User Tag List

First 1234513 Last

Results 21 to 30 of 499

  1. #21
    Protocol Droid Athenian200's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    4w5
    Posts
    8,828

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by proteanmix View Post
    Orobas, if this offends you so greatly why don't you offer your assistance to the woman and her family in need? Let her and her kids live with you until she can get on her feet. Give it a try and see what you have to say after two weeks.
    Oooh, harsh.



    Yeah, I can definitely see the ISTP lady's perspective, but.... still, it seems like wasn't trying to help the person in any way other than physically. She wasn't telling her what she needed to do, or anything that would have actually helped her in the long run. I can see both sides of this... on one hand, yes, she seems like a parasite. But on the other, nothing was done to discourage that behavior, and encourage her to improve her own situation. "Give a man a fish, you feed him for a day, teach a man to fish, you feed him for a lifetime"? That seems to be the lesson here. They just kept giving her fish, and expected that she would realize that she needed to figure out how to fish. They never came out and told her that she needed to learn how to fish.

  2. #22
    Senior Member copperfish17's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w4 sp/so
    Socionics
    INTj
    Posts
    712

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Orangey View Post
    The "ISTP" is clearly just venting, and (no matter how harsh or unforgiving her choice of words) that doesn't change the fact that her assistance has been of material (if not emotional) advantage to the family. Furthermore, a lot of the things the so-called ISTP described, if true, are indeed to be condemned. Children cannot subsist on a diet of milk alone, and poor hygiene will certainly contribute to illness and health problems. Those are facts.

    It's especially egregious that the mother declined getting medical attention for her kids because she had wounded feelings/pride. That is the height of stupidity.

    Perhaps the best solution would be to get someone who is better at working with people to help this ISFP lady with day-to-day things, since she's such a sensitive flower?
    Agreed... very much so. But I do see why you were offended by that ISTP lady, Orobas.

    Quote Originally Posted by proteanmix View Post
    Orobas, if this offends you so greatly why don't you offer your assistance to the woman and her family in need? Let her and her kids live with you until she can get on her feet. Give it a try and see what you have to say after two weeks.
    This will go in tandem with what I would like to say here: (With all due respect) unless you, OP, plan to help the ISFP lady and her children in any way, shape, or form, your sentiments in the OP will become meaningless/fruitless.
    Enneagram: 5w4 5-9-2 (5w4 9w1 2w1) sp/so

    "Do not argue with an idiot. He will drag you down to his level and beat you with experience." - Greg King
    The worst mistake people make in political arguments is assuming that the other side is not trying to do the right thing. This simple oversight makes productive conversation nearly impossible.

  3. #23
    Blah Orangey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    MBTI
    ESTP
    Enneagram
    6w5
    Socionics
    SLE
    Posts
    6,364

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Athenian200 View Post
    Oooh, harsh.



    Yeah, I can definitely see the ISTP lady's perspective, but.... still, it seems like wasn't trying to help the person in any way other than physically. She wasn't telling her what she needed to do, or anything that would have actually helped her in the long run. I can see both sides of this... on one hand, yes, she seems like a parasite. But on the other, nothing was done to discourage that behavior, and encourage her to improve her own situation. "Give a man a fish, you feed him for a day, teach a man to fish, you feed him for a lifetime"? That seems to be the lesson here. They just kept giving her fish, and expected that she would realize that she needed to figure out how to fish. They never came out and told her that she needed to learn how to fish.
    Is this true, though? Didn't the OP mention that they gave her a list of things for cleaning, etc.,? And that she had gotten better about completing daily chores and upkeep since being given said list? Didn't the OP also mention that the INTJ husband had given both extensive "guidance" about the responsibilities of child-rearing (which the couple were defensive about, no less)? Weren't the "ISTP's" efforts to encourage her to have the children see a doctor, as well as her efforts in directly feeding the children, a kind of "do as I do" form of guidance?

    That's what confuses me about the OP. It seems like she's condemning the ISTP for being overbearing AND for being too hands-off in the same breath.
    Artes, Scientia, Veritasiness

  4. #24
    i love skylights's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    MBTI
    INFP
    Enneagram
    6w7 so/sx
    Socionics
    EII Ne
    Posts
    7,835

    Default

    orobas, i feel you here.

    from a similar Fi perspective, the problem that i feel is that the church woman / ISTP might be supporting the family, but she's not supporting the family. Fi is about internal consistency; this woman's speech and behavior are not consistent. she may be generous but she does not seem to believe behind closed doors what she demonstrates outwardly through behavior. her goodwill thus seems disingenuous. so Fi looks for other motives for the behavior: perhaps she is doing this because it makes her feel superior, which would seem to be more in line with the things she says, etc....

    i assume she does not at all realize that she is acting in a way that is harmful in our eyes, though. it seems like she felt like the family took advantage of her generosity - but they probably had no idea, or at least very much struggled to meet all her criteria. like fidelia addressed very well, i think a big part of the problem is that the boundaries of what was being offered/given were quite specific and extensive (not sleeping in on the weekends, etc), yet were not clearly communicated. raising a family out of poverty in this economy when you come from an unstable background yourself must be hard enough on its own, much less doing so while adhering to a new set of expectations.

