March
New member
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2011
- Messages
- 54
- MBTI Type
- INFJ
- Enneagram
- 4w5
I'm working on a post on the 'investing' thing because I think we're on to something here, but this seemed more important.
Well, I told him I'm a bad [MENTION=15291]Mane[/MENTION]-reader and that I couldn't get a handle on what he wanted, and he said he wanted ALL the things, having the different levels of conversation at the same time. So I've been trying to give all the things.
But this stood out: "he was hoping to find INFJ's who, purportedly having a good understanding and awareness of their internal processing, could step back and say, "That's a pretty extreme case and here is what you would need to do to help reestablish communications, no guarantees."
Is that true, [MENTION=15291]Mane[/MENTION]?
Because if so, let's pull all of that together:
I think the case of your ex is pretty extreme. I think being allowed to divorce people is a big net social benefit, even though the process sucks, but banning someone from seeing their stepson has no part in that. Like I said, I doubt that reestablishing communications is easy or even possible when things have deteriorated to this stage, but I do think that the tips I've been trying to put together might help if that's what you want to do. No guarantees, unfortunately. Because in the end, I don't think this was so much a failure of understanding/accepting your feelings, but a failure of caring about them.
Long posts with lots of questions and prospective vantage points and invitations of critique in the form of 'Yes, your connection from A to C works but you need to insert a D before E and then the bit from O to V is completely out of order, V-Z is OK though' get very little in the way of answers, though.
Acquaintance-level obligation for me means listen, try to understand, engage if you want to, be polite, see people as people. Especially in forums I don't include 'step into moderator role' or 'assume people can't fight their own battles.' I've seen a LOT of misunderstanding everywhere (you said you don't feel heard and I said I don't feel heard, and I think at this stage nobody does, unfortunately), lots of snippiness and snarkiness to and fro, some low blows that obviously hurt but might not be intended to hurt, and some outright nastiness that was called out by moderators.
If I started 'defending' people, I'd quickly become the morality police and crash&burn the conversation altogether.
Is this a curious question or a pointed question?
I'd like your opinion on the next post I'm going to make, elaborating on [MENTION=15291]Mane[/MENTION]'s answers to my earlier questions, if you feel like it.
Peacebaby said:Hmm, but that's not what [MENTION=15291]Mane[/MENTION] wants either. As nice as it would be, he does not prioritize emotional consoling since that will not help him be able to see his stepson in the future. In this thread, being in a place discussing typological tendencies, he was hoping to find INFJ's who, purportedly having a good understanding and awareness of their internal processing, could step back and say, "That's a pretty extreme case and here is what you would need to do to help reestablish communications, no guarantees." Instead, he received a whole bunch of judgement, "You must have done something terrible if this happened to you" and denial, "I would NEVER do that / your partner must not be INFJ / you are picking on INFJs / you are mean so you force me to be mean back!" and very little substance or information of value.
Well, I told him I'm a bad [MENTION=15291]Mane[/MENTION]-reader and that I couldn't get a handle on what he wanted, and he said he wanted ALL the things, having the different levels of conversation at the same time. So I've been trying to give all the things.
But this stood out: "he was hoping to find INFJ's who, purportedly having a good understanding and awareness of their internal processing, could step back and say, "That's a pretty extreme case and here is what you would need to do to help reestablish communications, no guarantees."
Is that true, [MENTION=15291]Mane[/MENTION]?
Because if so, let's pull all of that together:
I think the case of your ex is pretty extreme. I think being allowed to divorce people is a big net social benefit, even though the process sucks, but banning someone from seeing their stepson has no part in that. Like I said, I doubt that reestablishing communications is easy or even possible when things have deteriorated to this stage, but I do think that the tips I've been trying to put together might help if that's what you want to do. No guarantees, unfortunately. Because in the end, I don't think this was so much a failure of understanding/accepting your feelings, but a failure of caring about them.
Peacebaby said:Actually @ bold, I do think this is what Mane wants, but it's vital to first understand all of the vectors, including his.
Long posts with lots of questions and prospective vantage points and invitations of critique in the form of 'Yes, your connection from A to C works but you need to insert a D before E and then the bit from O to V is completely out of order, V-Z is OK though' get very little in the way of answers, though.
Peacebaby said:There may not be an intimate level of relationship, but having a conversation here implies people are at least acquaintances I think.
At least I see myself as having a relationship and therefore certain obligations in interacting with anyone here. I do not get to be "rude" just because you cannot see me behind this screen and there are no perceived immediate consequences.
Acquaintance-level obligation for me means listen, try to understand, engage if you want to, be polite, see people as people. Especially in forums I don't include 'step into moderator role' or 'assume people can't fight their own battles.' I've seen a LOT of misunderstanding everywhere (you said you don't feel heard and I said I don't feel heard, and I think at this stage nobody does, unfortunately), lots of snippiness and snarkiness to and fro, some low blows that obviously hurt but might not be intended to hurt, and some outright nastiness that was called out by moderators.
If I started 'defending' people, I'd quickly become the morality police and crash&burn the conversation altogether.
Peacebaby said:So even if you see bad behaviour, you have no personal grievance, therefore you do nothing?
Is this a curious question or a pointed question?
Peacebaby said:Did you mean for me to answer the other questions too?
I'd like your opinion on the next post I'm going to make, elaborating on [MENTION=15291]Mane[/MENTION]'s answers to my earlier questions, if you feel like it.