User Tag List

First 1234 Last

Results 11 to 20 of 45

  1. #11
    Oberon
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Night View Post
    Off-topic, yet I just wanted to comment that I really like the name "Calvin" - seems dignified, yet attentive.
    He's named for my mother's father... but you can be sure that we were also aware of the cartoon character at the time. To this day he has a stuffed tiger named Hobbes.

  2. #12
    Plumage and Moult proteanmix's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Enneagram
    1w2
    Posts
    5,514

    Default

    Interesting you bring this us BlueWing, I was in a eerily similar situation myself and did the same thing your friend did. An INFP friend is involved in a relationship with a married man. This relationship began a little bit over two years ago and since this year the man began divorce proceedings.

    What makes me judgmental of my friend is prior to her entering this adulterous relationship, she ended her engagement because her fiance cheated on her while she was away at graduate school. She was so devastated by this infidelity that her body shut down and she missed a month of work. Imagine my surprise when she tells me she's seeing a married man. I was shocked at her behavior especially after what she went through. I didn't know what to do and I wasn't going to be supportive of her being involved with a married man. We were friends for quite a number of years, so of course my friendship with her meant the world to me. She was/is one of those rare people that the instant I met her, I knew we were going to get along. In fact, I met her when I worked at Victoria's Secret and she came in as a customer and she waited till for my lunch so we could continue our conversation.

    When I finally summoned the courage to ask her why she was involved with a married man because what she did violated my personal values in what I tolerate in a friend, she responded in a way I'd never seen from her. She very pointedly told me that she loved him and that was the end of it. I knew not to push the matter any further because I'd never seen her turn so cold.

    So of course, that threw my relationship with my friend into a chaos. I wondered what kind of person is this? What else could she do that she would justify? She's cheating with a married man with grown children her age. I've met the guy; he's a nice and charming man himself. Then I wonder what kind of person is he? If he's unhappy with his marriage, why not get a divorce so the two of them can be together? Is my friend capable of lying to me about something? And all other sorts of questions ran through my mind for months while I deliberated. It wasn't a simple XYZ matter.

    I love my friend. Mistakes are forgivable and I'd want to be forgiven for mine. But my friend didn't believe she'd done anything wrong (and still doesn't). She didn't end the relationship and she didn't seem to feel any guilt about it. The one time I tried to broach the subject about the ethics of what she was doing she cut me down real quick. Where are her personal values?? Why was she so devastated when her fiance cheated on her? It's all relative right? Maybe the woman her man cheated with really loved him and that made it all good.

    Here's another example: I was once talking to a guy and I asked him if he'd ever cheated before. I greatly appreciated his honest of answer of yes, twice before. And guess what? That relationship didn't go any further. Was I being judgmental? Gotdamn right! He very well may not have cheated on me if we got involved but I decided based on his admission that that wasn't a chance I was going to take. If I missed out on the most wonderful relationship I'd have ever known then that's my bad. I made my decision and I don't regret it.

    If that makes me judgmental and black and white, then fine, that's what I am. Things are right and things are wrong. I acknowledge shades of gray but that black and white still exists. What my friend did violated my personal values. This doesn't mean that my friend is a totally bad person nor does this mean that our friendship will never be rekindled. It's just right now, I can't be friends with her. If she ever needs me for anything, I'll be there but I can't help but add this new information about what she's willing to do into my perception of her.
    Relationships have normal ebbs and flows. They do not automatically get better and better when the participants learn more and more about each other. Instead, the participants have to work through the tensions of the relationship (the dialectic) while they learn and group themselves and a parties in a relationships. At times the relationships is very open and sharing. Other time, one or both parties to the relationship need their space, or have other concerns, and the relationship is less open. The theory posits that these cycles occur throughout the life of the relationship as the persons try to balance their needs for privacy and open relationship.
    Interpersonal Communication Theories and Concepts
    Social Penetration Theory 1
    Social Penetration Theory 2
    Social Penetration Theory 3

  3. #13
    @.~*virinaĉo*~.@ Totenkindly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    FREE
    Enneagram
    594 sx/sp
    Socionics
    LII Ne
    Posts
    42,333

    Default

    Thank you for offering the other side of the coin, PM. I always enjoy reading your posts because you articulate your ideas so well. It is definitely something to think about.

