Understanding invisible threads that change how actions are judged.

[Athenian200]

A recent argument brought this idea on about myself and how I perceive things. I really don't get how the rest of you make decisions. There are plenty of people who think like I do that I encounter regularly, but there are also people (especially here) who make decisions based on something I can't even see.

It seems to be something like this. I assess each action independently against a set of rules I've developed or that have been handed to me, as well as against all the consequences that I'm aware could exist for that action. So when I act, that's what I take into account.

But many of the rest of you think in a way that I can't even relate to. You seem to see something that I can't see, by which a person's collective actions and your perception of their nature modify the consequences of an individual action. It's as if you see some kind of invisible "thread" linking all these actions together in a particular way, and from it you calculate what a person's intent is, whether their action is good or bad, what effect it had, and what is justified regarding the collective nature of all of that information I don't even see or process.

The problem is, I don't even see that "thread." So this is very frightening to me because I feel like things are being judged by something that I can't even comprehend. And if I can't comprehend what I am being judged by, how can I hope to avoid negative consequences for my actions? How can I even know if I'm doing something wrong? Do I just have to hope other people will tell me before I make them too angry, and then try to follow their prescriptions without even understanding them? That seems to be the only way to live... just try to avoid doing anything that might irritate someone, never trust them if there's even the slightest chance they could use it against you, and hope you remember all of their preferences so that you don't say anything that makes them mad. I won't enjoy living that way all of the time (although it would be fine for a while), but I don't really see an alternative.

So basically, I want to know if someone can explain how you draw these threads between actions, and if there's a consistent pattern by which I can predict which threads are likely to be drawn between actions. Or is it something you just have to "get," and you're out of luck if you don't get it?

 

[Colors]

I thought that was Ni?

Anyway- context matters- what you know about someone will definitely change how you react to their actions. Suppose you meet someone new and they grimace a lot while you're talking and have a tendency to mouth words that someone else has spoken. It wouldn't be unreasonable to consider that strange, rude, or even mocking. But suppose you know they have Tourette's syndrome. Your reaction would be different.

I think you might consider this part of the facts. However, not all facts we know about someone is borne out of a single interaction- it can often grow out of a series of intuitions and suspicions- and weight is added or subtracted to such suspicions as time goes on. I have this friend. The first time I meet him, he mentions something reminds him of his sister. He also expresses romantic interest in my best friend (who is rather loud and opinionated and . Another time, he mentions that I remind him of his sister (after I yell at him for some time). Another time I learn he used to live with her/was raised by her and she is dead. Over time, using these little tidbits- and the general tone and context of these facts, I am tenuously able to conclude that she died at a youngish age in a rather soap opera fashion (possible suicide or quick onset of some tragic disease) and was perhaps a rather unhappy person who loved him but tended to be rather overbearing and superstitious. Do I have a death certificate for her and/or have traveled back in time to verify her character and/or talked to a third person to confirm my suspicions. No, I have not. This is my best supported suspicion/hunch/idea that has formed and been refined through our interactions.

Whenever people start interacting, they start building a mental picture of them (unless they have no wish to remember the person, or have a good enough memory to remember each interaction in full, rather than the gist). Part of that is direct facts, such as name, etc. But some of it is implied- personality, etc. The next interaction is colored by what each participant remembers of the past one.

My response to this thread- I have read your posts before, and the common thread between them is you like structure and are generally distrustful of human interaction (and the vengence someone might unleash upon you).

I guess I can't help answer your concerns much. Only that if someone has misunderstood you, you can perhaps clarify your intentions and hopefully clear it up for future reference. And everyone offends/is offended sometimes.

(Sorry if I misunderstand your meaning- some examples of these perceived "invisible threads"?)

 

[Totenkindly]

Oh gee, Ath... I don't even know how to start explaining it (but I'll think more about it and see if something comes to mind).

