Understanding invisible threads that change how actions are judged.

[heart]

I'm saying this because honestly I think you are a bit intractable and you are also still young (and therefore naive, I think being pummeled out in the world will give you the perspective you are asking people for in your thread -- unfortunately we cannot provide it for you, it's something you will discover for yourself) so it's not going to do you any good IMHO to wildly second-guess yourself and assume other people are following a 'truth' that you can't see. You're going to end up totally lost and I don't think that's gonna do anyone any good. Again, I think the answers you seek will be found in the real world, more over, your real life, and with time.

This "school of hard knocks" thing is, unfortunately, likely to become true. We all go through this venturing out in the world however and we all surivive it.

I am always thinking there can be a way to soften the blow of this venture out in the world for people I care about through sharing perspectives but maybe that's impossible.

 

[Athenian200]

So, if I understand correctly, the reason rules are not enforced absolutely is because rules are purposefully made stricter than the level at which they intend to enforce them, because it is in the nature of people to enforce them in a manner that isn't literal. So, if they spelled out exactly what it was that needed to be done, people would relax from that level and there wouldn't be enough order to even maintain society.

So in other words, those who enforce and create law have to take into account their own limited faculties and resources and the limitations of the faculties and resources of the people they govern. Do I understand correctly?

So the priority, then, becomes finding what works for preserving a workable state of overall harmony, rather than simply enforcing the rules that have been set down.

This would involve prioritizing some things over others so that the most important things are preserved, while others are discarded if necessary for the sake of those things.

In Dana's instance, then, it was indeed determined that she was wrong to circumvent her ban. However, due to the fact that she succeeded for so long, and succeeded while contributing positively to the forum, it was judged that the positive impact of her contributions to the forum was greater than the negative impact of her breaking the rules. Because here, retaining those who make positive contributions is weighted above maintaining the rules consistently and ensuring that they are respected.

For some reason, there is less fear that people would exploit lax enforcement, or that not being asked to apply things consistently could result in people being treated unfairly because a particular group of people disagree with or dislike them.

 

[Tallulah]

So, if I understand correctly, the reason rules are not enforced absolutely is because rules are purposefully made stricter than the level at which they intend to enforce them, because it is in the nature of people to enforce them in a manner that isn't literal. So, if they spelled out exactly what it was that needed to be done, people would relax from that level and there wouldn't be enough order to even maintain society.

So in other words, those who enforce and create law have to take into account their own limited faculties and resources and the limitations of the faculties and resources of the people they govern. Do I understand correctly?

So the priority, then, becomes finding what works for preserving a workable state of overall harmony, rather than maintaining consistency with a particular rule.

Yes...to a certain extent. I mean, people know that killing and stealing are flat-out wrong, but there are also exceptional circumstances. But yeah, essentially, the rules aren't there for their own sakes. As someone said earlier, they are there to protect people, and the enforcers get to decide whether to apply mercy or justice on the people's behalf.

 

[ThatsWhatHeSaid]

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.

I think what you're talking about is empathy. When you feel what a person's feeling, and relate that to your own experience, you can start to get a sense of how that person feels and processes. The more you perspective-take, the more feelings you have to link together. That threads that links those different experiences together is a product of one's familiarity in recognizing patterns and a very natural process that happens almost spontaneously. So to summarize, empathy + familiarity --> "thread"

You're trying to build this thread intellectually and it won't really work, because empathy isn't built on intellect. It's built on a lack of judgmentalism. You're tendency to judge others' action with your personal codes probably (my guess) interferes with that process.

I would say that intellect becomes important insofar as it allows you to recognize patterns in behavior, but you need the empathy to start the process. I would somewhat even hesitate from calling the ability to descry pattern an "intellectual" process. That implies that it can be learned by reading a book, and I don't think that's true. It comes from being aware of nuances and seeing connections, which is linked to intellect. Kind of a linguistic mess here; I hope you appreciate what I'm trying to express here, though.

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?

I find this thread (MBTIc thread) very interesting. The thing I've noticed about hardcore INFJs -- I only know about 3, so read this paragraph with caution -- is that they create elaborate rule structures and love sorting out behavior according to these networks. My cousin is notorious for doing this and she often gets lost in these mazes herself. I explored the root of that network with my cousin once. In a rather emotional moment, she confessed that it was all built around her own pain. Her network is designed to make sure that she doesn't get her feelings hurt because she is sensitive and can't bear it.

