User Tag List

First 1656646566676876 Last

Results 651 to 660 of 870

  1. #651
    Vulnerability Eilonwy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    4 sp/so
    Posts
    6,176

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by March View Post
    I don't think it's being argued that the lines are blurry for INFJs, but rather that it's wrong-headed (or maybe just ill-advised?) of INFJs to have rigid lines like that.
    It's not that lines shouldn't be drawn. It's that the lines are being drawn before fully understanding the information that's being presented, and that there's little to no chance of those lines being redrawn once they are in place. Little to no chance that the information will be revisited, rethought, reinterpreted, once new information is presented. New information is rejected or rationalized as being unimportant because redrawing the lines takes a lot of restructuring of mental frameworks.

    Of the choices you presented, I'll go with ill-advised.
    Johari / Nohari

    “That we are capable only of being what we are remains our unforgivable sin.” ― Gene Wolfe

    reminder to self: "That YOU that you are so proud of is a story woven together by your interpreter module to account for as much of your behavior as it can incorporate, and it denies or rationalizes the rest." "Who's in Charge? Free Will and the Science of the Brain" by Michael S. Gazzaniga

  2. #652
    Member March's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    4w5
    Posts
    54

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Eilonwy View Post
    It's not that lines shouldn't be drawn. It's that the lines are being drawn before fully understanding the information that's being presented, and that there's little to no chance of those lines being redrawn once they are in place. Little to no chance that the information will be revisited, rethought, reinterpreted, once new information is presented. New information is rejected or rationalized as being unimportant because redrawing the lines takes a lot of restructuring of mental frameworks.
    Hmm, is that what the ick-reaction to 'investment' is about?

    'Cause they seem like two different things to me - I can (and do) revisit, rethink, reinterpret information even while completely disinvested in the person who provided me with that information. I've cut all ties and burned all bridges with my old boss, I hope he gets his comeuppance for what he put me and others through, and I never want to speak to him again. But the dude definitely did have a couple of good points, and I've learned from them and am still learning from them even though I haven't gotten any new info out of him for three years now.

    And even with people who I've not disinvested myself of but just drifted away from, their perspectives still regularly influence and update my course of action and scope of interpretation.

    The whole thing with investing in someone is that they get to dictate the schedule of me investigating/incorporating that information. If my husband, my boss or anyone on my invested list is displeased with me, I drop EVERYTHING until I understand and fix it. Whereas with people who I'm not invested in I'll work on my understanding when I decide to. It's not like I toss their information out the window and forget it existed, it just loses the privilege of being allowed to go directly to the top of the 'Current Projects' list and gets entered onto the 'Someday/Not scheduled' list instead, just like every other thing that may be worthwhile picking up at some point.

  3. #653
    Vulnerability Eilonwy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    4 sp/so
    Posts
    6,176

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by March View Post
    Hmm, is that what the ick-reaction to 'investment' is about?
    Maybe. Energy draining, slooooooooooooow processing area for us, it seems--the reframing. *We, possibly unconsciously, find ways to avoid doing it. I'm trying to find ways to speed the process up or find short-cuts. I'm trying to pay attention to the actual process to see what is going on--where the sticking points might be--how to overcome them (if they can be overcome).

    *ETA


    ETA2: Sorry. Possibly branching the conversation off of track. Going back to letting you concentrate on the main convo.
    Johari / Nohari

    “That we are capable only of being what we are remains our unforgivable sin.” ― Gene Wolfe

    reminder to self: "That YOU that you are so proud of is a story woven together by your interpreter module to account for as much of your behavior as it can incorporate, and it denies or rationalizes the rest." "Who's in Charge? Free Will and the Science of the Brain" by Michael S. Gazzaniga

  4. #654
    can't handcuff the wind Z Buck McFate's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx/sp
    Posts
    3,689

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by March View Post
    I don't think it's being argued that the lines are blurry for INFJs, but rather that it's wrong-headed (or maybe just ill-advised?) of INFJs to have rigid lines like that. Which is why I hoped people who did not use the 'invest' term themselves could explain what they think it means.
    The 'blurry lines' notion is because I asked @phobik what he meant- I didn't really understand his response (apparently the loose notion of what I thought he meant was incorrect, if what you say is true), and I didn't bother pursuing it. [And not pursuing it has nothing to do with phobik, per se, but because this thread/topic has become more tedious than it's worth to me.]