The irony here is that when you make yourself vulnerable like this and are simply honest about where you're at, it is actually more productive than putting on the armor or lashing out to protect yourself. Rather than making you vulnerable, it lets other people know your intentions... so that they can do what they can to help and support you.

Maybe at least for that aspect of things, it's something you can learn even if you don't 'feel' it.

(Sort of like how I use my knowledge to combat my anxiety -- the anxiety comes all on its own and would be debilitating, but my head has enough experience to tell myself to ignore how I feel and just go with the logical assessment of the situation. Trust your thoughts, not your feelings, anti-Luke.)

But it does feel like driving blind down a highway. It takes some faith in the recalibration.

It's a good thread topic. I hope some other people respond.

 

[Tigerlily]

Athenian I like you, but I am always worried that I'll say the wrong thing and offend you. It's like walking on eggshells for me. I also think you don't like me much but hey that's what I do right? ;P

More often times than not I feel like an alien here and irl. I feel so different to everyone else that when I actually do meet someone who I can relate to, it's miraculous for me! Imagine how excited I was when I met my Husband! A proper play mate for me! Yea!

I won't say try and take things less seriously because it's not my place to tell you what to do AND I hate when people tell me how I should react to situations when clearly I have a mind of my own that works quite well.

No one's perfect and most of us are trying to better ourselves by posting here. I suppose others are just lollygagging around which isn't always a bad thing either.

Back on topic (I hope ). Do you mean threads that are deleted when you say "invisible threads"? If so, this is my take on things. Practically overnight this forum has grown and they're finding themselves overwhelmed and wondering how to handle so many people at once. I'm sure they are doing their best, but since they're not getting paid for this it's likely not their top priority. It's a hobby and they probably view this as a lighthearted place to chit chat? For others forums go much deeper and writing it off as "Hey just chill out" is a little insulting imo.

I could babble on all day and who knows if I'm on track with you but know this, life is unfair. Stupid crap goes on all the time and people are mostly wacko so you either have to walk away from it or step aside because people aren't going to stop giving their opinions.

 

[Athenian200]

Oh gee, Ath... I don't even know how to start explaining it (but I'll think more about it and see if something comes to mind).

Thank you, Jennifer.

The irony here is that when you make yourself vulnerable like this and are simply honest about where you're at, it is actually more productive than putting on the armor or lashing out to protect yourself. Rather than making you vulnerable, it lets other people know your intentions... so that they can do what they can to help and support you.

That's an example of one of those "invisible threads"... I don't really see how I made myself vulnerable in this case, or put on armor in the other. What ever I did from that perspective, I wasn't even aware of.

The reason I did this was because in the other thread, I perceived something a particular way, and noticed that other people perceived the same information, but saw connections in it that I didn't even comprehend. So I decided to ask how those connections were drawn, because I wanted to see if there was just something I wasn't getting that could easily be explained, or if I was just "blind" to something. It only seemed to me like a request for information that I could use to process other information in way that would allow me to comprehend why you see it the way you do.

Maybe at least for that aspect of things, it's something you can learn even if you don't 'feel' it.

(Sort of like how I use my knowledge to combat my anxiety -- the anxiety comes all on its own and would be debilitating, but my head has enough experience to tell myself to ignore how I feel and just go with the logical assessment of the situation. Trust your thoughts, not your feelings, anti-Luke.)

But it does feel like driving blind down a highway. It takes some faith in the recalibration.

My anxiety only stems from not knowing what other people's judgments are based on. I want a way to evaluate them properly, and I can't do that if I don't know what it's based on. I can't accept them as valid unconditionally, because I know that would be dangerous.