And until now, I totally thought you were an INTJ, Athenian$1.99.

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.

I think what this is really about is your own fear of rejection/abandonment. You're worried that you'll piss someone off and suffer an irreparable fracture in the relationship and that's something you can't really bear. So, you're looking for a system to help steer you away from that. This is really a question of "how do I trust that I can be myself, not offend anyone, and not get hurt by their absence/rejection?"

There's no guarantee you're not going to offend someone. Conflict isn't just the nature of relationship that are honest, but they're part of human life in general. In fact, they're a good part of interaction. People grow from honesty, even if it leads to conflict (e.g., therapy and resistance). I believe that the second part -- your sensitivity to absence/rejection -- can definitely be changed, but ironically, it takes self-trust to create that change.

Here's my advice: just do your best to be sincere. Do your best to listen. If you mess up, just apologize and smile. Your sincerity will be understood by most through your body language, and in the rare case that it isn't, you're still helping people more than hurting them. How so? By trying to intellectualize this whole process by keeping track of everyone's hot-spots, you'll just end up doing yourself, the person, and your relationship a disservice. Quality communication comes from honesty and spontaneity (check your own experiences) which is at the opposite end of intellectualization and thinking. It takes a while to retrain yourself, but you can take baby steps towards your goal, treating yourself with the same feelings of sincerity and attention you would offer another.

 

[bluebell]

So in other words, those who enforce and create law have to take into account their own limited faculties and resources and the limitations of the faculties and resources of the people they govern. Do I understand correctly?

If I've interpreted what you're saying here, yes, that's the general idea. People who are appointed to those positions are often chosen because they display 'good judgement'.

It's hard to define what this is precisely, but it's a way of knowing what the rules are, what the unwritten rules are, the particular circumstances, the implications of taking one course of action compared to another, knowing when to consult someone more senior and more experienced and when that's not necessary etc. It's sometimes even explicitly spelled out in job ads as one of the selection criteria 'must demonstrate good judgement'.

I'm not sure if that's helped at all or not - hopefully I haven't made this even more confusing. I have trouble putting things into words sometimes.

 

[Athenian200]

I would say that intellect becomes important insofar as it allows you to recognize patterns in behavior, but you need the empathy to start the process. I would somewhat even hesitate from calling the ability to descry pattern an "intellectual" process. That implies that it can be learned by reading a book, and I don't think that's true. It comes from being aware of nuances and seeing connections, which is linked to intellect. Kind of a linguistic mess here; I hope you appreciate what I'm trying to express here, though.

I don't like to relate things to my own experiences, I want to relate them to something less individual than that, because forcing my own experiences to be a guideline for other people doesn't make sense. Just because I went through something doesn't automatically mean someone else deserves to go through it, or that what was created in me by the experience was automatically something desirable.

I think what this is really about is your own fear of rejection/abandonment. You're worried that you'll piss someone off and suffer an irreparable fracture in the relationship and that's something you can't really bear. So, you're looking for a system to help steer you away from that. This is really a question of "how do I trust that I can be myself, not offend anyone, and not get hurt by their absence/rejection?"

I don't see it this way. It's more, how do I know whether something is acceptable or not if the answer changes from moment to moment based on connections that aren't obvious? I'm just asking, am I literally going to be punished (rather unfairly) for not seeing and reacting to these connections, simply because some people expect me to be able to see and react to them?

Here's my advice: just do your best to be sincere. Do your best to listen. If you mess up, just apologize and smile. Your sincerity will be understood by most through your body language, and in the rare case that it isn't, you're still helping people more than hurting them. How so? By trying to intellectualize this whole process by keeping track of everyone's hot-spots, you'll just end up doing yourself, the person, and your relationship a disservice. Quality communication comes from honesty and spontaneity (check your own experiences) which is at the opposite end of intellectualization and thinking. It takes a while to retrain yourself, but you can take baby steps towards your goal, treating yourself with the same feelings of sincerity and attention you would offer another.