    Quote Originally Posted by proteanmix
    Orobas, if this offends you so greatly why don't you offer your assistance to the woman and her family in need? Let her and her kids live with you until she can get on her feet. Give it a try and see what you have to say after two weeks.
    if this family knew what would be said about them to others, would they have taken her offer? it seems like an unfair situation, to be offered a safe haven, but to have it become a theatre in which your failures are noted and broadcast behind your back. i assume that was not the church woman's intent, nor did it start out that way - it just progressively moved that way as she felt like her gift was more and more abused.

    and the church woman seems to have decided that it is her responsibility to take care of this family - as evidenced by her desire to continue checking in on them... but she has also clearly decided that there are boundaries to what she will do to help. certainly it is her right to not give any more than she wants to give, but it seems unfair to place the blame on the family for her choice to extend that gift of living space to them (after all, she offered; the family did not even ask). if she no longer wanted to extend her offer, that's her right, and it's appropriate to ask them to leave, but it is relatively unkind to give them a single week to make arrangements. i don't think anyone can deny that she was generous, but it came with so many strings attached...

    i just think that, personally, i would rather have no help than help like that.

    Quote Originally Posted by Orangey
    Weren't the "ISTP's" efforts to encourage her to have the children see a doctor, as well as her efforts in directly feeding the children, a kind of "do as I do" form of guidance?
    true. i think part of the problem is that it's a whole lot of work to go from having been raised in foster homes, and living in poverty, to suddenly running a completely functional family up to the apparently relatively high standards of this woman.

  5. #25
    Blah Orangey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    MBTI
    ESTP
    Enneagram
    6w5
    Socionics
    SLE
    Posts
    6,364

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by skylights View Post
    i think the key for me here is that it's not as if the family begged for help. it was offered. it's not as if someone has to take care of them - it's a burden the church woman voluntarily chose. why would she voluntarily take on a burden and then complain about it? it's her fault if she's taken on something that she is not prepared to handle, and it's unfair to place the blame on the family for a choice that the woman herself made. if she couldn't handle it, then it's appropriate to ask them to leave, but how unkind to give them a single week to make arrangements. the church woman seems to have decided that it is her responsibility to take care of this family - as evidenced by her desire to continue checking in on them - but has she even taken the time to understand this family's individual plight, and help them where they really need help? certainly it is her right to not give any more than she wants to give, but it is not kind to talk behind their backs.
    So because she offered help, she is obligated in principle to put up with anything that comes as a result? Did the family not also make a choice when they accepted the offer of help? Don't you think all of this is a bit dramatic when you consider that the only "bad" thing being done here is that the ISTP (ISTJ) lady is talking about the family behind their back, likely out of frustration? Does this petty meanness outweigh the material value of the help?

    People shouldn't allow the delicacy of their feelings to interfere with prudence, especially when the well-being of those dependent on them is at stake.
    Artes, Scientia, Veritasiness

  6. #26
    Senior Member copperfish17's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w4 sp/so
    Socionics
    INTj
    Posts
    712

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by skylights View Post
    from a similar Fi perspective, the problem that i feel is that the church woman (ISTP) might be supporting the family, but she's not supporting the family. Fi is about internal consistency; this woman's speech and behavior are not consistent. she may be "generous" but she does not apparently believe behind closed doors what she demonstrates through behavior. her goodwill thus seems forced and disingenuous. so Fi looks for other motives for the behavior: perhaps she is doing this because it makes her feel superior. that does seem to be in line with the things she says. or any other number of less-than-altruistic motivations...
    Here's an alternative explanation to the ISTP lady's behavior: The ISTP was genuine in her intention to help when she offered it. HOWEVER... she did not quite understand what she was getting into when she offered help. The ISFP women and her family turned out to need more guidance/help than what the ISTP lady thought she had signed up for. This resulted in frustration for the ISTP, as she had to put in more time, effort, and energy than she had expected to put into this family.