 

[Seanan]

The problem is, I don't even see that "thread." So this is very frightening to me because I feel like things are being judged by something that I can't even comprehend. And if I can't comprehend what I am being judged by, how can I hope to avoid negative consequences for my actions? How can I even know if I'm doing something wrong? Do I just have to hope other people will tell me before I make them too angry, and then try to follow their prescriptions without even understanding them? That seems to be the only way to live... just try to avoid doing anything that might irritate someone, never trust them if there's even the slightest chance they could use it against you, and hope you remember all of their preferences so that you don't say anything that makes them mad. I won't enjoy living that way all of the time (although it would be fine for a while), but I don't really see an alternative.

So basically, I want to know if someone can explain how you draw these threads between actions, and if there's a consistent pattern by which I can predict which threads are likely to be drawn between actions. Or is it something you just have to "get," and you're out of luck if you don't get it?

Wow! I so relate and have no advice because I see it the same way. When I filled out Whatever's survey (?) on joining, where it asked what I'm afraid of or my paranoias, I answered both times: "People, they're the most dangerous thing on the planet." Part of the reason is you will, often (depending of the expertise,) never see those "threads" because they are deliberately, for various reasons, hidden... sometimes they are, in fact, called "hidden agendas." I find them rampant in "group dynamics." They're present, of course, irl but one has more to go on then in detecting them.

Example: On Yahoo, Google and MSN groups things are fairly clearcut.. under the umbrella of no profanity, personal attacks, namecalling, hate speak, nudity. That affords a certain level of comfort per your/our dilemma. I'm finding that off those, some of these things are allowed... so how does one determine where the "line" is? What level of disagreement can be versed and in what way? What pictures are acceptable and which are not? Right not there is a pic of a naked penis for instance. (I couldn't even post that word on MSN) If a mod is "nasty" are you being "baited" out of personal dislike? Are you being "setup?" I don't have answers and, yes, its like walking through a mine field. You may think you've created a persona and the preponderance of "evidence" will protect you (as in civil actions) but, no, that can be "blown" in a second by a crafty person with an agenda who has direct power or peripheral. Those are the facts as I've seen. So, all-in-all, it matters not whether you can see the "thread" or not... its luck of the draw. I've decided that I'm just going to be myself and if I'm targeted by someone... well, so be it... their bad.

Note: I did this in word and other posts have been made while I was typing... sorry if I'm derailing or anything.

 

[Totenkindly]

My anxiety only stems from not knowing what other people's judgments are based on. I want a way to evaluate them properly, and I can't do that if I don't know what it's based on. I can't accept them as valid unconditionally, because I know that would be dangerous.

Just food for thought: Is it always dangerous?

(That is a discussion question.)

As an overview, our nervous/cerebral systems are all independently geared to perceive certain things as threats, so there is some variability there depending on the person. [i.e., some of us aren't as scared of certain things as others are, and vice versa]

But our environments also instill fear in us ... sometimes without warrant. And so even when the environment changes, we've been programmed to respond to certain conditions in a particular way that might no longer be accurate.

Again, another discussion question... nothing specifically aimed at you since I don't know all the details.

 

[Seanan]

Just food for thought: Is it always dangerous?

(That is a discussion question.)

As an overview, our nervous/cerebral systems are all independently geared to perceive certain things as threats, so there is some variability there depending on the person. [i.e., some of us aren't as scared of certain things as others are, and vice versa]

But our environments also instill fear in us ... sometimes without warrant. And so even when the environment changes, we've been programmed to respond to certain conditions in a particular way that might no longer be accurate.

Again, another discussion question... nothing specifically aimed at you since I don't know all the details.

If I understand your question, of course it varies and I can only answer for myself. I've spent a lifetime establishing a reputatation based on my ethical conduct. IRL those who know me know I can be trusted to keep a secret, not lie, conduct myself fairly... on and on. Yes, its important to me and the degree of that importance determines how safe or unsafe I'm going to perceive my environment with people to be. This "its just an internet forum" BS doesn't wash with me. I value my reputation anywhere and very strongly resent anyone trying to mess with it. When there is gross subjectivity... that is always a possibility and I will perceive the environment and "dangerous."