I'm not really good at thinking on my feet, and I don't really like to be spontaneous. I like to be able to know that I can avoid being in trouble/danger from not being able to see these connections quickly like many people can (I've found that I can see them, but I need time, and most people expect it rather automatically, which I can't do.)

I don't want to just rely on hoping that other people don't become irritated enough by my actions to harm me, physically, legally, or other wise. I'd like something more substantial than that. I don't think the kind of thing I'm asking for is unreasonable.

 

[EffEmDoubleyou]

^ Bluebell and Edahn have combined to give maybe the best answer.

Deviation from strict adherence to rules is dependent on wisdom and judgement. We elect leaders largely based on judgement. The key point here is that judgement is a process in which people see the same evidence and come to a different decision...a form of chaos theory, if you will. And I think that's what's bugging you. The inconsistency that comes from people interpreting the same information and coming to different conclusions. As Edahn pointed out, the reason for this is that judgement is not a strictly intellectual process. It depends on empathy and character.

For this reason, I would hesitate to say that we design laws that are stricter than we plan to enforce them. That's a more deliberate process than we really engage in. I think it's just that sometimes we're presented with a situation when the reasoning behind the law and the law as written are at odds. And this is when judgement is used to divine the best solution. When confronted with a decision that you feel is inconsistent with the rules, you may find it useful to try to think of the principle behind the rule instead of parsing the rule inflexibly.

 

[Athenian200]

If I've interpreted what you're saying here, yes, that's the general idea. People who are appointed to those positions are often chosen because they display 'good judgement'.

It's hard to define what this is precisely, but it's a way of knowing what the rules are, what the unwritten rules are, the particular circumstances, the implications of taking one course of action compared to another, knowing when to consult someone more senior and more experienced and when that's not necessary etc. It's sometimes even explicitly spelled out in job ads as one of the selection criteria 'must demonstrate good judgement'.

I'm not sure if that's helped at all or not - hopefully I haven't made this even more confusing. I have trouble putting things into words sometimes.

I believe I understood. Good Judgment is essentially having a record of making judgments that resulted in the most positive outcome possible (or at least averting the most negative), and having the ability to discern the most meaningful connections that govern the things I mentioned before that must have priority. It's probably a very important job, because not everyone can see those connections easily. I've met several people in real life who don't even understand it as well as I do, honestly. They can be more rigid than I am, and not even understand what is (to me) the clear way that one rule modifies another, and the manner in which they form a system designed around a particular idea. Whereas I can see that, but have some trouble understanding how circumstances that aren't even rules/principles change rules.

I guess the levels of awareness differ. I really hope that who ever is enforcing the rules in various cases involving me is taking into account my limited awareness of how circumstances that aren't related to rules modify consequences, and doesn't simply do to me what ever most people think I would deserve because of their assumption that I am aware of this.

It's almost like there are three levels, and I'm on the second one. First, there are people who only see rules that have to be obeyed, and don't understand the relationship between these rules, or how they form a coherent system. Second, there are people like me, who comprehend that there are rules, and understand the connections/threads between them within that particular system itself, and have an idea of why the system is desirable, but don't understand how things that aren't technically part of the system connect to and modify parts of it. Finally, there are people who can see several systems as part of an entirety, and comprehend how all of them affect one another, and what is desirable or undesirable on a higher level.

 

[bluebell]

Deviation from strict adherence to rules is dependent on wisdom and judgement. We elect leaders largely based on judgement. The key point here is that judgement is a process in which people see the same evidence and come to a different decision...a form of chaos theory, if you will. And I think that's what's bugging you. The inconsistency that comes from people interpreting the same information and coming to different conclusions. As Edahn pointed out, the reason for this is that judgement is not a strictly intellectual process. It depends on empathy and character.

The bit I've bolded is why a lot of important decisions aren't placed in the hands of just one person. A real life example - someone is arrested for robbery. A large number of people are involved in the decision as to whether the person is a) actually guilty of the crime and b) if they are guilty, what punishment they should be given. There's the police who made the original arrest, the colleagues and senior staff at the police station who double-check that the arrest is plausible, the court system with lawyers, judges and juries.

There is a reason why many laws are written with 'sentence to jail for no more than x years' - it allows the courts some discretion as to what punishment is appropriate for that particular crime.