    I think personally (and it feels somehow farcical of me to post, since I'm only reading the comments of half the people posting in this conversation, but here I go anyway), the beef I have with this whole thing is that it seems to me like I already do see those rigid lines. I feel like something that I already know is being pointed out over and over again. I'm okay with those rigid lines being there, and take responsibility for it in my own life with my relationships to others. But .


    [And the tagging was totally okay- I know what you mean about feeling the need to tag someone if you mention them by name, especially in a thread where there's been a little bit of hostility.]
    Reality is a collective hunch. -Lily Tomlin

    5w4 sx/sp Johari / Nohari

  5. #655
    Vulnerability Eilonwy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    4 sp/so
    Posts
    6,176

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Z Buck McFate View Post
    I'm okay with those rigid lines being there, and take responsibility for it in my own life with my relationships to others. But .
    Sorry to once again bring you back to this thread. I see a problem between how what you stated works in real life versus online. In real life it's much easier to enforce the lines you've drawn by avoiding people/information that is outside of the lines, thus taking responsibility for the lines you've drawn. But this becomes more difficult on a public forum. Yes, you can avoid people/information by ignoring posts, but, since there's a limited population here and discussions which are of interest to you are public and will probably also be of interest to the people you're ignoring, the information will end up leaking through your lines. How do you stay responsible then (a serious question, not being facetious)? How does one participate in public discussion, within a limited population, where one is likely to have to deal with people/information that consistently bumps up against their boundaries? So far, the answer has seemed to be that one or the other is forced to stay out of the discussion, which is fair to neither. So, how does someone with rigid boundaries participate in public discussion and take responsibility for those boundaries without forcing everyone to abide by those same rigid boundaries (again, serious question, not being facetious)?
    Johari / Nohari

    “That we are capable only of being what we are remains our unforgivable sin.” ― Gene Wolfe

    reminder to self: "That YOU that you are so proud of is a story woven together by your interpreter module to account for as much of your behavior as it can incorporate, and it denies or rationalizes the rest." "Who's in Charge? Free Will and the Science of the Brain" by Michael S. Gazzaniga

  6. #656
    FRACTALICIOUS phobik's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    7,371

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Eilonwy View Post
    Sorry to once again bring you back to this thread. I see a problem between how what you stated works in real life versus online. In real life it's much easier to enforce the lines you've drawn by avoiding people/information that is outside of the lines, thus taking responsibility for the lines you've drawn. But this becomes more difficult on a public forum. Yes, you can avoid people/information by ignoring posts, but, since there's a limited population here and discussions which are of interest to you are public and will probably also be of interest to the people you're ignoring, the information will end up leaking through your lines. How do you stay responsible then (a serious question, not being facetious)? How does one participate in public discussion, within a limited population, where one is likely to have to deal with people/information that consistently bumps up against their boundaries? So far, the answer has seemed to be that one or the other is forced to stay out of the discussion, which is fair to neither. So, how does someone with rigid boundaries participate in public discussion and take responsibility for those boundaries without forcing everyone to abide by those same rigid boundaries (again, serious question, not being facetious)?
    To avoid criticism, do nothing, say nothing, be nothing.
    ~ Elbert Hubbard

    Music provides one of the clearest examples of a much deeper relation between mathematics and human experience.

  7. #657
    reborn PeaceBaby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    MBTI
    INFP
    Enneagram
    937 so/sx
    Posts
    6,226

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Eilonwy View Post
    Sorry to once again bring you back to this thread. I see a problem between how what you stated works in real life versus online. In real life it's much easier to enforce the lines you've drawn by avoiding people/information that is outside of the lines, thus taking responsibility for the lines you've drawn. But this becomes more difficult on a public forum. Yes, you can avoid people/information by ignoring posts, but, since there's a limited population here and discussions which are of interest to you are public and will probably also be of interest to the people you're ignoring, the information will end up leaking through your lines. How do you stay responsible then (a serious question, not being facetious)? How does one participate in public discussion, within a limited population, where one is likely to have to deal with people/information that consistently bumps up against their boundaries? So far, the answer has seemed to be that one or the other is forced to stay out of the discussion, which is fair to neither. So, how does someone with rigid boundaries participate in public discussion and take responsibility for those boundaries without forcing everyone to abide by those same rigid boundaries (again, serious question, not being facetious)?
    This is an excellent post and really pertinent questions.

