Dear Sensitive People

[Poki]

offended by my own post
and it wasn't internal conflict i didn't have the knot i get when i actually am internally conflicted, i just didn't want someone to come and say oh but you did that blah blah so i was covering all my bases.
that takes someone way more special than me.

It reminds me of a very black and white type of person getting frustrated by the grey that is reality and the pure logic of some of what you did.

I do xyz except when i dont. It's logic that is always true no matter what. And unless you understand the context people use that in, purely logical person will look at you like duh...every does xyz except when they dont. If your not doing it you can't be doing it. I am a very logic based person, unlike the common misconception of logic people being run insane by stuff like that I just think it's hilarious because I understand what you mean and don't get hung up on the pure logic of it.

 

[prplchknz]

It reminds me of a very black and white type of person getting frustrated by the grey that is reality and the pure logic of some of what you did.

I do xyz except when i dont. It's logic that is always true no matter what. And unless you understand the context people use that in, purely logical person will look at you like duh...every does xyz except when they dont. If your not doing it you can't be doing it. I am a very logic based person, unlike the common misconception of logic people being run insane by stuff like that I just think it's hilarious because I understand what you mean and don't get hung up on the pure logic of it.

i'm not hung up i've just had people try to prove i was being contradictory when i wasn't and even after i explained how i wasn't they still tried to convince me i was lying. so like i said covering all my bases.

 

[miss fortune]

I don't like that you refuse to specify your MBTI type. I'm very private myself but I don't hide my type.
It's important to me to be able to see what type everyone is so I can relate their type to their posts.
I also don't like it when people say that they are one type but put a different type in their profile.

that's nice

it's not MBTI central and hasn't been for years, so why should I have to specify?

I have my enneagram tritype down, which I feel is probably the best fit towards my personality of any of the systems... and even that is a concession on my part to the curiosity of others.

your likes and dislikes, fortunately, do not control what anyone else on the site does or has to do

 

[OrangeAppled]

I am not that easily offended because I comprehend other perspectives pretty well. My sensitivity lies in feeling like I am judged negatively when I may not be. Because of this, I do not clash a lot with ExxPs, as they do not usually come across as super judgey.
Sometimes people think I am offended or hostile because I like some debate or analysis which challenges consensus. I know I am a know-it-all , but when I act as such, it is not out of offense, but I am actually engaged in a subject.

The whole "I wont tell you why I am offended because you should just know" strikes me as Fe junk.
I actually anticipate not being understood and give a lot of benefit of the doubt because of it.

If I assert a boundary with someone and they ignore it, then I may get mad though. My clashes with ESTPs come when I have clearly asserted some value, and they acknowledge it, but then later decide to treat it as expendable. They DO know what the issue is, and they never deny it, but they think I am inflexible and I think they are shallow and manipulative in order to gain. That is my clash with ESTPs.

 

[Forever_Jung]

"Sensitive people are just tyrannical people--everybody else has to adapt to them."

Mary-louise von Franz

 

[Siúil a Rúin]

"Sensitive people are just tyrannical people--everybody else has to adapt to them."

Mary-louise von Franz

This is true of one brand of "sensitivity" - the one that narcissists and sociopaths express. It's easy to spot because it is oppressive and doesn't translate into that person being sensitive to others. Although I suppose there can be some sorts of non-recipricol sensitivity like if someone gets nauseated easily, then that issue is with their body. It would imply insensitivity if the person who has stomach issues never cares when others feel sick. For a sensitive person it would increase their natural empathy for others not feeling well. You could use that concept to apply to any conceivable form of sensitivity.

There are people in the world who are very sensitive and treat others with more care as a result. I think those people are incredibly important, but not everyone has to be that way. The rough-tumble folks who have a balanced give and take that isn't sensitive are also needed in the world. Who else is going to crack ribs for heart surgery, or insert trachea tubes during crises? It's okay if people are different from each other, and sometimes that can make people incompatible. There are some rough-tumble people and some highly sensitive people I don't pursue friendships with because both extremes can make people less compatible, but it doesn't mean that the entire range isn't of value in the world.