    It was funny because when I was reading, I was reminded of a friend who did the same thing... and she was an INFP as well. But I don't know if it was as much a type thing. Many people have trouble applying the rules they have set up for life in the past when they find themselves emotionally attached to someone.

    I think I simply can detach a little bit; I hate what they are doing, but if there are other parts of the person I value, I can still empathize and connect with them. But yes, the more jarring the behavior and alignment with my own values, the less easy it is to retain a connection. People can grow apart that way.
    "Hey Capa -- We're only stardust." ~ "Sunshine"

    “Pleasure to me is wonder—the unexplored, the unexpected, the thing that is hidden and the changeless thing that lurks behind superficial mutability. To trace the remote in the immediate; the eternal in the ephemeral; the past in the present; the infinite in the finite; these are to me the springs of delight and beauty.” ~ H.P. Lovecraft

  4. #14
    ~dangerous curves ahead~
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Posts
    2,590

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BlueWing View Post
    I dont think that individuals like this particular EJ have any kind of personal values at all. They do not look at the current situation, they merely follow instructions on how to treat them. One size fits all, or one rule applies to all circumstances that are depicted in the statement. Here it gets to the point where it is not about personal values any more, but simply about the rules insisting on putting on an image of adherence to particular values.

    Appears to me that such an attitude is prevalent in our society over that favoring genuine contemplation of personal values (akin to Fi). What I think we need is not a set of rules on how we should feel and what we should do, but an attitude that leads us to concoct values of our own.

    Or in other words, we should not allow any proposition within the realm of our maxims unless we first have thought it through for ourselves and decided for that to be congenial.

    If we do otherwise, can we earnestly say that our principles have substance if they are but a mirror image of the principles our group maintains? Can we really claim those as our *personal* values?
    I think we choose to accept people on their own terms. Or reject them on ours. Do agree with Jennifer that no one else could meet our standards, and neither could we meet all of theirs.

    Compromise is then choosing what we can live with, and want to live without. Think we all evolve our values from a set of inherited ones we grew up with, tested and challenged by personal experiences.

    Perhaps your friend has simply found that the sanctity of marriage should not be challenged?

    I hesitate to say your friend has no personal values just because she conforms to the group values. Perhaps the over-riding value to her is maintaining consensus and the ideal of marriage "and in so choosing you, forsake all others", as she's been brought up to believe in, vs standing by a friend then. There's no right or wrong in that? Perhaps when it is a purely inherited set of values, it is an easy way out of thinking. But that is their choice?

    Ultimately the values guide each of us to make choices and decisions. For better or worse, we live by those choices. FWIW. . I'd rather someone with a set of values, no matter how different from mine, or whether it is blind adherence to a group system, vs someone with no values at all?

  5. #15
    Senior Member ptgatsby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    ISTP
    Posts
    4,474

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by proteanmix View Post
    If that makes me judgmental and black and white, then fine, that's what I am. Things are right and things are wrong. I acknowledge shades of gray but that black and white still exists. What my friend did violated my personal values. This doesn't mean that my friend is a totally bad person nor does this mean that our friendship will never be rekindled. It's just right now, I can't be friends with her. If she ever needs me for anything, I'll be there but I can't help but add this new information about what she's willing to do into my perception of her.
    I agree completely. Things are black and white when it comes to making a decision about a friend... although you are nicer to your friend than I would of been.

