....

Please, no... not LaHaye!

Um, I think trying to merge traditional humors and/or LaHaye and/or DISC to the MBTI theory only creates an unholy genetic monster. We would have to do major psychosurgery to get anywhere close.

(I will say that DISC and humors/LaHaye could be fit together though.)

* * * *

I am task-oriented by nature, but I'm been forced to work so hard to take people into consideration that it is a close second now.

I am not sure about being trust vs relationship first. As a task person, I don't really have to know someone well to work with them. I just need to experience them during task a bit to get a feel for their competence, motivation, honesty, and reliability, and I am good to go. I don't even ever have to be "good" friends with them, I'm fine just working with them on tasks together if I think they are competent. I am betting a lot of you here know me far better on a personal level than many of my coworkers do; if I don't have much in common with someone, I won't talk to them much.

I guess this is a "trust first, relationship later" approach.

But I do instinctively like to know about the people I am with and figure out what makes them tick.

 

[redacted]

I hear that from INFJ's a lot... it's curious to me because it's just so alien to the way I think. It's okay, I fully acknowledge I'm the freak!

or maybe i'm the freak?

 

[INTJMom]

I've noticed that whenever debates are had about trusting people's motives (a large part of what stops some people from letting people 'in'), the argument tends to split into two sides:

People to whom one has to prove oneself before trust is given; "always potentially guilty". They might really like you, but they will take a long time before they trust you enough to believe you genuinely like/care about them.

People who give benefit of the doubt by default; "innocent until proven guilty". They may not necessarily like you or respect you, but they give a basic level of trust as standard, gratis.

The first group tends to be dominated by people with introverted perceiving functions, extraverted judging functions and dominant Fi. The second group, people with extraverted perceiving functions and Ti.

It seems to me that Ne and Se are trusting functions while Ni and Si - but especially Ni - are untrusting ones. Perhaps dominant Fi, due to its intense vulnerability and sensitivity, often counterbalances the 'auto-trust' default of Ne in the INFP.

But don't forget the ENTP - the ambivert - Both task and people oriented! ("my task is people/people are my task")

Way to throw a monkey wrench into the whole works! Just teasing.

I like your observations. I can't verify them myself, but I will trust your judgment until proven otherwise.

Ok. Help me out.
"always potentially guilty"
introverted perceiving functions - Si and Ni ?
extraverted judging functions - Te and Fe ?
dominant Fi


"innocent until proven guilty"
extraverted perceiving functions - Ne and Se ?
dominant Ti

It seems to me that Ne and Se are trusting functions while Ni and Si - but especially Ni - are untrusting ones.

Well that suits me, right?
I have to trust someone first before I will deepen a relationship with them.
If it is only a surface relationship - like a stranger or something, then I offer trust readily.

Perhaps dominant Fi, due to its intense vulnerability and sensitivity, often counterbalances the 'auto-trust' default of Ne in the INFP.

But don't forget the ENTP - the ambivert - Both task and people oriented! ("my task is people/people are my task")

Do they have a smilie with its brain all scrambled?

 

[Kaleidoscope]

Thank you for helping me to see the flaws in my poll.
Would you like to just discuss how you feel about developing trust vs developing relationship first?

Generally speaking, some people need trust first, and some people need relationship first.
I'm very interested to see what other people think about this concept.

Now that I've found a site that explains, in depth, the differences in the four types, I definitely know that I (NF) am, without a doubt, an "S" and my fiance (SJ) is, without a doubt, a "D" (though he does fit the "C" type as well). Thinking of me being a "C" made me feel really uncomfortable, but I felt completely in the right place when reading the "S" traits.

For the most part, equal relationships are relationship first, then trust (this includes friends, my fiance, my neighbors, etc). I don't blindly trust anyone that is my equal or lower and I think they need to prove themselves before I trust them (INFP trait). However, when I am dealing with some in a higher position than me, I will trust them first and then develop the relationship (doctors, professors, landlord, etc). I almost feel like I have no choice but to trust them first and hope the relationship follows.

 

[redacted]

actually, i can be friends with people i don't trust, now that i think about it.

as long as i have the read on them, i know how to deal with them. and if i get enough from a friendship with them, i'll be their friend, even if i think they're a bad person or something.

 

[Seanan]

actually, i can be friends with people i don't trust, now that i think about it.

as long as i have the read on them, i know how to deal with them. and if i get enough from a friendship with them, i'll be their friend, even if i think they're a bad person or something.

Even if you've seen them stab someone else in the back? Is your thinking they won't do that to you?

 

[redacted]

Even if you've seen them stab someone else in the back? Is your thinking they won't do that to you?

yeah. i've been friends with people that have stabbed someone else in the back.

it's not that i think they wouldn't do the same thing to me...it's just that i know how to set it up so that it wouldn't be worth it for them to.

i dunno, it's kinda strange, i'll admit. i guess in some sense it's a power thing for me. it's like, i get some validation from the fact that they don't stab me in the back even though they have to others.

also, i feel like those people are written off by most, and i want them to know that i see them for what they really are. i want to help them, you know?

