User Tag List

First 1969109117118119120121129169 Last

Results 1,181 to 1,190 of 1696

  1. #1181
    Senior Member cafe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    9w1
    Socionics
    INFj None
    Posts
    9,827

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mane View Post
    because defining your mental health by your willingness to play into the pretend universes of others in which you don't exist has being a hassle for the psychiatric association.
    Unless a person is not legally competent no one else has a right to make that determination about who they associate with regardless of whether or not one believes them to be mentally healthy. If a person has a psychosis that makes them a danger to themselves or others, then, yes, they may need some kind of guardianship otherwise, why is it okay to force yourself into their life regardless of their wishes?
    “There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old’s life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs.”
    ~ John Rogers

  2. #1182
    Society
    Guest

    Default

    on a general side note - you are repeating this part:

    Quote Originally Posted by Mane View Post
    i've addressed this earlier, but to clarify further: there is "trying to explain" (examine, "how does this work"*, ) and there is "trying to explain" (justify, "explain yourself young lady!"). for whatever reason, a lot of the INFJs seem to read the first as the later, or perhaps find the two hard to distinguish. either way, the result is that the general responses here people have gotten for talking about their problems with INFJs (and expressing a desire to get a better grasp of them) has mostly being composed of self righteous justifications and attempts at establishing ideological support for causing the same problems**. in doing so you essentially change the topic from "how it works" to "is it justified", and in turn whether the arguments and ideological framework placed to support it are justified, resulting in you feeling on trial, and the response of anyone coming with their own personal experiences is then to the argue against the justifications using those personal experiences, so you end up feeling on trial for other people's personal experiences.

    ..and round and round the merry go round.

    ...and perhaps so am i just repeating the next part by answering you. here we go again:

    __________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ __________________

    Quote Originally Posted by cafe View Post
    Unless a person is not legally competent no one else has a right to make that determination about who they associate with regardless of whether or not one believes them to be mentally healthy.
    since when did rights become a cop out from being responsible for how you practice them? just because i believe in the right for free speech doesn't mean i can't recognize that practicing it certain ways can make me into an asshole.

    Quote Originally Posted by cafe View Post
    why is it okay to force yourself into their life regardless of their wishes?
    when are you not forcing yourself on everyone's lives? everyone else in this universe has little to no choice but to live with the consequences you have on them, likewise they are in turn forcing themselves on you. unless we are all figments of your imagination, then its rather safe to say we live in the same universe, regardless of which parts of it you choose to look at, they will still be there, and they will still be forced to experience the consequences of anything you do, worst so if you also try to force them to pretend that they and those consequences upon their lives don't exist as well. do you need to look beyond this thread to find examples of such potential consequences? do you think any of the doorslammed people in this thread (or anywhere) get to live without the actions & consequences of the doorslammer forced on them? just because the doorslammer chooses not to look at what they do to people doesn't mean they aren't forcing themselves onto them.

  3. #1183
    Senior Member cafe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    9w1
    Socionics
    INFj None
    Posts
    9,827

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mane View Post
    since when did rights become a cop out from being responsible for how you practice them? just because i believe in the right for free speech doesn't mean i can't recognize that practicing it certain ways can make me into an asshole.
    I can see how such a thing is unpleasant and can hurt a great deal. I haven't liked it when people have chosen not to interact with me. I felt hurt and misunderstood and sad. I never felt as though the appropriate response was to try to make them communicate with me whether they wanted to or not or that they had any obligation to justify their actions to me. At least not in any kind of social/relational situation.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mane View Post
    when are you not forcing yourself on everyone's lives? everyone else in this universe has little to no choice but to live with the consequences you have on them, likewise they are in turn forcing themselves on you. unless we are all figments of your imagination, then its rather safe to say we live in the same universe, regardless of which parts of it you choose to look at, they will still be there, and they will still be forced to experience the consequences of anything you do, worst so if you also try to force them to pretend that they and those consequences upon their lives don't exist as well. do you need to look beyond this thread to find examples of such potential consequences?
    When, after several attempts at interaction, it becomes clear that I'm being avoided I can't imagine why I would not back off. What horrible thing is going to happen to me as a result? Generally nothing but sadness and regret and a feeling of longing or missing. I do not see why anyone else should give up their autonomy and be made to feel uncomfortable so that I do not have to experience those things. It's an artificial situation in which another human being would be enduring my presence out of a sense of obligation or pity or guilt. I don't see that as being in any way superior to feeling sad and lonely. I think even if it were my husband, whom I love, I'd rather he left than live with me in misery and guilt. My heart would be broken, but I could grieve and move on. If I really care about someone, why would I want to inflict myself upon them if it made them unhappy?
    “There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old’s life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs.”
    ~ John Rogers