    Part of the issue is that some persons with rigid boundaries continue to talk about the topics related to previous discussions. Essentially, what they have done is put a de facto gag order over every person and opposing piece of information moving forward because those people have been asked to not "participate". The "rigid boundary" person can always find out indirectly what is going on via rep and PM, and can reply indirectly through alliances and sympathizers. And we know this happens time and time again. Thus, it is not so much about boundaries to me as it about control. A desire to force everyone around them to participate by their own subjective whimsy.

    And not only a desire to control information. A desire to control impressions of themselves as a suffering harassed victim and the person wishing to continue discussion as the aggressive pursuer. This desire to control the external reality via not only information control but image control is pervasively hurtful since the dynamic that exists in the actual discourse is not this dynamic at all. Yet the repercussions of implied rumor reverberate long and far for any individual who dares to discuss anything outside of this highly managed comfort zone.

    There's a reason why free speech is upheld in the constitutions of many countries. It is the cornerstone of equality.

    If a person has boundaries, most people desire to respect them as best as they can. If someone is trying to shut other people up and control them, force them into a subjugated position via power play, it's very dangerous to abide by that because frankly, all those potentially silenced pov's matter too. In esse, that is what's going on here. The patent lack of logic demonstrated by selectively choosing which information to regard yet replying as though one has the full picture view is astounding. And it's ok to be illogical. But let's not claim that we're being logical in the broad brush strokes of the definition.

    The ignore function isn't supposed to be for ignoring other people. It's to ignore any unwanted or difficult emotional reaction one feels to other people.

    Reach out and claim irrationality!
    "Remember always that you not only have the right to be an individual, you have an obligation to be one."
    Eleanor Roosevelt


    "When people see some things as beautiful,
    other things become ugly.
    When people see some things as good,
    other things become bad."
    Lao Tzu, Tao Te Ching

  8. #658
    FRACTALICIOUS phobik's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    7,371

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by PeaceBaby View Post
    This is an excellent post and really pertinent questions.

    Part of the issue is that some persons with rigid boundaries continue to talk about the topics related to previous discussions. Essentially, what they have done is put a de facto gag order over every person and opposing piece of information moving forward because those people have been asked to not "participate". The "rigid boundary" person can always find out indirectly what is going on via rep and PM, and can reply indirectly through alliances and sympathizers. And we know this happens time and time again. Thus, it is not so much about boundaries to me as it about control. A desire to force everyone around them to participate by their own subjective whimsy.

    And not only a desire to control information. A desire to control impressions of themselves as a suffering harassed victim and the person wishing to continue discussion as the aggressive pursuer. This desire to control the external reality via not only information control but image control is pervasively hurtful since the dynamic that exists in the actual discourse is not this dynamic at all. Yet the repercussions of implied rumor reverberate long and far for any individual who dares to discuss anything outside of this highly managed comfort zone.

    There's a reason why free speech is upheld in the constitutions of many countries. It is the cornerstone of equality.

    If a person has boundaries, most people desire to respect them as best as they can. If someone is trying to shut other people up and control them, force them into a subjugated position via power play, it's very dangerous to abide by that because frankly, all those potentially silenced pov's matter too. In esse, that is what's going on here. The patent lack of logic demonstrated by selectively choosing which information to regard yet replying as though one has the full picture view is astounding. And it's ok to be illogical. But let's not claim that we're being logical in the broad brush strokes of the definition.

    The ignore function isn't supposed to be for ignoring other people. It's to ignore any unwanted or difficult emotional reaction one feels to other people.
    Touché.



    Reach out and claim irrationality and touch faith!
    To avoid criticism, do nothing, say nothing, be nothing.
    ~ Elbert Hubbard

    Music provides one of the clearest examples of a much deeper relation between mathematics and human experience.

