User Tag List

First 23456 Last

Results 31 to 40 of 54

  1. #31
    Tenured roisterer SolitaryWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w6 so/sx
    Posts
    3,467

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by cascademn View Post
    Well, it seems pretty clear to me that you'd be more likely to achieve an outcome you want when you communicate at the other persons' level, if you will. I mean, I think that goes across the board with everyone -- people want to be understood. Just as you're frustrated that he isn't amenable to your approaches, he's probably equally frustrated that you're being...blunt/stubborn/whatever. It's learning to get along with various types of people and various personalities, and there's give and take with everyone, for really effective communication.

    I don't personally think it's a 'game' for the other person, I think it's probably a combo of his personality, and how he views the most 'constructive' way to deal with his employees -I think that's just who he is. And I'm not saying I think his approach is a particularly good one. BUT. You can either roll with it, accept it, and figure out a way to more effectively communicate with him, *given how he is*, or keep communicating as you are, without making any tweaks, and thereby getting the same [lack of] results. I also don't have any idea of the hierarchy within your company, but isn't it possible the manager is avoiding a direct answer because he has higher-ups and he doesn't feel he's in the position to be 'direct' with you?

    I guess I see so much indirectness in my job..I see it as coming with the territory. I can either get worked up about it, or I can try to work with it and not fight it so much. I personally can be quite assertive on the job, but I also recognize that I need to 'adjust' my communication depending on the person I'm speaking to; because everyone is different, and I appreciate that. Communicating exactly the same way with every person you come in contact with is not going to yield the same results. Obviously. So, if you want certain results, or you want certain outcomes on the job, then I think you'll have to adjust your communication style to a certain degree. Not necessarily the message, but the style/approach.

    Indirect communication makes it difficult for the two to understand each other as clarity tends to diminish. If we want to know what is really going on its best to get straight to the point.
    "Do not argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience." -- Mark Twain

    “No man but a blockhead ever wrote, except for money.”---Samuel Johnson

    My blog: www.randommeanderings123.blogspot.com/

  2. #32
    Furry Critter with Claws Kiddo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    MBTI
    OMNi
    Posts
    2,790

    Default

    I think when I'm online I can be overly assertive, but never in real life. You have to be able to push the envelope if you are gonna keep up with NTs online where they have the advantage of unlimited information.

  3. #33
    4x9 cascadeco's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Enneagram
    4 so/sp
    Posts
    6,931

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BlueWing View Post
    Indirect communication makes it difficult for the two to understand each other as clarity tends to diminish. If we want to know what is really going on its best to get straight to the point.
    Hmm. I don't mean you need to be indirect in order to understand each other.

    I'm talking more in terms of tone of voice, and words chosen. Rather than being more blunt, cushioning your language. I can't articulate it well because it's something I sense when I'm actually interacting with the person.

    Do you explain WHY it's important for you to know your hours, or WHY you want more hours vs less?

    From your bosses' perspective, what would the reason be for not giving you as many hours, or being hesitant to give you that info? If you can figure out the reason why they would be hesitant to give you a lot of hours, you could up front bring that into your discussion, so that it's out in the open - but not in an 'attacking' way.
    Saying, 'I realize you are juggling several contractors...blah blah... and it might be difficult for you to project exact hours for next week, but I need to know because of X and Y and Z. If I know, then I can better prepare for..blah blah...blah...'. If I don't know, it's very difficult for me to be efficient in my job..blah..blah.

    I don't know. All I'm saying is that I don't think it's always one-sided. In some cases it might be, but the fact that you've created a post on the subject makes me think there's room for you to adjust HOW you present your thoughts.

    BUT going to your very first post:

    Do you consistently find having to hold your true nature back because people tend not to be cooperative when you function in a way that is most comfortable to you. Namely, by virtue of the radical T approach to matters?
    ...it seems you already recognize this. So you already know it's either holding back your 'true nature' in order to get along with many, or being 'true' and having issues as a result.