  4. #1184
    Society
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by cafe View Post
    What horrible thing is going to happen to me as a result?I think even if it were my husband, whom I love, I'd rather he left than live with me in misery and guilt.
    depends on the specifics. to take your example:
    Quote Originally Posted by cafe View Post
    I think even if it were my husband, whom I love, I'd rather he left than live with me in misery and guilt.
    would you rather he left you with the kids withhold them from contacting you and brainwash them that you abandoned them?
    would you rather he left you with your house your property and assets and left you with no place to live?
    would you rather he left you after you got pregnant with his child who he felt not having?
    (respectively - examples from me, balancefind and lazerdrive)

    the only person who gets to live in the imaginary world where the doorslammer actions aren't forcing their consequences onto others is the doorslammer.

  5. #1185
    Senior Member cafe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    9w1
    Socionics
    INFj None
    Posts
    9,827

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mane View Post
    depends on the specifics. to take your example:


    would you rather he left you with the kids withhold them from contacting you and brainwash them that you abandoned them?
    would you rather he left you with your house your property and assets and left you with no place to live?
    would you rather he left you after you got pregnant with his child who he felt not having?
    (respectively - me, balancefind and lazerdrive)

    the only person who gets to live in the imaginary world where the doorslammer actions aren't forcing themselves onto others is the doorslammer.
    Those are all legal obligations involving parental responsibility and property distribution and I would absolutely address those issues in the appropriate venue to the best of my ability. I would fight for my rights as a parent and joint property owner, but I would not insist that he resume our marriage or socialize with me.

    Edit: And the stuff you describe happens all the time. All the time. Like I can name you a half dozen examples just off the top of my head of people doing stuff like that. It's not an INFJ thing. It's a sucky people thing.
    “There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old’s life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs.”
    ~ John Rogers

  6. #1186

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Southern Kross View Post
    Maybe to both. Maybe they're both partially correct. These deductions aren't necessarily mutually exclusive.

    Jeez, this is so complex. Ideally relationships shouldn't end in a hot blooded manner (and I would consider doorslamming hot-blooded); if you're still mad, you still have feelings. B should be careful not to make a decision too quickly and in the heat of emotion. I think A should fight to keep the relationship if he/she really believes in it, but there comes a point where B's wishes must be accepted, even if they're wrong.

    Sorry these questions aren't easy to answer meaningfully.
    Thank you, your answers show that you have awareness of the general dynamics and nuances of such a relationship...

    I, as an INFJ, really needed the bolded part to be conceded, thank you...

    I have theory about how INFPs here see the problem in the act of doorslamming so please feel free to chime in...

    My assumptions:

    1) Fi-doms operate on a currency of emotions exchanged in relationships:

    You make me feel good you are a friend...I'll scan your emotional landscape and make you feel good in return in my presence...OTOH, you make me feel bad (regardless of whether you intented it or not?) I'll feel entitled (justified/fair) to ask you to sooth my feelings/make reparations or if you don't, I'll feel justified to make you feel bad (using the scanned emotional landscape data) even if you are a friend...? Hence, INFPs do not put emphasis on intentions of the other but the resultant effect of the other's actions regardless of external circumstances/rules/ regulations/frameworks? So if the other indirectly/unintentionally makes INFPs feel bad about themselves that still (i.e. when healthier methods fail) gives INFPs a casus-belli to intentionally inflict hurt on the other (and feel no remorse)?

