you mean those? alright:
If so, can y'all who dislike those quotes elaborate a little on what you think investing or choosing not to invest in someone's POV (edited to clarify) MEANS?
- What does investing in someone's POV (or choosing not to) mean to you in terms of feelings, thoughts, actions, priorities? When they're in the same room with you and when they're not?
first of all, i should address the core assumptions underlining the semantics of the question:
i live in a world involving around 7 billion skulls whose content is capable of human emotions, what's in there is in there - a real and existing pattern of matter and energy, expressing themselves in various ways that our minds are adapted to picking up and recognizing while associating with the most similar pattern of matter and energy within ourselves. its all there and it exists. anything anyone experiences is an actual physical event.
now, i don't know what is going on in all of those skulls, for that matter i don't know about other physical events either. for example i don't know what's the weather in most places, i am talking to you and yet don't even know what is the weather like in Holland atm. there is a lot of information out there that which i don't know.
i might seek to find out and i might not, and perhaps the closest equivalent i would have for "investment" is curiosity - that is actively seeking to find out more information. but, what i
can't do is reject the information's existence & create an imaginary world where information that doesn't suit my needs or creates conflicting meaning to what i prefer it to mean.
if you express being frustrated, while its possible you are directly lying, the much more likely possibility is that you are frustrated. knowing i didn't intend to frustrate you won't change that, knowing that i do care to not frustrate you and have taken efforts in other areas to avoid doing so won't change that, believing myself to be the person who would never cause frustration to anyone won't change that. your frustration is a real physical event in a skull which belongs to a person, and a causality which originated from me. i can't reject that information from existence. now i you decide based on that event that i maliciously frustrated you and that is my main goal, i can reject that interpretation as being an incorrect speculation on your part as to what going on in my head, but i even then i can't reject the fact this is what you think, and if it was the case i'd have to interpret your choices based on you thinking this.
now, that's being said, within the larger plethora of information i am accepting, i am entirely capable of not caring. i can't pretend i don't frustrate you while i do something that you express frustration about, but i can choose whether i care and if so what is it's priority. presumably you can do that too - we both find the conversation engaging enough to go on in it despite knowing it can cause ourselves and the other a degree of frustration, we chose to prioritize one thing over the other. i can find information boring & uninspiring and down right banal. but i can't pretend it isn't there.
in summary: i do not need to invest in a point of view in order to not reject the point of view, i don't really have the ability to reject it in the first place.
i've related this in the past (though maybe not with you): i do not view this as an INFJ trait, but as an INFJ ability.
the trap is within your choice to use it, and whether you can be trusted not too by those you impact. because...
- Is investing in a person a 'requirement for minimal decency as a person' or an 'above and beyond' thing?
- What's the least amount of effort a person needs to put in to show they're investing in someone's POV? What would be the key difference between 'minimally invested' and 'not invested'?
if we define investment as curiosity, then its a gesture of caring, no a requirement.
if we define investment as acknowledging what actions mean within it, then yes.
why? because any statement about what you wouldn't do is irrelevant to others if its only a result from selectively avoiding interpretations of others in which you'd do it.
- if someone would never rape anyone only because having held the right to define their behavior by their own terms they decided it was an act of love and thus the perspective from which it wasn't consensual is wrong, then that's statement irrelevant for others around him as a predictor on whether he would rape them or not.
- if i wouldn't steal only because i don't acknowledge the perspective from which an item is viewed as their own, then that statement isn't relevant to you, because you can't trust whether i would acknowledge your property as your own, merely that i personally wouldn't consider it stealing if i chose not too.
- etc...
those are rather obvious examples which are legally covered, but many others aren't so much (as illustrated in the above example of whether i acknowledge causing you frustration).
- Whose POV should a minimally decent POV invest in? If the answer's anything other than 'everyone on earth', what are acceptable ways to distinguish? What percentage of the world's population would it make sense for you to say you're invested in?
depends what are you trying to understand - but when you are trying to understand the meaning of something you do, then anyone influenced by what you do is a rather safe bet.
- What's the least amount of effort a person needs to put in to show they're investing in someone's POV? What would be the key difference between 'minimally invested' and 'not invested'?
to simply not use the ability to mentally block points of view in reaction to conflicting with your own would probably do the trick.
- And what's maximum amount of effort a person can expend before they become ridiculously overinvested? Or is there even such a thing?
if you have reached the point where you avoid including your own perspective & experience into the equation, that might be the case.but note that i am saying "into the equation": i am not speaking about situations where you justify choosing your own perspective to override the information and meaning from another, but when you don't include information about your own.
edit: i wrote this was before the epic post. i'll take my time with it.