    I say that's a "fair" emotional reaction on the ISTP's part.

    if this family knew what the church woman really thought about them, would they still want to be there? it seems like a cruel situation, to be offered a safe haven under the appearance of generous care, but to have it transform into a theatre in which the church woman keeps track of how the family is not living up to her unspoken standards, and then shares that with others behind the family's back. to me, that seems demeaning - as if the family does not have the right to be treated with respect because they are not living as she believes they should live. personally, i would choose no help over that situation.
    The common Fi pitfall: It's not about "you," it's about "your behavior."

    i think the key for me here is that it's not as if the family begged for help. it was offered. it's not as if someone has to take care of them - it's a burden the church woman voluntarily chose. why would she voluntarily take on a burden and then complain about it? it's her own fault if she's taken on something that she is not prepared to handle, and it's unfair to place the blame on the family for a choice that the woman herself made...
    Again, the ISTP lady probably didn't understand what she was getting into. You can't really blame anyone for ignorance, IMO... The ISFP and her children turned out to be "more trouble than they're worth," so to speak.

    ...but it seems so much like she is very controlling about how they need to respond to her help.
    Out of left field, IMO.

    Other things to consider: Did the ISFP and her family ever express gratitude? Did the ISFP and her family ever display willingness to learn/change the way they do things? Did the ISFP and her family communicate (communication is a burden on both parties, not just the benefactor)?

    (FYI: I'm not siding with the ISTP. Just suggesting that some people start considering an alternative POV.)
    Enneagram: 5w4 5-9-2 (5w4 9w1 2w1) sp/so

    "Do not argue with an idiot. He will drag you down to his level and beat you with experience." - Greg King
    The worst mistake people make in political arguments is assuming that the other side is not trying to do the right thing. This simple oversight makes productive conversation nearly impossible.

  7. #27
    i love skylights's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    MBTI
    INFP
    Enneagram
    6w7 so/sx
    Socionics
    EII Ne
    Posts
    7,835

    Default

    yall caught me before my edit, damn

    Quote Originally Posted by Orangey View Post
    So because she offered help, she is obligated in principle to put up with anything that comes as a result?
    no, and i stated that i think it's perfectly fair of the woman to retract her offer.

    Did the family not also make a choice when they accepted the offer of help?
    they did, though we don't know what kind of a choice they made... we don't know the extent to which the expectations that went along with them staying there were communicated. there's just such a big difference between "here is a space you can live in for a while" and "you may use this space if you are actively working to get back on your feet, and if you are a practicing christian, and if you wake up before 10 am on weekends..."

    Don't you think all of this is a bit dramatic when you consider that the only "bad" thing being done here is that the ISTP (ISTJ) lady is talking about the family behind their back, likely out of frustration? Does this petty meanness outweigh the material value of the help?

    People shouldn't allow the delicacy of their feelings to interfere with prudence, especially when the well-being of those dependent on them is at stake.
    (i agree she sounds more ISTJish, and e1w2, though who knows)

    anyway no... i don't think it's dramatic. maybe it's not prudent, you're right. but at the same time, it's more than just emotion and feeling slighted - it's about the indignity and disrespect. the way the woman talks about these people negates their worth as people. and implies that they are bad christians - according to the person gossiping behind their backs. is shelter or internal wellbeing more important for the kids? i don't know. i would do my best to look for a third option.

    i just think that the transgression was more on the church woman's side than on the mother's side. the mother messed up, yes, but the church woman essentially has every advantage: she has the property, she has resources and financial know-how, she has the support of the church, she has knowledge of how to raise kids, she has transportation... she has everything. and yet she still feels the need to be unkind like that, for whatever reason. maybe the need for shelter outweighs that, but that doesn't make the church woman's offer any better. it's still motivated by "god told me to" and "i need to be responsible for your family because obviously you aren't", instead of "i want to help you because you are another human and deserve to have a good life".

    The common Fi pitfall: It's not about "you," it's about "your behavior."
    true. though, the common non-Fi pitfall: your behavior is an extension of who you are. to criticize someone's choices is to criticize that person, because that person's identity informs their choices.

    i do think it's important that we look at this through a Fi lens, because the family was Fi-dominant. if it was a pair of Ts it wouldn't matter... but what orobas had mentioned about the family probably not going to church because they felt ostracized and upset and angry, i felt that way too. and Fi people really aren't all that great on picking up on what we should appropriately be doing. so it's kind of not surprising the mom was messing up as she was.

    but it seems so much like she is very controlling about how they need to respond to her help.
    Out of left field, IMO
    hm. why? to me, it sounds like she has a lot of criteria she wants met. this family's not meeting them. like you said: "the ISTP lady probably didn't understand what she was getting into. [...] The ISFP and her children turned out to be "more trouble than they're worth," so to speak." in other words, they weren't living up to her expectations. they weren't doing what she wanted them to do. she had expectations already laid out - hence controlling. if they didn't act that way, then they're out. obviously this was the case.