  9. #659
    can't handcuff the wind Z Buck McFate's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx/sp
    Posts
    3,689

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Eilonwy View Post
    Sorry to once again bring you back to this thread. I see a problem between how what you stated works in real life versus online. In real life it's much easier to enforce the lines you've drawn by avoiding people/information that is outside of the lines, thus taking responsibility for the lines you've drawn. But this becomes more difficult on a public forum. Yes, you can avoid people/information by ignoring posts, but, since there's a limited population here and discussions which are of interest to you are public and will probably also be of interest to the people you're ignoring, the information will end up leaking through your lines. How do you stay responsible then (a serious question, not being facetious)? How does one participate in public discussion, within a limited population, where one is likely to have to deal with people/information that consistently bumps up against their boundaries? So far, the answer has seemed to be that one or the other is forced to stay out of the discussion, which is fair to neither. So, how does someone with rigid boundaries participate in public discussion and take responsibility for those boundaries without forcing everyone to abide by those same rigid boundaries (again, serious question, not being facetious)?
    @bolded- What exactly does this mean, what is "information"?

    I don't really understand what you're asking. There are more than a couple people in these discussion boards from whom I have gotten the impression would prefer I not engage them- so I don't engage them. I do not feel like this prevents me from participating in discussions. I work around it, primarily because I can't imagine feeling so entitled to the attention of other people that I feel like ALL people owe it to me to pay attention to me regardless of how much I offend them. Honestly- it seems to me like most people here do have tendencies to interact more with certain people than with others. It goes on all the time- individuals avoiding each other. It's just that copious amounts of attention aren't drawn to it because usually the person (who isn't getting the attention they want from certain individuals) isn't make a huge public spectacle of it.

    eta: I really don't see how my choice to avoid interacting with certain individuals is forcing anyone else to avoid interacting with those individuals. I truly don't. Maybe this should be it's own thread- because if it's true, then it certainly should be known to people outside the topic of "INFJ/ENTP relationships". I just seriously doubt there are many people here who can say there isn't at least one individual they tend to steer clear of, just like real life.
    Reality is a collective hunch. -Lily Tomlin

    5w4 sx/sp Johari / Nohari

  10. #660
    Society
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by March View Post
    Let the record state that I agree with your post 100%. You weren't the only person using the 'invest' terminology (and if I didn't do it in this thread, I'm sure I've done it elsewhere - it seems like a great term for that). Mane pulled a couple of 'invest' quotes together and linked them to objectification of people, and I think Peacebaby continued on from that.
    that's a double dose of bullshit:
    1. i quoted examples of INFJs standing up for their right to maintain their own tunnel vision and limit their perspective to whatever perspectives fit their own.
    2. as the doorslam thread shows, people who are close to INFJs can not and should not trust INFJs carrying that mentality to maintain an "investment into their perspectives" anymore then anyone else, regardless if those INFJs are their co workers, life long friends, spouses or even immediate family.

    for a better continuity of this discussion, here's a tip:
    arguing that you are able to respect the boundaries of others and arguing that you have the right to fuck anyone you want makes for a very poor double defense.

Similar Threads

  1. [INFJ] INFJ's - What is your job?
    By ASublett in forum The NF Idyllic (ENFP, INFP, ENFJ, INFJ)
    Replies: 49
    Last Post: 07-14-2013, 06:02 PM
  2. [INFJ] An INFJ not sympathizing...is it normal?
    By Black Hole Sun in forum The NF Idyllic (ENFP, INFP, ENFJ, INFJ)
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 05-20-2012, 10:45 PM
  3. [INFJ] INFJ and Love - Is not having it an issue that needs fixing?
    By kccrush in forum The NF Idyllic (ENFP, INFP, ENFJ, INFJ)
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: 10-08-2010, 07:16 AM
  4. [INFJ] INFJ -Your heart is on your sleeve
    By harmonyizmine in forum The NF Idyllic (ENFP, INFP, ENFJ, INFJ)
    Replies: 32
    Last Post: 01-14-2010, 11:46 PM
  5. [ENTP] Who is the best partner in crime for ENTP women?
    By BlahBlahNounBlah in forum The NT Rationale (ENTP, INTP, ENTJ, INTJ)
    Replies: 63
    Last Post: 11-28-2009, 09:32 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