    Ok, sorry. I think I get it now..never mind.
    "...On and on and on and on he strode, far out over the sands, singing wildly to the sea, crying to greet the advent of the life that had cried to him." - James Joyce

    My Photography and Watercolor Fine Art Prints!!! Cascade Colors Fine Art Prints
    https://docs.google.com/uc?export=do...Gd5N3NZZE52QjQ

  4. #34
    @.~*virinaĉo*~.@ Totenkindly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    FREE
    Enneagram
    594 sx/sp
    Socionics
    LII Ne
    Posts
    42,333

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by cascademn View Post
    Hmm. I don't mean you need to be indirect in order to understand each other. I'm talking more in terms of tone of voice, and words chosen. Rather than being more blunt, cushioning your language. I can't articulate it well because it's something I sense when I'm actually interacting with the person.
    I think part of it is motivation. In most relationships where people have to work together, the goal should be to communicate and reach consensus, not necessarily to win.

    If you aim to "win," then of course you're going to be frustrated when you feel like the other person will respond negatively to your slap in the face, and you're going to be frustrated by having to 'water down your ideas' just to get what you want.

    It is not about winning. You might enter the conversation with a particular opinion that, as far as you can tell, you believe is true; but you're seeking to both communicate your assessment as well as understand where the other person is positioned and why. You should be addressing their concerns as well as your own.

    When you enter a conversation like this, you are able to clearly state what you believe and why, without feeling ashamed or antagonistic or defensive. And you are capable of creating the same atmosphere for the other person. You are also able to treat people kindly, use the right tone, etc.

    One's motivation and aim in the conversation will dictate what frustrates them, what strategy they take, and how they will feel about things afterwards. Change the motivation and aim to produce a "better" result.

    I don't really see any issues in being "T". That is a red herring. T's might not be naturally as "affirming" or give off the same warm vibes... but they can be just as respectful of others, in their own way. They can work together with people and help them feel respected and listened to.

    I think the issue more here is that (1) you're tying up your expression of identity in your "T-ness" and feel like you're losing your identity if you don't get to express it the way you want and (2) tying people's rejection of you to the idea they're rejecting you as an individual, rather than just the way you're choosing to approach the issue.

    This seems common when one is younger, introverted, and thus not used to directly engaging people. One hates dealing with others because, at least when one is alone, one can make all the decisions and doesn't have to justify anything to anyone or be forced to listen to other views or be forced to reach a "compromise" that satisfies both people.

    I had to scrap hard over the years to learn this all myself; it's not fun; I'm still not great at it sometimes; but it has to be done, and it's for the best.

    It will take some immersion learning to get over, and it's going to feel uncomfortable at first.
    "Hey Capa -- We're only stardust." ~ "Sunshine"

    “Pleasure to me is wonder—the unexplored, the unexpected, the thing that is hidden and the changeless thing that lurks behind superficial mutability. To trace the remote in the immediate; the eternal in the ephemeral; the past in the present; the infinite in the finite; these are to me the springs of delight and beauty.” ~ H.P. Lovecraft

  5. #35
    4x9 cascadeco's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Enneagram
    4 so/sp
    Posts
    6,931

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jennifer View Post
    but you're seeking to both communicate your assessment as well as understand where the other person is positioned and why. You should be addressing their concerns as well as your own.

    When you enter a conversation like this, you are able to clearly state what you believe and why, without feeling ashamed or antagonistic or defensive. And you are capable of creating the same atmosphere for the other person. You are also able to treat people kindly, use the right tone, etc.
    Yes, this is it!
    "...On and on and on and on he strode, far out over the sands, singing wildly to the sea, crying to greet the advent of the life that had cried to him." - James Joyce

    My Photography and Watercolor Fine Art Prints!!! Cascade Colors Fine Art Prints
    https://docs.google.com/uc?export=do...Gd5N3NZZE52QjQ

  6. #36
    Member ps646566's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Posts
    32

    Default

    Assertiveness and bluntness are not quite the same thing, although they may often go hand in glove.

    Assertiveness is essentially not being reticent to speak the truth in order to get what you want or say what you believe. For example if you need to complain in a restaurant, that's being assertive. If a friend overstays theor welcome on a visit, telling them politely that you now need some time alone etc is being assertive. Telling your boss how you've done a good job, feel undervalued, and deserve a raise is being assertive.

    On the other hand for example if a friend turns up for an evening out in an ill-fitting, inappropriate outfit that doesn't suit them, saying so outright is just being blunt.