    Being a weak person may result in cheating, stealing and other things I disagree with (I am also capable of such things, as is anyone)... but I would never put up with a friend perptuating a situation that harmed them - and over the long term no less. I feel that there is an implicit duty in raising the cost of such actions and removing the friendship is just that. I also see it as someone who failed a significant moral test and that should shake the foundation of a friendship... Any long term action that become self-justified shows that they may also be willing to do the same to myself or others I care about.

    I also believe in evaluating each individual situation - however a rule of thumb does not make it false... quite the opposite. Cheating is breaking an agreement - a close intimate one at that - and is a huge signal for not wanting that kind of person in a friendship. Weak, cruel, damaged or just not in agreement on morality of the action... it all adds up to not wanting to have them as a friend. Not supporting or trusting those that cheat makes pretty good sense and there are nearly no exceptions that don't involve a failure of responsibility or control.

  6. #16
    Plumage and Moult proteanmix's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Enneagram
    1w2
    Posts
    5,514

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by aelan View Post
    Perhaps your friend has simply found that the sanctity of marriage should not be challenged?

    I hesitate to say your friend has no personal values just because she conforms to the group values. Perhaps the over-riding value to her is maintaining consensus and the ideal of marriage "and in so choosing you, forsake all others", as she's been brought up to believe in, vs standing by a friend then. There's no right or wrong in that? Perhaps when it is a purely inherited set of values, it is an easy way out of thinking. But that is their choice?

    Ultimately the values guide each of us to make choices and decisions. For better or worse, we live by those choices. FWIW. . I'd rather someone with a set of values, no matter how different from mine, or whether it is blind adherence to a group system, vs someone with no values at all?
    People here kill me with this EVIL "group values" thing. There are "group values" that are good to have as individual values as well.

    If I'm in a group that values honesty, compassion, kindness, justice, forgiveness, tolerance, integrity and any other scrap of goodness found in this world then I am one of the mindless sheep. I don't think people are free-thinking noncomformists just because they deride what other's value because they're "group values." Maybe it's my birdbrained EJ morality that's coming to the surface. Ideally, I'd like to believe people value these things because they are good and true. Realistically, I don't care why you value them as long as you aren't stealing, murdering, plundering, lying, or any other antonyms.
    Relationships have normal ebbs and flows. They do not automatically get better and better when the participants learn more and more about each other. Instead, the participants have to work through the tensions of the relationship (the dialectic) while they learn and group themselves and a parties in a relationships. At times the relationships is very open and sharing. Other time, one or both parties to the relationship need their space, or have other concerns, and the relationship is less open. The theory posits that these cycles occur throughout the life of the relationship as the persons try to balance their needs for privacy and open relationship.
    Interpersonal Communication Theories and Concepts
    Social Penetration Theory 1
    Social Penetration Theory 2
    Social Penetration Theory 3

  7. #17
    Oberon
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by proteanmix View Post
    People here kill me with this EVIL "group values" thing. There are "group values" that are good to have as individual values as well.

    If I'm in a group that values honesty, compassion, kindness, justice, forgiveness, tolerance, integrity and any other scrap of goodness found in this world then I am one of the mindless sheep. I don't think people are free-thinking noncomformists just because they deride what other's value because they're "group values." Maybe it's my birdbrained EJ morality that's coming to the surface. Ideally, I'd like to believe people value these things because they are good and true. Realistically, I don't care why you value them as long as you aren't stealing, murdering, plundering, lying, or any other antonyms.
    PM, do you remember some time back when I posited the idea that some cultures are just flat better than others, and you rejected the idea?

    Well, seeing this post by you (which I very much agree with, by the way) gives me the chance to say that I think some cultures seem to have more of those "good group values" than others do.

    My statement above says nothing about individuals; it's only about groups, and as such is a gross generalization.

  8. #18
    ~dangerous curves ahead~
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Posts
    2,590

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by proteanmix View Post
    There are "group values" that are good to have as individual values as well.

