fidelia said:
You know, it's only from a couple of other threads like this that I've realized that my thought process isn't as totally obvious as I think it is. I felt like all the way through I had stated exactly those points, and so when OA wasn't responding with anything that would ease that tension and other people were attempting to conciliate by urging us to ignore her tone and consider if we couldn't see bits of truth in her words at least, I was frustrated. I felt that I was being up front and also trying to be cooperative and now, not only was there no effective communication, but I was also being inaccurately interpreted by people around me as just being defensive when it wasn't that at all.
No, your list of points weren't entirely obvious. I mean they were noticeable in a sense but their importance to you seemed to get lost. I consider that list a rather Te style explanation. You're saying: "I tried this and it didn't work. So than I tried that and it still didn't work. I don't get what you want from me". This really clicks with me. I can see how the whole thing fits together, rather than looking at the series of reactions to individual pieces of information. We can get lost in analysing and evaluating those specific details (Ji), that we don't see the big picture of what you're feeling (Je).
I get why it would be annoying to be told to to look past the tone and listen to her points. I suppose that could sound like being told to forgive her faults, while being accused of all sorts of failings yourself. On top of that it would feel a lot like the onus is on you to understand regardless of how unpleasant her method of communication is. It's sad that people would feel like that about what I was saying, because I never intended that. I (perhaps naively) believe that clarification and encouraging the right perspective will eliminate a lot of problems - but sometimes people just need to have their problem recognised.
The other thing I was going to say was, just because your list of examples wasn't commented on, it doesn't mean it wasn't noticed. I have this bad habit (perhaps it is a INFP issue in general) where I read a text message from someone and say to myself "oh, right!" and then don't text back. If I pretty much agree and that nothing needs to be addressed I don't feel the need or desire to respond. Of course, to others all they're seeing is empty phone - it's a one-sided conversation. It happens here on the forum too. I might read a whole thread in depth but only make a small comment or two, and sometimes say nothing at all. If I don't think I have anything useful to say or aren't inspired to respond to something in particular, I keep my mouth shut. Also I tend to respond more to the negative (which is such Fi tendency). If I disagree, it's then I want to step in and say something. And I'm going to be so much more passionate about disagreeing too, which I suppose can mean I sound very negative. Even then, often I plain lose interest if it's too much of a battle, especially if it's going nowhere - it becomes too draining and stressful, so I leave the conversation. As much as INFPs seem to have a reputation for being tyrannical about their beliefs, we tire of defending ourselves pretty quickly.
What might have happened is OA only responded to the things that drew her attention (eg. things she disagreed with or where she wanted to defend herself) and failed to demonstrate her agreement on other points. You needed to hear a response to a range of things, as well as some Fe words of affirmation to show her reactions weren't all negative. You need the full spectrum of response or else you're going to assume that the words you hear reflects the overall opinion. I think you or someone else said earlier "If I hear one bad thing, I'm going to assume there's 10 more bad things behind it". The thing is with INFPs if we say one bad thing, it probably only means one bad thing in a whole range of good things. We have to remember to voice those as well when giving criticism. I'm a little better at it because I'm a social-first (like [MENTION=5999]PeaceBaby[/MENTION]) but I still mess up in this regard too.
Z Buck's last post in this thread explains it for me. You can't fudge facts and then say you are being objective, even if you quote outside people etc. If you are venting, I will ignore the facts given and concentrate on validating you so you can get on with the problem solving part. For me, it just seems so counter intuitive to spend a lot of time on the "How did that make you feel". I think that is because if it were me I'd give someone a look like , say "It made me feel like crap" and then "Can we get back to what happened and what it means. How can I avoid finding myself in this situation in the future, or do you have any additional info I'm missing that could help me feel better about this whole thing" Discussing those kinds of things is what provides comfort to me. I assume right off the bad that those feelings you have are valid, but that they'll also change once the situation improves in some way.
This makes me smile because it's so Ni - you need the motivations and feelings to be wrapped up and tied in a bow. You have to understand that with Ne even we might not entirely know what we're getting at. Often we're just saying a bunch of stuff that comes to mind on a subject, seeing what conclusions might come to light. In OA's case it was probably one part venting, one part expression of confusion, one part exploring her own feelings, one part searching for answers, one part desire to hear counter-arguments etc etc. You kept searching for a single position on the matter and a single end goal. But in reality it might just have been the case of: "This is what I've noticed and it really bothers me. Let's talk about it and see where it takes us". You want the parameters to be set at the beginning but when Ne is in brainstorming/exploration mode it never considers parameters. In fact, it can be plain annoying when in Ne mode to have someone stopping us and obsessing over having everything nutted out. It's like those arguments you get between Te and Ti, where the Te user is explaining something in a general fashion and the Ti-user keeps interrupting and asking for each point to be clarified. The Te-user gets pissed off and yells, "Just wait until the end! Once we've outlined the gist of it, then we can work out all the specifics!". But of course the Ti user
needs the specifics in order to see the gist of it.