I mostly get tweaked with the 'dainty cowboy syndrome', as I call it. I grew up in the Rocky Mountain area and there are some dainty, entitled people who expect everyone around them to be tough, but they pamper themselves grossly, and they use that behavior as their identity that they are tough.

 

[ceecee]

"Sensitive people are just tyrannical people--everybody else has to adapt to them."

Mary-louise von Franz

Sure but not all HSP are this way, or even the way I described a coworker earlier in the thread. There are people who probably are HSP that take great pains with the way they treat others. Then there are the HSP that have issues with environment - lights, sound, smells, tastes. I do think there is more to that type of sensitivity.

 

[EJCC]

Oh man. I have pretty much the same problems as OP. I tend to have friend groups full of sensitive people, and I'm so bad at catering to needs that I don't realize even exist, that I have a history of walking on eggshells around my friends. (Which is as much of a nightmare for an ESTJ as you'd think.) Only recently have I joined a friend group full of people that I don't need to do that around.

Posting in order to subscribe, and to remind myself to read the entire thing at some point.

 

[Bush]

Sensitivity's fine; we all have buttons. I'd like to think that I can read sensitivities in others pretty well, and I can usually (and/or am compelled to?) avoid it or course correct for it. I don't know how to explain; seems to be on a case-by-case basis.

So this is possibly the least helpful answer that anyone can give to the OP. I'll have to mull it over.

Instantaneous emotional overreaction to things that grate against your sensitivities is, however, one type of reaction that we should breed out of human nature as quickly as possible. We need to establish a time and a place for all the relatively calm people to have a big fat orgy.

 

[Riva]

Hyper sensitive people are the worst.

They turn their hypersensitivity into a tool to paint you as a jerk, when in reality they are just painting anyone as a jerk who doesn't worship their personality or their goodness.

Know an INFJ like that. Disgusts me.

Hypersensitivity with Fe is a really bad combo to those who are around them who are not willing to worship their goodness. It's easier for this hypersensitive people if they are an attractive female. If it's a male, hard luck hypersensitive man. Lolz.

"Sensitive people are just tyrannical people--everybody else has to adapt to them."

Mary-louise von Franz

Thank you for sharing this.

And thank you Mary-louise von Franz, whoever you are.

 

[magpie]

This is true of one brand of "sensitivity" - the one that narcissists and sociopaths express. It's easy to spot because it is oppressive and doesn't translate into that person being sensitive to others. Although I suppose there can be some sorts of non-recipricol sensitivity like if someone gets nauseated easily, then that issue is with their body. It would imply insensitivity if the person who has stomach issues never cares when others feel sick. For a sensitive person it would increase their natural empathy for others not feeling well. You could use that concept to apply to any conceivable form of sensitivity.

I think this is overly simplistic. If it's a scale then it's a scale for each person. Every sensitive person is sensitive or empathetic towards some people and not towards others, or rather, in regard to some things but not to others. Expecting one person to be empathetic about everything is overwhelming. It runs the risk of making that person into a doormat. A person who experiences nausea has no obligation to be empathetic towards others who get sick, especially if that sort of emotional support hasn't been earned. I mean, obviously there is an intrinsic understanding of shared experience, but beyond that, I don't know. Do you owe someone emotional support? What does empathy mean in this context?

Also, why do you classify nausea as a sensitivity to begin with?

 

[Cygnus]

More feedback: I'm offended by excessive reductionism. That is, making a statement so base and concise it loses its nuances and context, making there fewer opportunities to work it within. I see it as strawmanning.


Example: my high school psychology class watched "Lars and the Real Girl" and was asked to write a journal entry about our thoughts. Watching the film, I concluded that Lars, in reaction to the depression and social anxiety stemming from the recent death of his mother, finally sought intimacy by giving a personality to a sex doll. When his subconscious felt it had healed and he'd regained his social confidence, it told him that the sex doll died and he buried her, effectively releasing him from both the anxiety and his delusion.