  8. #28
    Senior Member copperfish17's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w4 sp/so
    Socionics
    INTj
    Posts
    712

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by skylights View Post
    ... i agree with you? i still don't think it's fair or kind to speak behind their backs.
    I don't think it's kind to speak behind their backs either, but it was probably warranted on some level(s).

    and the common non-Fi pitfall: your behavior is an extension of who you are. to criticize someone's choices is to criticize that person.
    I don't agree with that... at all. I'm not interested in getting into value arguments, so let's just agree to disagree.

    it's important that we look at this through a Fi lens, because the family was Fi-dominant. if it was a pair of Ts it wouldn't matter...
    What will "looking through the Fi lens" achieve? (That is an honest question, so please consider it as such.)

    hm. why? to me, it sounds like she has a lot of criteria she wants met. this family's not meeting them. like you said: "the ISTP lady probably didn't understand what she was getting into. [...] The ISFP and her children turned out to be "more trouble than they're worth," so to speak." in other words, they weren't living up to her expectations. they weren't doing what she wanted them to do. she had expectations already laid out - hence controlling. if they didn't act that way, then they're out. obviously this was the case.
    You are also expecting the ISTP lady to do certain things/act a certain way. Hence the irony. You are also signing off/criticizing the ISTP based on your own expectations.

    Expectations are, in reality, just a different set of rules IMO.

    Besides, it is only fair that the ISFP and her family gets kicked out if they refuse to (at least try to) follow the guidelines the ISTP lady has delineated (here, the concern of whether these guidelines were laid out clearly is a valid issue). Let's face it: in all probability, keeping the ISFP and her family don't do much practical good for the ISTP and her husband.
    Enneagram: 5w4 5-9-2 (5w4 9w1 2w1) sp/so

    "Do not argue with an idiot. He will drag you down to his level and beat you with experience." - Greg King
    The worst mistake people make in political arguments is assuming that the other side is not trying to do the right thing. This simple oversight makes productive conversation nearly impossible.

  9. #29
    The High Priestess Amargith's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    MBTI
    Enfp
    Enneagram
    497 sx/so
    Socionics
    IEE Fi
    Posts
    14,656

    Default

    Give it up O, it's the expectations that do us in. Fi hate expectations as they tend to get in the way of our authenticity and at the same time, they're an essential part of what makes Fe work
    ★ڿڰۣ✿ℒoѵℯ✿ڿڰۣ★





    "Harm none, do as ye will”

  10. #30
    i love skylights's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    MBTI
    INFP
    Enneagram
    6w7 so/sx
    Socionics
    EII Ne
    Posts
    7,835

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by copperfish17 View Post
    What will "looking through the Fi lens" achieve? (That is an honest question, so please consider it as such.)
    understanding why the family - why the mom - may have acted the way she did... strong Fi and growing up in foster care together probably means a pretty big lack of practicality and understanding of expected social appropriateness. i don't mean to excuse the mom, just to say that the church woman probably thought the woman was more aware than she was. hence her negative attitude... she thought the family was intentionally lazy and inappropriate. i'm guessing that's not nearly as true as it may have seemed.

    You are also expecting the ISTP lady to do certain things/act a certain way. Hence the irony. You are also signing off/criticizing the ISTP based on your own expectations.
    well, though i am not making anything contingent upon my expectations. i mean, i'm not offering her my approval and a checklist of things to do, you know? and my approval isn't gonna get her kids off the street. anyway - to not speak behind others' backs, yes. but that criterion comes from her being a christian, and that kind of thing being decried by almost every christian i know.

    though i guess to some extent it's true anyway. i hold her to the same expectations i hold (almost) everyone to - don't be a jackass, don't harm others on purpose, don't torture small animals, etc. i try to change my expectations to meet the person, though. i wouldn't expect someone who grew up in an abusive household to not have issues with violence. i don't feel like the church woman tried to meet the mother in the middle.

    Let's face it: in all probability, keeping the ISFP and her family don't do much practical good for the ISTP and her husband.
    very true. i assume, more than anything, it was inspired by a "religious calling" to help. how long that calling won out over personal annoyance could be a key factor.

Similar Threads

  1. [Fi] The One Where an Inferior Fi User Groundlessly Speculates about FPs...
    By Wind Up Rex in forum The NF Idyllic (ENFP, INFP, ENFJ, INFJ)
    Replies: 38
    Last Post: 08-07-2013, 10:06 AM
  2. [Fe] When an Fe user verbally rants....
    By sculpting in forum The NF Idyllic (ENFP, INFP, ENFJ, INFJ)
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 10-28-2009, 11:01 AM
  3. [NF] theory about Fe & Fi
    By lorkan in forum The NF Idyllic (ENFP, INFP, ENFJ, INFJ)
    Replies: 80
    Last Post: 02-23-2009, 06:37 PM
  4. auxilary Fe/Fi detectives
    By entropie in forum General Psychology
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 10-06-2008, 09:37 PM
  5. Fe/Fi interactions with Te/Ti
    By proteanmix in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 09-20-2007, 10:20 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