In terms of internet forums, such as MBTIc, the decision as whether someone has breached a particular rule or guideline is made by a team of mods and admins, each with their own particular experience and background.

I believe I understood. Good Judgment is essentially having a record of making judgments that resulted in the most positive outcome possible, and having the ability to discern the most meaningful connections that govern the things I mentioned before that must have priority. It's probably a very important job, because not everyone can see those connections easily. I've met several people in real life who don't even understand it as well as I do, honestly. They can be more rigid than I am, and not even understand what is (to me) the clear way that one rule modifies another, and the manner in which they form a system designed around a particular idea. Whereas I can see that, but have some trouble understanding how circumstances that aren't even rules/principles change rules.

That's an excellent description of 'good judgement'. By the way, I'm impressed with your willingness to explore all of this and take on board people's explanations. That's the first step in developing 'good judgement'.

I guess the levels of awareness differ. I really hope that who ever is enforcing the rules in various cases involving me is taking into account my limited awareness of how circumstances that aren't related to rules modify consequences, and doesn't simply do to me what ever most people think I would deserve because of their assumption that I am aware of this.

I think displaying 'good judgement' takes that into consideration. At some level, it's having trust and faith that people will understand where you're coming from and your background.

 

[Haight]

Five Stars!

For an interesting exercise, go read the rules at INTJforum, study how they are written relative to here, and tell me what the differences are, how that would affect a forum differently, and tell me which you view as "better" for a forum community.

Nice thread, by the way.

 

[white]

Why is it after Haight posts, a thread tends to freeze up?

Athenian:

I think you've found your answer gradually as this thread progressed. But the difficulty you have is in accepting it, isn't it?

There are more ways to live than one, and more ways of perceptions and understandings than one.

To draw a parallel: The absoluteness of objectivity, via a clearly defined set of rules, works in some cases, when dealing with binary systems for e.g.

But with humans, to do this would mean you'd end up defining infinitesimal rules for every single action and reaction. Theoretically possible, but practically, it would kill a lot of opportunities for growth.

Fuzzy logic/network logic works better. The relativity offers the chance of redemption and growth, in a way. "Learn as you go along" approach. Understand where someone is coming from, and you'd know how to deal with them better. e.g. a starving child who steals, vs a grown adult who is stealing for kicks. Due process of law would treat both the same. But if you understood the background of someone, would you judge the child differently, in all fairness? Is it not further abuse to send that child to jail for e.g.

Making the right choice, is not always making the best choice. And the best choice is never a perfect one with humans.

'Tis why the process for any system that wishes to grow, needs be relative, vs absolute.

Your fear is that you'd be rejected if you went too far, without knowing what "too far" is, isn't it? But it is the very system of relativity which gives you the chance for redemption, should you go too far too, do you see that?

In the way, me, or whatever, I'm sure, would pull you back if we thought you were going to be jumped off a cliff.

In the way the mods/admins would probably PM you separately to explain further before things go badly wrong.

In the way if you were to be banned, there'd be a chance of coming back.

So, don't fear the unknown. You'd never be able to define rules for everything. But it should not be the reason to avoid everything.

Just know that broadly, if you treat others with respect, if you're honest with where you're coming from, you'll cultivate friendships and a support network. Then you'd not go wrong, both here, and in real life.

You'd make mistakes, as we all do. But you'd have the support of people whom you matter to.

That's what a system of relativity offers. Second chances.

 

[Athenian200]

Why is it after Haight posts, a thread tends to freeze up?

Athenian:

I think you've found your answer gradually as this thread progressed. But the difficulty you have is in accepting it, isn't it?

There are more ways to live than one, and more ways of perceptions and understandings than one.

But when there's a conflict, doesn't that mean I'm forced to accept someone else's without them explaining their reasoning? I don't really like the idea of having other people's experiences and values shoved down my throat with nothing else to appeal to to protect myself from that. People's personal experiences and values can be a poor substitute for really understanding a situation by examining it.

But with humans, to do this would mean you'd end up defining infinitesimal rules for every single action and reaction. Theoretically possible, but practically, it would kill a lot of opportunities for growth.

I don't really feel like growth is automatically the best thing there is. I only want to grow towards being better and understanding more, not just in any which way. I don't really see life in terms of opportunities and seeking growth. I see it more as setting and occasionally reassessing goals while avoiding pain.