 

[Athenian200]

Just food for thought: Is it always dangerous?

No. But since I have no way of differentiating a valid one from an invalid one without requiring some sort of justification, I believe it's better to require justification in order to prevent what I consider valid from becoming tainted by invalid notions. I don't believe in accepting other people's judgments as valid unconditionally on an internal level, but I will pretend to do so externally if I believe for some reason that the other person will react badly to being disagreed with, and possibly try to make me look bad or something as a result.

As an overview, our nervous/cerebral systems are all independently geared to perceive certain things as threats, so there is some variability there depending on the person. [i.e., some of us aren't as scared of certain things as others are, and vice versa]

But our environments also instill fear in us ... sometimes without warrant. And so even when the environment changes, we've been programmed to respond to certain conditions in a particular way that might no longer be accurate.

I don't understand what you're getting at? I know this, but I don't see how it's related to what we were talking about.

 

[Metamorphosis]

I don't understand the thinking.

The easiest way for me to explain it is to compare it to the Criminal Justice system in the U.S.

Our laws are generally concrete and well defined. This is your way of thinking. However, in reality, the court system takes cicrumstances into account. And this isn't even including the ridiculous amount of power in the form of police discretion.

Is it illegal to speed? Yes.
Do cops always pull over everyone who is speeding? No
Do they always give a ticket to the ones they pull over? No

You're missing the last two parts, from your description.

It's illegal to break into a house, but some cops will drive all the way there with their sirens on so that they end the crime but don't have to actually arrest the guy and go through the booking/court apperance process.

 

[alcea rosea]

Social pressure?
Those words just popped from my brain 30 sec. ago.

 

[Athenian200]

The easiest way for me to explain it is to compare it to the Criminal Justice system in the U.S.

Our laws are generally concrete and well defined. This is your way of thinking. However, in reality, the court system takes cicrumstances into account. And this isn't even including the ridiculous amount of power in the form of police discretion.[/quote

Is it illegal to speed? Yes.
Do cops always pull over everyone who is speeding? No
Do they always give a ticket to the ones they pull over? No

You're missing the last two parts, from your description.

But what I don't understand is the manner in which circumstances are taken into account, or even what circumstances are taken into account. I don't know where that comes from, or how it applies to me and other people.

My interpretation of the last two statements is that cops don't enforce the law, and are failing to do their job.

It's illegal to break into a house, but some cops will drive all the way there with their sirens on so that they end the crime but don't have to actually arrest the guy and go through the booking/court apperance process.

My interpretation of that is that the cop is too lazy to do the right thing.

Now that you see this, can you tell me what I don't get, and why I don't get it? I'm really curious now.

 

[nightning]

I don't think any of us makes decisions in the same way. We all wear tinted glasses of different colors. I definitely don't believe there's one right way of thinking about something or even in terms of looking at them. I think the only way to see the "invisible threads" of another person is by sitting down and actually spending time talking to that person. Try to put aside all your own biases and just listen.

But that's not what you're asking about is it? How to be well received? Was that the actual question? You can't be guaranteed of that. (or at least I don't know how ) It might help if you change your perception of the interaction though. Take this forum for example... Instead of seeing that people are judging your character based on your posts... try to see it as people being interested about your posts... sometimes they agree with it, sometimes not. They took the take the time to write down a response though... which meant they want to discuss it with you.

Your frame of mind affects your perception which in turn affect your behavior and other people's responses to it.

Athenian. I always thought you wanted to keep forum decisions "logical" and thus adjusted my post style when interacting with you. I'll see if I can change that a little bit. Relax more! Nobody is judging you... only playing with ideas.

 

[Wandering]

there are also people (especially here) who make decisions based on something I can't even see.

In typological terms, that "something you can't even see" would be all those functions you happen not to be very proficient in, I think. We're all in the same case: blind to a lesser or greater extent to our non-dominant functions. We may and often do understand them to a reasonable degree, but we don't understand what it means to have them as a dominant/primary function.