<------ codependent

 

[Seanan]

yeah. i've been friends with people that have stabbed someone else in the back.

it's not that i think they wouldn't do the same thing to me...it's just that i know how to set it up so that it wouldn't be worth it for them to.

i dunno, it's kinda strange, i'll admit. i guess in some sense it's a power thing for me. it's like, i get some validation from the fact that they don't stab me in the back even though they have to others.

also, i feel like those people are written off by most, and i want them to know that i see them for what they really are. i want to help them, you know?

<------ codependent

IC... you're a brave soul.

 

[INTJMom]

Now that I've found a site that explains, in depth, the differences in the four types, I definitely know that I (NF) am, without a doubt, an "S" and my fiance (SJ) is, without a doubt, a "D" (though he does fit the "C" type as well). Thinking of me being a "C" made me feel really uncomfortable, but I felt completely in the right place when reading the "S" traits.

For the most part, equal relationships are relationship first, then trust (this includes friends, my fiance, my neighbors, etc). I don't blindly trust anyone that is my equal or lower and I think they need to prove themselves before I trust them (INFP trait). However, when I am dealing with some in a higher position than me, I will trust them first and then develop the relationship (doctors, professors, landlord, etc). I almost feel like I have no choice but to trust them first and hope the relationship follows.

Thank you for that.
Actually, over at INFPglobal most INFP types scored as high S types or high C types, so you're right in there with them.

I had never read in depth on this subject before.

 

[RDF]

Some people need trust first, and some people need relationship first.

Want to talk about that?
I find that itself to be fascinating insight!

In my youth, trust was always a big issue for me. Later, in the military and the working world, I learned to work and live with all kinds and accept people as they are, even deeply flawed people. I don't necessarily need to trust people much. I just try to understand them so that I know where the relationships are solid vs. where they become shaky and unreliable.

 

[Kiddo]

I start a relationship and then I let my paranoia sabotage it overtime.

 

[INTJMom]

In my youth, trust was always a big issue for me. Later, in the military and the working world, I learned to work and live with all kinds and accept people as they are, even deeply flawed people. I don't necessarily need to trust people much. I just try to understand them so that I know where the relationships are solid vs. where they become shaky and unreliable.

I think I've learned to be like that, too.

 

[INTJMom]

For anyone interested, there's a nice little DISC test online:
DISC TEST, A FREE DISC type TEST

 

[Totenkindly]

For anyone interested, there's a nice little DISC test online:
DISC TEST, A FREE DISC type TEST

Wow, thank you:

D-16
I-4
S-40
C-40

 

[Seanan]

Interesting... thanks

d 20
i 16
s 20
c 44

 

[Kaleidoscope]

D - 4
I - 8
S - 70
C - 18

Can't say I'm surprised.

 

[substitute]

Active/Task -oriented - NT
"D" - Dominating,
Directing, Demanding,
Determined, Decisive (sometimes...), Doing.
Basic Motivation: Challenge & Control

Passive/Task -oriented - NF
"C" - Cautious,
Competent, Calculating,
Compliant, Careful,
Contemplative.
Basic Motivation: Quality & Correctness

Active/People -oriented - SP
"I" - Inspiring,
Influencing, Inducing,
Impressing, Interactive,
Interested in people.
Basic Motivation: Recognition & Approval

Passive/People -oriented - SJ
"S" - Steady,
Stable, Shy,
Security-oriented,
Servant, Submissive,
Specialist
Basic Motivation: Stability & Support

Bolded ones are the things I relate to - going by this, I'm an SP

edit - there's one that I think belongs in the S list (though it doesn't begin with S), which is slightly different to 'steady': constant (as in constancy), cos that's me. Whilst I might seem unsteady and sorta dynamic/flexibly (wibbly-wobbly all over the place!), my attitude towards others is usually pretty constant; I don't tend to alter/transfer loyalties or affections at all easily, once bestowed.

----

I've just had a thought that in actual fact my 'trust' with regard to other people, even total strangers, is more in myself than in them. I don't feel I need to be able to trust them that much, because I feel I can trust myself to be able to handle whatever they throw at me (dare I risk saying "with God's help"? ), and to turn it into something beneficial.

I think this is what enables me to deal quite happily and equally, to develop friendships of equal closeness with anything from drug addicts and convicts to upstanding pillars of the community. In the end, what they might or might not do is moot to me... it's about their humanity, and I can spot that a mile off in anyone, because obviously we are all human. And, relating to and having no end of compassion for that, it's a simple question of exercising varying levels of caution as I figure out and get to know better in what areas each individual can be trusted at any point in their personal journey. My feeling if 'crossed' isn't one of betrayal at all, but usually a choice or combination of confusion, frustration at myself (kicking myself for not having predicted it), compassion and desire to get things back to rights again. And that BOTH of us LEARN from it.

I always find it slightly confusing when people ask me to forgive them. I honestly, really don't feel there's anything to forgive.

One reason I find it so alien, the point I made earlier, about how it's alien to me this idea of considering what a person has to offer you when considering whether or not to embark on a road to friendship with them... well, that's alien to me because I tend to automatically assume everyone has something to offer everyone else - at the very least, life lessons! Every encounter can leave a mark and contribute and we often can't know what the eventual effect or benefit might be until years later even, when something we thought insignificant or the significance of which we misinterpreted, begins to kick in and take effect. So I don't know really how people can know how to prioritize the 'offerings' or potentials of other people in order to decide whether or not they're 'worthy'.