While I believe this is coming from a very earnest and sincere place, it seems worthwhile to point out how this might fall flat with an INFJ (imo). "Therefore please don't take my words and twist them into meaning that I don't love you" and "especially when we both know that twisted meaning is not true" are problematic because they contains assumptions- assumptions which may be correct, but assumptions nonetheless. The goal is to get the person to recognize that assumptions are even being made on their end- that their own 'observations' contain assumptions- before asking them to realize those assumptions are flawed. The best way to actually get a message across, I think, to an INFJ who is adding *magic messages* (which, as fia said, are usually due to messages that were- in some form- actually there in childhood, but get inserted inappropriately later in life where they don't belong) is to very clearly state that it *seems* like the meaning of your words is being twisted, and to be very clear that you realize it's an assumption on your end- albeit an assumption that seems corrects because it's the only thing that makes sense- or we'll be so distracted by the urge to point out the assumptions on incoming information that we'll miss the point of why you're saying it. It's kind like- if you want a kid to sit down and work on their homework, don't seat them in front of an active playground where all their best friends are playing fun games.
Originally Posted by uumlau
So I personally would rephrase that boundary suggestion as "I'm not sure what to do here. I said '____', you responded with '___'- and it seems like you added 'XYZ' to what I said. I'm not sure where you got 'XYZ', but I know I didn't say it and I find it hurtful that you'd think it was true of me. I need you to either explain how you got 'XYZ', or to work on realizing how you distort the meaning of my words."
eta: Like the excerpt I recently posted in my blog from The Mindful Way Through Depression:
Many situations are ambiguous, but the way we interpret them makes a huge difference in how we react. This is the A-B-C model of emotions. The A represents the facts of the situation- what a video camera would see and record. The B is the interpretation we give to a situation; this is the “running story” often just below the surface of awareness. It is often taken as fact.
I think INFJs live in that space between A and B- constantly feeling the urge to point out the difference in incoming information, yet we can be oblivious to the 'interpretation' we are adding to our own observation. The best way to get us to see it is to present the facts (e.g. "this is what was said") and your 'interpretation' as interpretation- that will remove the distraction of screening incoming information, and we'll be left with the task of actually answering instead of dissecting the question (which would hopefully get us to turn that analysis/dissection on our own position).