It seems to be something like this. I assess each action independently against a set of rules I've developed or that have been handed to me,

Sounds like Ti and/or Te.

as well as against all the consequences that I'm aware could exist for that action.

Ni.

So when I act, that's what I take into account.

And that's only 2, maybe 3 functions - out of 8. See what the problem is?

But many of the rest of you think in a way that I can't even relate to.

You seem to see something that I can't see, by which a person's collective actions and your perception of their nature modify the consequences of an individual action. It's as if you see some kind of invisible "thread" linking all these actions together in a particular way, and from it you calculate what a person's intent is, whether their action is good or bad, what effect it had, and what is justified regarding the collective nature of all of that information I don't even see or process.

You have the same kind of invisible threads guiding your actions. It's just that you use *different* threads.

I've been participating on another MBTI forum for a year and a half, one primarily populated by INFPs. I have *repeatedly* found myself tangled up in those "invisible threads". I am slowly building an intellectual understanding of them, but they remain as invisible as ever to me.

The problem is, I don't even see that "thread." So this is very frightening to me because I feel like things are being judged by something that I can't even comprehend. And if I can't comprehend what I am being judged by, how can I hope to avoid negative consequences for my actions? How can I even know if I'm doing something wrong?

Exactly. I've been almost single-handedly responsible for the madmins of that other forum having to write down in their rulebook a whole list of forbidden behaviours that they had never thought before might need to be written down. To them, they were obvious. To me, they are either baffling and/or utterly invisible.

Do I just have to hope other people will tell me before I make them too angry, and then try to follow their prescriptions without even understanding them? That seems to be the only way to live... just try to avoid doing anything that might irritate someone, never trust them if there's even the slightest chance they could use it against you, and hope you remember all of their preferences so that you don't say anything that makes them mad. I won't enjoy living that way all of the time (although it would be fine for a while), but I don't really see an alternative.

From my own experience on that other forum, I'd say there is NO fully-working alternative. At best, you can come to intellectually understand what principles rule them, how they think, but it will never be natural/obvious/"logical" to you. This understanding will still make it easier for you to deal with them on an equal basis, though, and it will mind-blowingly expand your understanding of the human race in general, so it's totally worth working on it.

So basically, I want to know if someone can explain how you draw these threads between actions, and if there's a consistent pattern by which I can predict which threads are likely to be drawn between actions. Or is it something you just have to "get," and you're out of luck if you don't get it?

Both. One suggestion I would make to *you* (because you're very high on T and Ni), from a typological standpoint, is to study the various functions and how they theoretically influence a type depending on their "position" in that type's "hierarchy". I especially suggest focusing on Ne first, and on Ti/Fi (you have a lot of Ti, but not as Dom/Aux, and that makes a significant difference with the TPs out there), and of course on how they interact.

 

[Totenkindly]

Lawful Neutral, through and through.

But what I don't understand is the manner in which circumstances are taken into account, or even what circumstances are taken into account. I don't know where that comes from, or how it applies to me and other people. My interpretation of the last two statements is that cops don't enforce the law, and are failing to do their job.

I think, basically, the cops are looking at the law as a standard meant simply to keep the peace. I.e., the reason behind it, not the laws themselves.

To keep the peace, you don't have to enforce EVERY aspect of every law and punish all the time. They're just there to keep things generally on course, prevent gross violations, etc.

There are probably a number of factors involved -- the one I just described, plus the impractical nature of trying to enforce everything perfectly (due to staffing problems or people simply getting away with things), plus perhaps at times mistakes by the cops or even negligence, and on occasion purposeful bending of the rules. But overall, I think it's more the first, plus some of the second.

My interpretation of that is that the cop is too lazy to do the right thing.

I think it's more that the nature of a human system is (as the first point suggested) you don't have to stringent enforce each and every rule perfectly for it to still do its basic job.