    2) Assuming #1 is "roughly" correct; From INFPs' perspective, when INFJs (or anyone else) doorslam/dump someone without due process of exchanging feelings (or salvos?) non-INFJs are accrued/inflicted a hurt/bad feeling but INFJs are not (they get away with it?), which causes an imbalance in feelings exchanged, which is unfair to the non-INFJ?

    Is this "roughly" the core of the problem with the delivery method of the doorslam?

    So INFPs here on the thread are not questioning INFJs' right to resort to doorslam end the relationship but their (INFJs') right (or rather lack thereof) to inflict unilateral hurt and not giving non-INFJs a chance to somehow discharge that bad feeling/energy/hurt (grieving process)?

    Edit 2:

    I was missing the discharge method of bad feelings need not always be negative...It may perhaps either be talking about how the breakup process makes each other feel and exhanging blessings and good feelings (that it was worth it, they valued each other, they will still be remembered etc.) about each other in the healthy INFP case or lashing out verbally to cause emotional anguish in the other (offloading the bad feeling) in the unhealthy INFP case...but the swiftness and no-contact policy of doorslam process removes the venue for non-INFJ to apply either the healthy or unhealthy approach (which may keep shifting momentarily between one extreme or the other depending on the perceived tone of the other party?)...?
    Last edited by yeghor; 01-17-2014 at 06:08 AM. Reason: Blue added + Purple Added

  7. #1187
    RDF
    Guest

    Default

    I haven't read most of the recent round of posts on this subject (doorslamming/INFJs/Fe), and I don't want to get pulled into a discussion. I just want to do a drive-by posting and drop off a personal impression and then back out of the discussion as quickly as possible.

    Thus:

    Everyone cuts off friendships when relations become problematic. If it's true that INFJs do it differently from others, then I think this is because of the way that INFJs form friendships in the first place. Comparing non-INFJs vs INFJs:

    Non-INFJs tend to be kind of cold at first with new friends and only warm up slowly. And if there comes a point where it becomes necessary for a non-INFJ to cool down or break off relations with a new acquaintance or friend, it's not a big deal to cool the friendship back down again; the non-INFJ probably isn't invested heavily in the relationship in the first place.

    INFJs, on the other hand, tend to come on warm and cordial with new friends and even total strangers right from the start. So if there comes a point where it becomes necessary for the INFJ to cool down or break off relations, it can seem a big contrast: The INFJ seemed like they really liked the hell out of you, and suddenly they're acting cool and aloof.

    IOW, the difference lies in the contrast between how the relationship starts and ends: with non-INFJs the contrast isn't so great, whereas with INFJs the relationship is so warm right from the start that a cooling-down phase can seem rather cruel and out-of-the-blue.

    I think the nature of Fe itself is part of the issue:

    Fe seeks harmony and is empathetic. But it's also an organizational (judging) tool, like Te. So Fe-users tend to be exhibit a certain hot-and-cold aspect: Fe-users are empathetic and warm in some settings, but also rather cold-bloodedly manage relations and keep people at a distance in other settings (the "tier mechanism"**). When Fe is in the Dominant position, the contrast can be rather striking: ENFJs in particular are noted for a disparity between demonstrating a lot of personal warmth while simultaneously staying somewhat distant, to the point that they are often accused of glibness or insincerity in their relations with others. ESFJs are similarly very warm but also accused of being suffocating or even bullying. As for Fe in the Auxiliary, INFJs and ISFJs are noted for being cordial and empathetic but can also be avoidant at the same time.