So, don't fear the unknown. You'd never be able to define rules for everything. But it should not be the reason to avoid everything.

Well, no. But the way I see it, I only really need to agree with the people I'm going to interact with on the rules governing the behaviors I take, and those that the people who around me take. That's significantly less work. And the systems that are normally defined by people and governments seem to cover more of these than I would ever use in most cases. Honestly, it almost seems like there are enough people like me that are confused without having enough rules and systems in place to prevent people from forcing particular values and experiences down people's throats, and are afraid of what is unknown, that they have shaped certain aspects of our society. I can see things in society that reflect my own thinking. One of them is something many people complain about... bureaucracy and "red tape." Is that sad?

Just know that broadly, if you treat others with respect, if you're honest with where you're coming from, you'll cultivate friendships and a support network. Then you'd not go wrong, both here, and in real life.

But how I can I rely on something that isn't really tangible? Okay, what reason do people have to be my friend and become a part of my support network, and stay there for a while, merely because I respect them and am honest with them? If that were all that was really needed, wouldn't other people have already figured this out and mined up all the available support for themselves in order to succeed, leaving everyone else at their mercy?

You'd make mistakes, as we all do. But you'd have the support of people whom you matter to.

But I have no way of knowing that I matter to anyone. People say I do, but they could just be saying that so they can get what they want, and then don't really plan to support me or be a real friend. It seems like a reasonable thing to apply to friendships, but I would like to have something to fall back on to stay alive and not be punished unfairly that doesn't depend on people liking me. Something a little more visible and reliable, you know what I mean?

 

[ThatsWhatHeSaid]

I don't like to relate things to my own experiences, I want to relate them to something less individual than that, because forcing my own experiences to be a guideline for other people doesn't make sense. Just because I went through something doesn't automatically mean someone else deserves to go through it, or that what was created in me by the experience was automatically something desirable.

I'm not sure what the bold parts have to do with anything. You seem to be stuck in making judgments and values, and that's not what we're talking about here. We're not talking about right and wrong, desirable and undesirable. We're talking about assuming the other person's perspective to simply connect the dots, not to judge the final picture. Maybe I didn't understand your response. Enlighten me, please.

I don't see it this way. It's more, how do I know whether something is acceptable or not if the answer changes from moment to moment based on connections that aren't obvious? I'm just asking, am I literally going to be punished (rather unfairly) for not seeing and reacting to these connections, simply because some people expect me to be able to see and react to them?

I'm not really good at thinking on my feet, and I don't really like to be spontaneous. I like to be able to know that I can avoid being in trouble/danger from not being able to see these connections quickly like many people can (I've found that I can see them, but I need time, and most people expect it rather automatically, which I can't do.)

Okay. I'm not going to try to defend my analysis because the point is to help you, if I can, not to convince you of my superior analytical skillz. The point of what I said was to help you open a door to empathy and seeing those "connections," which again, I think are being hidden by your clinging too tightly to your intellect to help navigate through social exchanges because there's something you don't trust your natural self to do. And now, you've got a new layer of things to worry about...being "punished." *shrug* It's cool though.

As to your question, who knows. Honestly? I judged you until you posted this. I still liked you, but I thought you were very rigid and mechanical. I still think you are, but I see it from a new angle -- hypothetically, a fear of rejection -- now. I can relate to that angle since I've experienced that myself in intimate relationships, so I wouldn't hold it against you anymore. Ironic, no? Perhaps what you could do is keep exploring the origin and causes of your fear of being punished. Once you have a grip on it, you can use it to inoculate people you're talking to, much in the way you've inoculated me.

I don't want to just rely on hoping that other people don't become irritated enough by my actions to harm me, physically, legally, or other wise. I'd like something more substantial than that. I don't think the kind of thing I'm asking for is unreasonable.

Just be sincere and listen with an open heart as best you can. I mean it.


Athenian, would you say you judge yourself harshly?

 

[disregard]

But I have no way of knowing that I matter to anyone. People say I do, but they could just be saying that so they can get what they want, and then don't really plan to support me or be a real friend.

You have to put yourself out there and make the first move. People like people that like them.

Also, people trust people that trust them. See how this might apply to you.