And the nature of the human system is that if you make the system too rigid, human beings will actually behave worse than they would if the system is somewhat flexible.

Think for a moment about us trying to police this forum so that no one ever gets away with saying anything that could be misconstrued as "bad" about someone else. Do you have an idea of how impossible a task that is?

The best we can do is derail/punish gross and persistent violations, try to set a positive tone, and otherwise encourage members to have a positive attitude when they interact.

As I mentioned in the other thread, parenthood's the same way. It's hard. Very hard. You have to have rules, but you constantly have to learn how to flex and bend the rules to accommodate where the kids are at so that they're encouraged, long-term, to become the sort of people you created the rules to help them be in the first place. This is why parents sometimes agonize over what specifically to do, that has the best long-term results.

(Note: I'm not saying that you're kids at all, I'm just saying that human beings in general can't operate without flex. Laws have to be applied.)

...I'm still thinking about the OP thing....

 

[alcea rosea]

Nobody here takes my comments seriousy

Doesn't social pressure play it's part in all social interaction even online? So let's say person A is well liked and breaks rules. Person B is not well liked and breaks the same rules. -> B gets more severe punishment than A because B is less liked. People demand less punishment for nice people. What you say of this?

 

[skip]

Everyone has those threads and everyone understands them to different extents. The key is to use your own instead of relying on other peoples' because if you try to rely on others' threads, they vary too much and the inconsistency is frustrating and bewildering. Relying on your own threads comes from maturity, knowing yourself, and experience. That takes time. Having an objective, rather than subjective, value system will help considerably to get you through the learning curve.

 

[Ender]

But what I don't understand is the manner in which circumstances are taken into account, or even what circumstances are taken into account. I don't know where that comes from, or how it applies to me and other people.

My interpretation of the last two statements is that cops don't enforce the law, and are failing to do their job.

You're thinking is linear in that when you're viewing a situation you see black and white basically. You don't see how any exception to the rule should be permissible. Wheres others view rules as more or less guidelines.

In a way it reminds me of the question as to whether or not someone should have their hand cut off for stealing a loaf of bread to feed their starving family. Linear thinking is more who cares about why they did it, they stole thats all that matters, off with the hand.

 

[Colors]

But what I don't understand is the manner in which circumstances are taken into account, or even what circumstances are taken into account. I don't know where that comes from, or how it applies to me and other people.

My interpretation of the last two statements is that cops don't enforce the law, and are failing to do their job.

That's why they have jury trials! Because they don't have laws laying out the exact punishments for the exact circumstances of each case that will come up. And why would they want to? Such rigidity wouldn't serve the best interests of society (basically what Jennifer said). In a sense, each person on a jury brings their own interpretation of the case- and we hope to reach some sort of general consensus or middle ground to apply as the judgement.

Over time and using common sense, I think you can generally form an idea what what sort of circumstances apply. (Example: You hear person X killed person Y. The natural circumstances you want to know about include: What is self-defense? Did person X do it on purpose? Do we have reason to believe person X will kill someone else? etc.)

 

[Wandering]

Nobody here takes my comments seriousy

I did, but I wasn't sure what you meant

Doesn't social pressure play it's part in all social interaction even online? So let's say person A is well liked and breaks rules. Person B is not well liked and breaks the same rules. -> B gets more severe punishment than A because B is less liked. People demand less punishment for nice people. What you say of this?

I say it gets even more complicated than that, because "popularity" and "being well-liked" are not universal things. What will make you well-liked in one setting might make you not liked at all in another.

Also, "popularity" depends on, well, *people* expressing their likings and dislikings. But not everyone expresses such opinions as loudly as everyone else. So some people might be very popular with a small but vocal group, while some others might be quite popular with a larger but more silent group, and it's not clear who will appear to be most popular to the general population.

That's especially important where sanctions are concerned, and people voice their opinions about them...