    Sometimes we need to be assertive, and within reason in the right circumstances there's nothing wrong with it. Being blunt however is often just for the sake of it, achieves nothing, and is nothing to be proud of.
    INTJ bordering on ISTJ

  7. #37
    Tenured roisterer SolitaryWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w6 so/sx
    Posts
    3,467

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by aelan View Post
    So a form of covert assertiveness if you wish. Or Machiavellinism, as my INTP has it. *chuckles*.The choice of words matters to me to put the points across, but I'm not likely to deliver it harshly, though I may think it in very precise terms.
    I identify with this more than with what you called NTJ-like assertiveness, as most NTPs would. The precision and directness of NTP communication strikes insecure and touchy-feely people as overly harsh, we even have a case in point for that in this thread.





    *
    Quote Originally Posted by aelan View Post
    If I recall the MBTI types correctly, ENTPs were second best in the spectrum at reading/understanding people? If so, the oblivious comment would not apply; I may say that they place a higher priority on thought vs others' feelings in a debate though, and may choose to ignore any hurt feelings in pursuit of an argument.
    ENTPs may be second best at intuitively reading situations and interacting with them, however understanding people properly is a matter of F, or reading their personal motives. At this Ts tend to be lacking.
    "Do not argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience." -- Mark Twain

    “No man but a blockhead ever wrote, except for money.”---Samuel Johnson

    My blog: www.randommeanderings123.blogspot.com/

  8. #38
    Tenured roisterer SolitaryWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w6 so/sx
    Posts
    3,467

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by cascademn View Post
    Hmm. I don't mean you need to be indirect in order to understand each other.

    I'm talking more in terms of tone of voice, and words chosen. Rather than being more blunt, cushioning your language. I can't articulate it well because it's something I sense when I'm actually interacting with the person.

    Do you explain WHY it's important for you to know your hours, or WHY you want more hours vs less?

    From your bosses' perspective, what would the reason be for not giving you as many hours, or being hesitant to give you that info? If you can figure out the reason why they would be hesitant to give you a lot of hours, you could up front bring that into your discussion, so that it's out in the open - but not in an 'attacking' way.
    Saying, 'I realize you are juggling several contractors...blah blah... and it might be difficult for you to project exact hours for next week, but I need to know because of X and Y and Z. If I know, then I can better prepare for..blah blah...blah...'. If I don't know, it's very difficult for me to be efficient in my job..blah..blah.

    I don't know. All I'm saying is that I don't think it's always one-sided. In some cases it might be, but the fact that you've created a post on the subject makes me think there's room for you to adjust HOW you present your thoughts.

    BUT going to your very first post:



    ...it seems you already recognize this. So you already know it's either holding back your 'true nature' in order to get along with many, or being 'true' and having issues as a result.

    Ok, sorry. I think I get it now..never mind.

    No, I never bother with the interpersonal talk. I dont have many needs either..IPs tend to be very unambitious..I just always want to know the truth. That alone should make me content. And as you may have noticed, the best way to acquire the truth is to communicate directly as that leads to maximal clarity.
    "Do not argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience." -- Mark Twain

    “No man but a blockhead ever wrote, except for money.”---Samuel Johnson

    My blog: www.randommeanderings123.blogspot.com/

  9. #39
    Free-Rangin' Librarian Jae Rae's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Posts
    979

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Merkw View Post
    PinkPiranha makes a point I wished to say myself. I don't think that INTPs are particularly assertive. Assertiveness, to me, has always appeared to be an xxTJ trait, though particularly xNTJ, taking into consideration the fact that xSTJs are more likely to "soften" their assertiveness for sake of etiquette, or something along those lines.

    xNTPs on the other hand, rather than being assertive, seem more blunt and oblivious to what might "upset" someone. I, for instance, am rather unassertive, but I am EXTREMELY blunt. I pay absolutely no attention whatsoever to social conventions, whether this be intentional or unintentional (occasionally a mix of both). I rarely realize how something I say could be perceived as even remotely unkind.

    This is the problem I have with xxFJs, especially xSFJs. Whenever speaking with an FJ, I always notice how hesitant they are to directly say what is on their minds, or the truth, for the mere sake of hoping that nobody is "hurt." When this happens, I always pressure the FJ into saying the direct truth by insisting that I couldn't care less about the emotional consequences, I just want to know the truth. Still, they always seem to find ways to never directly state it. They always get very uncomfortable, and usually try to "fluff up" their statements, and try to avoid talking about the subject matter.