    If I'm in a group that values honesty, compassion, kindness, justice, forgiveness, tolerance, integrity and any other scrap of goodness found in this world then I am one of the mindless sheep. I don't think people are free-thinking noncomformists just because they deride what other's value because they're "group values." Maybe it's my birdbrained EJ morality that's coming to the surface. Ideally, I'd like to believe people value these things because they are good and true. Realistically, I don't care why you value them as long as you aren't stealing, murdering, plundering, lying, or any other antonyms.
    Agreed that there're values in groups that are definitely good, which individuals may be too blind/selfish to see. At the end of the day, we do want to belong somewhere, and that means subscribing to a set of values, whether the obedience comes in form or substance.

    Protean, I did not mean in anyway that group values were evil btw. All I was trying to say was Bluewing's friend made a decision based on what was important, and has worked for her, and I saw nothing wrong in that. That it may conflict with Bluewing's own ideals of values, but it does not make it wrong. And the important thing was at least she made the choice. vs someone with no values and would make no choice. Hope that clarifies. .

  9. #19
    Plumage and Moult proteanmix's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Enneagram
    1w2
    Posts
    5,514

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by oberon View Post
    PM, do you remember some time back when I posited the idea that some cultures are just flat better than others, and you rejected the idea?

    Well, seeing this post by you (which I very much agree with, by the way) gives me the chance to say that I think some cultures seem to have more of those "good group values" than others do.

    My statement above says nothing about individuals; it's only about groups, and as such is a gross generalization.
    Ah, snap! A post has come back to haunt me!

    OK, I don't want to hang myself or anything so this is how I will gingerly answer you. In that post, I was referring to the hypocrisy of Western cultures and foisting what they/we consider good upon another and then devaluing what the other considers good. The thing in question could be neutral, but it's made a political prop because of competing ideologies. But generally, yes, I understand what you meant.

    I also wanted to add this regarding the OP.

    Cheating once is one thing but being a cheater is different. To me, this implies that this is some lack of morality. We all lie, but being a persistent liar (IMO) is different from lying. And then to top it all of, no signs of remorse or guilt or acknowledgment that something wrong is happening. I don't know if this makes any sense, but there is a distinction that I make.

    I tried to think of the circumstances and envision my friend in various ones. Night mentioned that this is akin to dismissing someone based on topical observation. What's superficial about this? In my case, I asked my friend why she was cheating and the best she could muster is "I love him." Where's her obligation to other people? Is it just what feels good to me and makes me happy? I have no obligation to be loyal to that kind of person, friend or not. How many lives is she affecting by doing what she's doing? When the affair began, he was married with two children. If you're speeding in a car drunk in a desert then the worse damage you can do is hit a cactus and kill yourself. If you're speeding on a busy highway then you can harm others. What kind of scenarios can I forecast that would justify this and make it more than topical observation? How is this illogical? I'm not sure if I ever bought a boyfriend around her and if she was attracted to him that she wouldn't make a move on him. I'm not sure that she wouldn't lie to me. I'm not sure about who my friend is. I thought one thing, but evidently it's not the case.

    I'm really surprised at some of the comments people have made. I don't see how this is a small thing. What exactly needs to happen with a friend that would compel you to end the friendship? I always take into account how my friends treat other people. If I observed a friend of mine kick a dog or a homeless person or lie persistently the first thing I would do would try to figure out why they did such things. Even if they never did it to me, I'm still logging all of this in my mind. If they don't seem like they have any compunctions against this, then their friend application gets re-evaluated and may get a big red REJECTED stamp.
    Relationships have normal ebbs and flows. They do not automatically get better and better when the participants learn more and more about each other. Instead, the participants have to work through the tensions of the relationship (the dialectic) while they learn and group themselves and a parties in a relationships. At times the relationships is very open and sharing. Other time, one or both parties to the relationship need their space, or have other concerns, and the relationship is less open. The theory posits that these cycles occur throughout the life of the relationship as the persons try to balance their needs for privacy and open relationship.
    Interpersonal Communication Theories and Concepts
    Social Penetration Theory 1
    Social Penetration Theory 2
    Social Penetration Theory 3

  10. #20
    Protocol Droid Athenian200's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    4w5
    Posts
    8,828

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BlueWing View Post
    Recently, I've had a talk with a friend of whose values I cannot approve. She claimed that we should exclude all of those who are thieves, liars, adulterers..etc..from our company...