I don't think you needed to spend a lot of time on the, "how did it make you feel". Sorry, I only meant to offer general pieces of advice if that's the specific question you need answered. An INFP probably wouldn't say your, "Can we get back to..." sort of statement. We say, "Here's what I think. Discuss". It's an invitation to address the points we made and for you to offer similar and alternative experiences. I suppose you and I need to come up with a way of the INFJ requesting some parameters without it sounding like stonewalling and nitpicking, and for the INFPs to get across that sometimes they're just saying stuff that comes to mind without expectations, demands or judgements attached.
The problem here, is that I felt like I was doing all of those things. I kind of took it as an unvarnished and personally tinged account, but a valid one nevertheless. Willingness to engage in discussion without being directive and pointing out stuff right away to me is validating the other person's feeling. Should I be asking about their emotional state now? I know this seems like a dumb question, but it honestly would feel so wrong if someone did that to me, that I can't guess what the response would be. It's sort of like George on Seinfeld discovering that the key to his success was to do everything exactly opposite of what he would naturally be inclined to doing. I thought I was being helpful by stating where my thinking diverged from hers and asking her how I could be more helpful in my response.
Like I said, I totally saw that you were making the effort. If I may be forward and make an observation: I think the problem is that when INFJs make the effort to engage and it doesn't work out, you feel resentful and unappreciated. This then negatively feeds how you interpret what else is said, because resentment and frustration only makes you see more judgements and negativity than perhaps exists. It's like when your attempts to adapt yourself and connect with someone fail, it is seen as a direct attack on you by the other person. They didn't recognise what you were doing or accurately feel the effects of it, and you throw your hands up an wonder "why did I even bother?". I guess it's that cause and effect thing: you believed that the cause (your intention) was apt to get the right result, but it didn't happen, and the only explanation to you for this seems to be that people deliberately refused to adhere to it. It's like you extended your hand and it was slapped away. The thing you have to realise is, people (and by that I mean all types) in most cases aren't
intentionally misunderstanding your attempts or refusing your kindness; they just inadvertently fail to recognise it and your need for them to reciprocate it. You also have to realise that if you are kind enough to extend your hand, you mustn't
expect expressions of gratitude. Gratitude is certainly a wonderful thing and often it's only right that people should offer it, but it is not your place to demand it (implicitly or explicitly). If you offer kindness, you can't do so with strings attached; others will end up resenting it and you are destined to end up dissatisfied.
I realise that the above is highly personal and I apologise if it is more close to home than you wanted to hear. I don't mean it as a judgement or that you should feel the need to defend yourself. I genuinely hope it helps clear up some things.
Also useful. I've noticed that this is a common way you communicate. I think I tend to think more in overall patterns over time, so often I can't think of an example when people ask me this. Therefore I don't think to ask them for one
Oh, you do do this, but perhaps it's not obvious to you. It's very much, "I share. You share". The INFP idea behind it is, if we each talk about our individual feelings/experience there isn't a judgement placed on one another, even if they differ dramatically - if it's
just my feeling/experience, it doesn't invalidate yours.
Never thought of this. I'm not sure how to do it in practical terms, but it is a direction to head and sparks some thinking. Obviously my way has not been working, so I need all the help I can get!
It's basically what I wrote above. OA says "this is what INFJs do in my experience", and you say, "Sometimes when I'm actually doing ______, unfortunately INFPs seem to interpret as ____" or "well I suppose I do that sometimes but my reasoning behind it is _______" - that sort of thing. Again you did attempt this, but other issues prevented you from feeling satisfied by her responses (eg. the resentment and frustration, not voicing your confusion).
So again, it's trying to simulate the feelings etc so that you can effectively try to recreate his experience and experience it personally in your head as much as is possible?
Yes. To continue with the hypothetical above: clarifying the issues might make OA feel she understands it better, and consequently feel less resentment and that she knows how to deal with it. I suppose, it's about helping empathy along by putting things in a light she can understand. She hasn't been able to find an explanation that stirs it in her, so she needs you to offer alternative ones that reframe things. It's a Ne call for input to help re-position the Fi conclusion.