    Similarly, even if they do not openly express it, whenever I say something considered to be socially unacceptable, I often can sense how horrified the FJs are. This, of course, applies not to all FJs. xNFJs can occasionally have their moments of "bluntness," however, the cause is, I think, different from the cause of bluntness in INTPs and ENTPs.

    I agree completely with your assessments. The NTPs I know aren't particularly assertive, but they are blunt and somewhat to very clueless about how their comments and actions can hurt.

    For example, I gave my INTP boss a bottle of wine for his birthday and he handed it to someone for a Silent Auction right in front of me.

    I find ENTPs to be more socially aware, but they also can be very blunt. I offered to host a outdoor fundraiser for an ENTP friend running for public office and he said "Your front yard is mostly dirt."

    Jae Rae

  10. #40
    Senior Member cafe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    9w1
    Socionics
    INFj None
    Posts
    9,827

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jen View Post
    Goodness! You said the "d" word!
    It was a cut and paste quote. IRL, I'd probably have said prick.

    Quote Originally Posted by BlueWing View Post
    Yes Ts do act in a similar fashion Fs tend to act on ordinary basis when involved in close associations. However, they are still much less emotionally affected. An NT in an intense crisis would behave in a similar fashion described by Eileen in our neighboring thread, yet Fs would likely be affected physically. Fs would be forced to work through their feelings almost immediately, whilst the T will be able to put them off for a great extent of time. You could say what good is putting them off if you will have to process them sooner or later? The catch here is that by the time you get around to process them, they will much diminish in impact. This renders Ts less susceptible to be harmed emotionally than Fs. Though far from entirely immune.
    I have observed the tendency of NTs to be able to put off processing emotions until a later time and I consider it a valuable asset in times of crisis. I do not agree that this trait necessarily translates into a diminished emotional impact. I think that the repressed feelings, if not dealt with in a healthy period of time will lead to emotional/mental health problems. I suspect it is a major contributor to the depression that many INTs appear to suffer from. It also seems more prevalent among males which correlates with the social oppression of emotional expression in our culture.

    Fs, OTOH, are more likely to be emotional about the situation at first (which is definitely a short-term liability), but work though it, get it out of their system, and have minimal long-term negative effects.

    Quote Originally Posted by BlueWing View Post
    You can equate aggressiveness with asshole, though not assertiveness. As Maverick's claim has much merit. An aggressive person is one who is intentionally pejorative, the assertive is one who merely stands his ground.

    Insecure people often tend to mistake assertiveness for aggressiveness. My thread was precisely about this. It is exactly claims of the ilk you have just made that I've contested here. Namely that it is a mistake to equate assertiveness with aggression and therefore retaliation that may be warranted for aggressiveness is not warranted in response to assertive behavior.
    A agree with this, but I suspect that it may be difficult for some folks to calibrate what constitutes one or the other to the particular audience they are working with.

    I can be totally direct and stand my ground and still be polite. The person may get annoyed because my request has inconvenienced them, but it usually gets me passed off to a person who can help me (and/or is simply willing to help me) instead of offending the person into being really upset and causing retaliation and resistance.

    If being right is what really matters to you in life, and it makes you feel validated when people retaliate against you, then, by all means, to thy ownself be true. If you want to get things done and not face resistance at every turn, calibrate your level of assertiveness for your audience. Humor people a little, use the tools for getting along that things like a great brain and MBTI give you. It's win win. They don't have a crappy day, and you get what you want.
    “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

Similar Threads

  1. [NF] How should one deal with NF's that are being overly emotional?
    By ajblaise in forum The NF Idyllic (ENFP, INFP, ENFJ, INFJ)
    Replies: 135
    Last Post: 10-02-2011, 11:30 AM
  2. [E3] Threes and problem with being overly ambitious?!
    By Chloe in forum Enneatypes
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: 07-03-2011, 02:01 PM
  3. [ENTP] A few problems being an ENTP has caused
    By YoungGun2112 in forum The NT Rationale (ENTP, INTP, ENTJ, INTJ)
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 05-01-2008, 07:17 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