    And brought around an example of how she just severed ties with an INFP because she was seeing a married man.

    I asked her, does this show that the INFP would be incompetent as a friend? Because she did this, does this mean she would mistreat you.

    And she answered..this is where my Fe kicks in over Fi...would you be friends with a liar? A thief? An adulterer..?

    I answered something along those lines..you EJs have this 'no brainer' approach to ethics..if someone has this or that quality they have to be treated in that particular fashion. Almost like a rule of thumb.

    That is not really thinking, that is applying the thoughts of others. I, for my part would not look at those pesky labels like 'liar, thief..' and so on..and assess the matter as a thing in itself.

    In the end, she had nothing to say but simply that because of one's status as an adulterer..they are unfit for 'friendship'...

    I dont think that individuals like this particular EJ have any kind of personal values at all. They do not look at the current situation, they merely follow instructions on how to treat them. One size fits all, or one rule applies to all circumstances that are depicted in the statement. Here it gets to the point where it is not about personal values any more, but simply about the rules insisting on putting on an image of adherence to particular values.
    Well, what else are you going to use? I mean, you have to come up with a standard from something. You have to set a mark somewhere, so that the boundaries and meaning are understood. That's just how you have to evaluate anything. For instance, I decide that I have lifted a pen three inches off of the ground relative to it's previous location by using a ruler. Does using that standard, or expecting the pen to be three rather than two or four inches off the ground seem unreasonable? Would you complain that I should be using centimeters instead of inches in some situations, but not tell which case is which? That's why such standards have to be set, so that we know how to respond when certain points are reached, or even what points should/do exist. Even in logic, people study and realize that things are met in particular ways, like the scientific method or syllogisms. You have to create rules and methods to deal with and understand feelings as well. Perhaps the standards should have been more abstract than they were, but they must exist in one form or another in order to evaluate something in terms of something else, even a value system.
    Appears to me that such an attitude is prevalent in our society over that favoring genuine contemplation of personal values (akin to Fi). What I think we need is not a set of rules on how we should feel and what we should do, but an attitude that leads us to concoct values of our own.

    Or in other words, we should not allow any proposition within the realm of our maxims unless we first have thought it through for ourselves and decided for that to be congenial.

    If we do otherwise, can we earnestly say that our principles have substance if they are but a mirror image of the principles our group maintains? Can we really claim those as our *personal* values?
    But the problem is that to have a coherent society, people must share certain values. People who only contemplate their own values will come to different conclusions about what is right and wrong, and if people don't agree on what is right and wrong, they cannot coexist. The approach you described works for logic, because logic can only come to one answer given a particular set of input and a particular goal. The order on feelings must be imposed from the outside consensus, because they have no inherent order on their own, at least not outside of any one individual, and often not even there.

Similar Threads

  1. INFP – Motivated by personal values that are rarely shared
    By highlander in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 03-26-2014, 10:01 PM
  2. Personal Values, Morality, Principles, and Practicality.
    By figsfiggyfigs in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 31
    Last Post: 06-29-2011, 08:01 PM
  3. [MBTItm] Personal values are intellectually superior to a false sense of objectivity
    By foolish heart in forum The NT Rationale (ENTP, INTP, ENTJ, INTJ)
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 11-10-2009, 02:23 PM
  4. Personality traits most valued in your country?
    By autumn in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 66
    Last Post: 10-29-2008, 10:53 PM
  5. Replies: 7
    Last Post: 03-20-2008, 03:07 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO