User Tag List

First 1220212223243272122 Last

Results 211 to 220 of 1696

  1. #211
    Professional Trickster Esoteric Wench's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    MBTI
    ENFP
    Enneagram
    7w8
    Posts
    949

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by fidelia View Post
    I don't know. I don't relate to doorslamming as a way of life. From what I've read here, many people have said they did it more when they were younger. There are very few people that I would. The very few (2?) times that I ever did it were in response to realizing that the person had been lying for a very long time. I am pretty forgiving when I can see where the person is coming from and can stand in their shoes. That kind of deception though (especially when it affects other people than myself) indicates something about character and that the person simply isn't the kind that I want to have for a close, close friend (I don't doorslam acquaintance friends. If they're not for me, I just sort of let the relationship to them become more and more periodic).

    I suppose if there was evidence (over a period of time) that the person had changed and if they acknowledged what happened, why they think it happened, how it affected those around them and why it will not happen in the future and they've regained my trust, I may rethink things.
    Now see, this is what I would expect from an INFJ at their best. This rings as healthy INFJ doorslamming to me. And, something that I also do now as well. But it took me a VERY long time to realize that some people just need to be held at arm's length.
    ENFP with kick*ss Te | 7w8 so | ♀

  2. #212
    Professional Trickster Esoteric Wench's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    MBTI
    ENFP
    Enneagram
    7w8
    Posts
    949

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by cafe View Post
    I guess I would like to know is if you think it is possible that a doorslam for reasons of self-preservation (even if the doorslamee is not intentionally destructive or a bad person) could be a legitimate permanent choice for an INFJ to make. Do they have the right to choose to never interact with someone again simply because they have decided it is not in their own best interest? Is it conceivably possible that the best approach would be to simply not approach at all?
    I appreciate the question, cafe. Well, I guess the answer is that it all depends on how you define "legitimate permanent choice" and on the details of the situation.

    In general, I feel that it's not my place to judge. If an INFJ doorslams someone, then it is certainly their right to do so. If you define "legitimate permanent choice" by the right of the INFJ to engage in such behavior then, yes, it is a legitimate permanent choice." In other words, of course, any INFJ has a right to doorslam someone.

    However, if you define "legitimate permanent choice" in terms of long term helpfulness to the INFJ, then things get a bit murkier. I think doorslamming is a value neutral act. It can be appropriate and it can be inappropriate. It can be selfish and it can be the best for all involved. I guess it all depends on exactly why the INFJ doorslammed someone. In other words, the devil is indeed in the details.

    Earlier in this thread I listed what I viewed to be valid, legitimate reasons for INFJ doorslamming. (Click here to see this post.) Let me repeat that maladaptive doorslamming occurs when the INFJ doorslams someone because that person is a threat to the INFJ's framework for understanding. This kind of doorslamming is not valid and is inappropriate. And, not every INFJ does this. But the ones that do, are taking shortcuts to protect their Ni at the expense of the best interests of others. And, they do indeed deserve a kick in the *ss.

    I hope this answers your question.

    Now I have a question: Why did you ask?
    ENFP with kick*ss Te | 7w8 so | ♀

  3. #213
    Professional Trickster Esoteric Wench's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    MBTI
    ENFP
    Enneagram
    7w8
    Posts
    949

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by PeaceBaby View Post
    It makes me curious why new data does not necessarily change the "door-slam" outcome.

    The door-slam seems a drastic final act, and I can hear the pain behind the words in this thread describing how utterly difficult it is to make that decision to block interactions with a person.

    But if an INFJ has made a decision based on incorrect data, why does the "door-slam" conclusion often still stand? Is it too hard or not "worth it" to revisit? Is one afraid of recriminations from the other person? Is it challenging to admit wrong? Is right or wrong irrelevant? Does it seem better not to dredge up the past and therefore all of those emotions too?
    PeaceBaby, thanks for asking these questions because they are really important questions in my opinion.

    In other words, I hear INFJs talk about if the offending party has changed they'd reconsider. But I don't hear anything about the INFJ re-examining their reasoning. This seems to be the last resort for a lot of INFJs. Which perhaps gives them their continuity, but it does so at the expense of re-evaluating their reasoning.

    I prove myself an idiot everyday. If I didn't regularly re-evaluate my reasoning... well, it would be ugly. At what point does an INFJ say, "Oh shit, I screwed up royally."

    This is a serious and humble question.
    ENFP with kick*ss Te | 7w8 so | ♀

  4. #214
    Strongly Ambivalent Ivy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INFP
    Enneagram
    6
    Posts
    24,193

    Default

    IMO you're still kind of talking out of both sides of your mouth here. You've set up "long term helpfulness to the INFJ" as the measuring stick for whether a doorslam is appropriate or inappropriate. But after that, you seem to be measuring the appropriateness based on "the best interests of others." I trust "others" to take care of their own best interests. I don't believe that I owe anyone my time or talents, except for the two human beings that I helped bring into the world.
    The one who buggers a fire burns his penis
    -anonymous graffiti in the basilica at Pompeii

  5. #215
    Professional Trickster Esoteric Wench's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    MBTI
    ENFP
    Enneagram
    7w8
    Posts
    949

    Default

    Well if you're going to employ logic and all.