    Just for comparison: Fi works similarly. Fi is value-oriented. But it's also an organizational (judging) tool, like Ti. So Fi-users tend to exhibit a certain hot-and-cold aspect: Fi users are charitable/altruistic in some settings, but also seem very selfish or self-indulgent in other settings.

    It's just the nature of Feeling; as a judging function (an organizational tool), Feeling can be schizophrenic (hot-and-cold) in how it gets exhibited to others.

    To sum up:

    Fe is a schizophrenic, hot-and-cold function. In INFJs in particular, it shows up as a cordiality and warmth early in the relationship that may create an impression of great investment in the relationship. But subsequently Fe will appear in its other aspect (managing relations and keeping people at a distance, IOW, the "tier mechanism"), resulting in a cooling and pushing-away that may be very unexpected to a non-Fe-user and come off as insulting or even catastrophic by contrast with the previous phase.

    Just my personal impressions, of course. Okay, I'm done. *Backs out of the thread quickly.*

    ** The "tier mechanism": the NiJi workbook and shortbus schedule

  8. #1188
    darkened dreams labyrinthine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    isfp
    Enneagram
    4w5 sp/sx
    Posts
    8,125

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by cafe View Post
    Those are all legal obligations involving parental responsibility and property distribution and I would absolutely address those issues in the appropriate venue to the best of my ability. I would fight for my rights as a parent and joint property owner, but I would not insist that he resume our marriage or socialize with me.

    Edit: And the stuff you describe happens all the time. All the time. Like I can name you a half dozen examples just off the top of my head of people doing stuff like that. It's not an INFJ thing. It's a sucky people thing.
    Can I just say I love you, cafe! Everything you said I totally agree with, and I understand even the issue of someone close to you is better away than feeling forced to stay. Even @Mane's example of a man leaving after getting a woman pregnant - if it were me? If he didn't love me and had negative feelings about the pregnancy, there is no way I would ever want to go through hormonal upheavals and physical vulnerability with someone like that. Send me the money and stay the hell away.

    I just ended up in a mutual doorslam situation. My main issue for not resolving it is because I'm confused beyond belief. I was pushed to a psychological break of some strange sort and drove some inlaws away, but not before they said some rather hurtful things as well. I took them off my Facebook but just because I'm too stressed out to have them invade that part of my life. I did tell them afterwards in a text that I didn't have negative thoughts about them, but I wanted to let them know my partner and I had both left for work, so they could come by for their things without concern of us running into each other. I assume they hate me and that this is not fixable.

    They were living with us and the tension built because of hyper-viligence towards everyone's needs but dismissal of mine, and somehow I lost control and screamed and yelled. It was 100% out of character, and the next morning I went into work, but was so dizzy I couldn't walk right, so the secretary canceled my appointments and I slept on the floor of my office all day. I kept having nightmarish images flashing into my mind.

    What happened to me as an INFJ is that I had spent so long surrounded by people whose needs took precedence over mine. In some instance it was rightly so and in others it was the result of self-centered assumptions on the part of others. This resulted in me becoming unable to consciously identify my own preferences (which I still struggle with), and the increased pressure cause some type of subconscious eruption that I actually had no control over. I have zero idea what to say to these people, and I assume that everyone needs to be apart.

    That is what it takes for me to doorslam, although it's not stubbornness on my part because I'm not hating on anyone, but it is what it is.
    Step into my metaphysical room of mirrors.
    Fear of reality creates myopic morality

  9. #1189
    darkened dreams labyrinthine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    isfp
    Enneagram
    4w5 sp/sx
    Posts
    8,125

    Default

    INFPs exit from contact ALL.THE.TIME., so do INTPs, so people should stop calling the kettle black. The irony is in one way annoying, but in another quite entertaining.
    Step into my metaphysical room of mirrors.
    Fear of reality creates myopic morality

  10. #1190
    Society
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by cafe View Post
    Edit: And the stuff you describe happens all the time. All the time. Like I can name you a half dozen examples just off the top of my head of people doing stuff like that. It's not an INFJ thing. It's a sucky people thing.
    so far (since the conversation's yearly renewal) i've used "the doorslammers", "the solipsists", "people of that mentality", "people who defend their ego in [..] way"...