 

[Ender]

I have to agree with Dana there.

You've posted a few things in the past that have rubbed me the wrong way. The fact I'm an INFP and your comments in the past make it seem like you dislike us INFP's. Up until this thread I had basically just written off your comments, and linked your character to that of my brothers. However I don't dislike you for it, it's who you are and 27yrs of being around my brother has shown me that some people just can't change.

Then you posted this thread, and instead of concreting that assumption it's almost the complete opposite. Now I feel like offering myself as springboard for any question you may have about a situation where you don't understand other's reasoning for their actions. Since you've actually expressed a desire to understand where others are coming from.

The question is, would you be willing to discuss stuff with someone who thinks somewhat paradoxically?

 

[Athenian200]

You have to put yourself out there and make the first move. People like people that like them.

But I don't want to be assertive. Why do people like people that like them? How do they know whether they are actually liked, or whether someone else is pretending to like them?

Also, people trust people that trust them. See how this might apply to you.

Again, why is it so?

Thanks for answering me, by the way. I was worried you might be mad that I thought it was wrong for you to circumvent your ban.

 

[heart]

But I don't want to be assertive. Why do people like people that like them? How do they know whether they are actually liked, or whether someone else is pretending to like them?

Sometimes a person just has to have faith and courage and push forward, dare to trust. Risk rejection. Rejection hurts but does not kill. Or I'd be long dead!

 

[Athenian200]

I'm not sure what the bold parts have to do with anything. You seem to be stuck in making judgments and values, and that's not what we're talking about here. We're not talking about right and wrong, desirable and undesirable. We're talking about assuming the other person's perspective to simply connect the dots, not to judge the final picture. Maybe I didn't understand your response. Enlighten me, please.

But I don't know how to connect dots without making judgments. It's like I can't even see a situation without making judgments about it's nature to some degree. I probably did miss your point.

As to your question, who knows. Honestly? I judged you until you posted this. I still liked you, but I thought you were very rigid and mechanical. I still think you are, but I see it from a new angle -- hypothetically, a fear of rejection -- now. I can relate to that angle since I've experienced that myself in intimate relationships, so I wouldn't hold it against you anymore. Ironic, no?

This isn't quite as basic as that. I am willing to trust other people in general, but I want to have something to fall back on so that I'm not forced into a situation where I have to rely on them, and they can do what ever they want to me. I want to have some kind of standard aside from them that allows me to have an escape from a situation in case it reaches that point. I'm just concerned about what other people can force me to do in a legal sense, or from the perspective of threatening my life or security.

If people just don't think well of me, but aren't going to do anything to me (such as kill me, physically harm me, destroy my career, or take things from me), then I can live with that, although I wouldn't like it.

Athenian, would you say you judge yourself harshly?

I would say that I judge everything the same way, and there might be harshness in that.

 

[Metamorphosis]

But I don't want to be assertive. Why do people like people that like them? How do they know whether they are actually liked, or whether someone else is pretending to like them?


Again, why is it so?

Thanks for answering me, by the way. I was worried you might be mad that I thought it was wrong for you to circumvent your ban.

Are you saying that you want people to make the effort to get to know/like you, but you aren't willing to respond in kind? Or are you saying that you don't care if people like you and understand you or not.

 

[disregard]

But I don't want to be assertive. Why do people like people that like them? How do they know whether they are actually liked, or whether someone else is pretending to like them?

You don't have to be assertive.. you just have to be receptive. People like to feel like they're being given a chance and not being put through an invisible test. How do they know whether they are actually liked? Well, some people pretend to like others, but most people don't.. or at least I give most people the benefit of the doubt. My adherence to that principle has served me well. I can think of a handful of people that have taken advantage of my receptiveness and niceness, but it didn't ruin everything for me. I had to chalk it up to some unknown factor getting in the way of their taking to me.

Again, why is it so?

Thanks for answering me, by the way. I was worried you might be mad that I thought it was wrong for you to circumvent your ban.

Why is it so with trust? Well... when someone doesn't trust you... it's insulting. It means they have judged you before you have done something worthy of deeming untrustworthy. That gives you a reason not to trust them, because no matter what you do.. you do not know what their internal response will be.

I do like you, and I don't hold any of that against you.