    I'll think about what you said and get back to you.
    ENFP with kick*ss Te | 7w8 so | ♀

  6. #216
    Strongly Ambivalent Ivy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INFP
    Enneagram
    6
    Posts
    24,193

    Default

    EW, to me, you seem to be missing something very fundamental about this, and I'm having trouble articulating exactly what it is. The right to choose the people I associate with is precious to me. If I decide not to associate with someone anymore, I don't expect them to understand or like it. They don't need to agree with my reasoning. It's not even ABOUT "reasoning," it's about the very simple economics of my social energy. They do not get to decide whether my decisions about how I spend my social energy are appropriate or inappropriate based on the effects my decisions have on them.
    The one who buggers a fire burns his penis
    -anonymous graffiti in the basilica at Pompeii

  7. #217
    Professional Trickster Esoteric Wench's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    MBTI
    ENFP
    Enneagram
    7w8
    Posts
    949

    Default

    Thus is the very essence of the difference between an xNFP and an xNFJ.

    Is one perspective "better" than the other? No. But each perspective has strengths and weaknesses.

    I can't argue that you don't have the fundamental right to choose who you associate with. This is very healthy and adaptive.

    But I also see that there is a greater moral question here. That is all tied up in the heart of P-ness versus J-ness. Ps would rather err on the side of not lopping off their options. J's would rather err on the side of clearly defining and controlling their options.

    I feel like what I've come to learn from all this is that it's not my place to say one way is better than the other. Just that one orientation is more adaptive than the other depending on the specifics of the situation at hand.

    I would never argue that you don't have the right to decide how to spend your social energy. However, this does not change the fact that sometimes protecting one's choice is done at the expense of the best interest of others.

    So what is one to do with this conundrum? Well, if I had the answer to these ontological questions, I wouldn't be sitting here talking to the likes of you.
    ENFP with kick*ss Te | 7w8 so | ♀

  8. #218
    Strongly Ambivalent Ivy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INFP
    Enneagram
    6
    Posts
    24,193

    Default

    FYI I'm probably an INFP, but I've doorslammed a number of times and I identify with the INFJs' answers in this thread. Honestly I see the doorslam as an introvert thing, not necessarily an INFJ thing, though the INFJs tend to do it with flair.

    OF COURSE protecting one's choice is sometimes done at the expense of the best interests of others. That's unfortunate, but I don't see how anyone of any MBTI persuasion could think it's my problem. I'm not in charge of tending to everyone's best interests. It took me a really long time to get to the point where I wasn't trying to tend to everyone's best interests. That is called codependency and it is unhealthy. As a really smart person said to me today: "'No' is a complete sentence and doesn't need to be followed by any other words."
    The one who buggers a fire burns his penis
    -anonymous graffiti in the basilica at Pompeii

  9. #219
    Senior Member cafe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    9w1
    Socionics
    INFj None
    Posts
    9,831

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Esoteric Wench View Post
    Now I have a question: Why did you ask?
    I ask for the reasons Ivy explained much better than I could have. I get the feeling that you want to be the arbitrator of what is a valid reason in the lives of people who are not you. It's unfair and it sucks, but for good or for ill, you can't (as my husband says it) sue for marriage. As long as you have that attitude, it's going to send up some autonomy violation vibes, if that makes sense.
    “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

  10. #220
    Professional Trickster Esoteric Wench's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    MBTI
    ENFP
    Enneagram
    7w8
    Posts
    949

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by cafe View Post
    I ask for the reasons Ivy explained much better than I could have. I get the feeling that you want to be the arbitrator of what is a valid reason in the lives of people who are not you. It's unfair and it sucks, but for good or for ill, you can't (as my husband says it) sue for marriage. As long as you have that attitude, it's going to send up some autonomy violation vibes, if that makes sense.
    I'm going to attribute this to an Fe / Fi miscommunication. I would never presume to be the arbiter in such matters. However, I do firmly feel that there is a greater principal here. Yes, violation of personal autonomy is not something I strive for. Nonetheless, personal autonomy can sometimes be protected at the expense of the greater good.

    Which is right? Which is better? Who knows. Or more correctly, I feel like I know very well. Right and better is best defined by one's personal goals and the specifics of the situation at hand. Sometimes it is better if personal autonomy supersedes the greater good. Other times, it's the other way around.

    I would say that one of the big misinterpretations that Fe users have of Fi users is that Fe users attribute the Fi user's motives as being about personally defending the moral question at hand. I would argue that my personal wants and biases are not at issue here. We're discussing an important moral issue that transcends our pedestrian and ephemeral personal interactions. These greater principals are about universal ethics. And, that to chalk them up to my, your, or anyone's biases is to degrade the transcendent truths at hand.
    ENFP with kick*ss Te | 7w8 so | ♀

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