    i think i've being rather careful about that, and i think the discussion beyond me has revolved around on the phenomena as a whole a lot more than about typology: while i realize that this can matter a great deal for someone who views INFJ as an element of their identity - but in the mean time we're talking about particular behaviors and common ways of thinking and emotional processes around them - it really doesn't matter if you call those knights that say Ni or the comabaya-my-lordians or chupacabra's, it's just a name, and and the only reason INFJs are of any interest is because the particular people in question seem to reside in the area where chupacabra's/solipsists/whatever and INFJs that overlap, a.k.a. "when an INFJ doorslams".

    Quote Originally Posted by cafe View Post
    Those are all legal obligations involving parental responsibility and property distribution and I would absolutely address those issues in the appropriate venue to the best of my ability.
    you think going to trial is being less forceful than trying to talk to them? either way, i think we're falling here into a weird game of appeals - the only sentiment i identify with from that would be that you wouldn't expect a romantic involvement, and i agree - i'd be hesitant to say i could even force myself to do that. beyond the why's, what you would or wouldn't do/feel/think doesn't really work as a delivery mechanism on why i should or shouldn't do (i realize it was probably more of a framework to express your dissonance, but just in case). here are the why's i see:

    for the collective cases in general:
    i think the expectation to be able to communicate & reason to resolve such consequences like a human being - especially with anyone you've being close too - is quite reasonable (so literally reasonable it hurts), and neither do i think the ability to do so should be restricted to negative consequences covered by law, i don't think it is unreasonable to expect any adult to be able to look at themselves. more so, i find the the counter arguments and their implications to be very unreasonable - and yes, rather negative (less towards the already doorslammed, more so towards the not-doorslammed-yet).

    for my case specifically, the rational still stands:
    if i can find any way to do it by peaceful means it would cause far less distress & be a lot less destructive to my son in the long term (even if causing me and her more distress in the short term), both because of the immediate process and the long term hostility that i don't expect either me or her to be able to hide- for her it would be because she'd perceive me as coming in forcefully (and representing a reality which conflicts with her ego), and for me it would be because every weekend my son would be going back to being raised by someone who believes she does nothing wrong no matter what she does, or in your version- "sucky people" - if there's a chance i can figure out how to create an environment without either i am sure as hell going to try.
    not put all my eggs in one basket - considering the value i place in the results, i am not sure i would be ok with putting all my eggs in one basket even if i didn't have additional factors against me. but adding to it more, i am 1. not a citizen & 2. wasn't around for the sperm donation & 3. not the gender usually favored in cases in family law.

Quick Reply Quick Reply

  • :hi:
  • :bye:
  • :)
  • :hug:
  • :happy2:
  • :wubbie:
  • :smile:
  • :D
  • :wink:
  • ;)
  • :newwink:
  • :cry:
  • :(
  • :mad:
  • :dry:
  • :doh:
  • :unsure:
  • :shock:
  • :huh:
  • :shrug:

Similar Threads

  1. When any type other than INFJ doorslams you/cuts you out of their life
    By SilkRoad in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 46
    Last Post: 02-03-2014, 11:26 PM
  2. [INFJ] INFJ Daily Life: Plans, Strangers,etc?
    By plaminal in forum The NF Idyllic (ENFP, INFP, ENFJ, INFJ)
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 11-13-2011, 12:13 AM
  3. [MBTItm] INFJ negotiating mid-life
    By Immaculate Cloud in forum The NF Idyllic (ENFP, INFP, ENFJ, INFJ)
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 03-21-2009, 09:04 PM
  4. [INFJ] INFJ, inner life a little too rich?
    By littledarling in forum The NF Idyllic (ENFP, INFP, ENFJ, INFJ)
    Replies: 36
    Last Post: 02-18-2009, 02:23 PM

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