When the movie was done and we were told to discuss, I kept silent and listened to my classmates. When asked what Lars' problem was, the ENTP girl next to me answered, very acerbically, "He's crazy."





I set off a nuke internally.


So -- make of that what you will. You said you desired feedback on offense. This isn't to say that the implications of information matter more than the information itself, a notion you've admitted trouble with. Rather, facts should be kept as native facts -- not rules, not social labels, no reduction. Just identifiers of what happens and how it happens. Understanding it on all levels before passing any judgment.

 

[21%]

I'm sensitive, but I don't get offended by things that often, because it's just not worth the energy.

With my innermost circle, I assume the best intention -- whatever they said that is hurtful was not intentional.

With acquaintances, I assume the best intention, or if it's something slightly worse, I just label them as ignorant of the topic and dismiss the thought.

With other people, I usually don't care about their opinion enough to be bothered.

But if something matters very deeply to me, I think it's my responsibility to explain to the other person how/why their behavior hurt me. The passive-aggressive "you should know what you did wrong" is immature and annoying.

 

[Siúil a Rúin]

I think this is overly simplistic. If it's a scale then it's a scale for each person. Every sensitive person is sensitive or empathetic towards some people and not towards others, or rather, in regard to some things but not to others. Expecting one person to be empathetic about everything is overwhelming. It runs the risk of making that person into a doormat. A person who experiences nausea has no obligation to be empathetic towards others who get sick, especially if that sort of emotional support hasn't been earned. I mean, obviously there is an intrinsic understanding of shared experience, but beyond that, I don't know. Do you owe someone emotional support? What does empathy mean in this context?

Also, why do you classify nausea as a sensitivity to begin with?

Thanks for the input.
I'm approaching this in terms of the underlying principles, and not the more complex application in actual life.

I used nausea as an example because it is simple, everyone can understand it, and it does relate to the larger issue of sensitivity. People with HSP are sensitive to sensory stimuli as well as emotional issues. There are also many people with high emotional sensitivity that have chronic physical pain. Nausea is a common issue for people who internalize emotions, but it is the simpler issue for everyone to relate to. There is a tendency for people to assume that we have complete control over our emotional reactions - there are many inspirational posters/quotes to this effect, and I don't think it is true. I like to use the simpler physical ailments because it makes it easier for people in general to understand sensitivity and that it isn't always something we control.

A psychologically healthy person has a balanced sense of "Self" and "Other". People with personality disorders have sense of "Self", but "Other" is dismissed. One psychological theory is that this occurs when early childhood development is damaged. As an infant we only dimly begin to have a sense of "Self", and the mother is an extension of self. As the toddler grows in a healthy environment they learn to understand the mother is a separate individual with a separate set of needs. The child learns empathy instead of "Me, me, mine, mine". The individual with personality disorder is stuck psychologically in those early stages of life, and so is emotionally much like a toddler, but with the added abstract thinking and manipulative potential of an adult.

It isn't that we "owe" anyone empathy, but being able to value others and their needs in a similar way to how we value ourself is a sign of psychological health.

 

[Siúil a Rúin]

[MENTION=1180]whatever[/MENTION]
As I've been thinking about this thread, there is also a way people interpret humor differently.

I know a very sweet girl who is married to a man in a wheelchair. They make jokes about it in a way that sometimes offends onlookers. There is this feeling that it is insensitive to make fun of someone's disability. I think from their perspective they are normalizing it. She is showing that he does not deserve pity, but it is just a simply a part of him as someone having any feature. It would be like joking about a big pinky toe. He is very intelligent and successful in his career, attractive, and has plenty of advantages. Tip-toeing around him being in a wheelchair can make it an object of pity, which can be more hurtful in some cases. Sometimes edgy humor is a show of trust and respect, but I don't think everyone can understand that.

This was just an example that came to my mind, that might be on topic because in your OP, you refer to offense coming from misunderstanding humor.

 

[Petals]

I have an ENFJ employee who is so sensitive I think a butterfly flapping its wings in Shanghai actually causes her to tear up into mini sobs.

[MENTION=1180]whatever[/MENTION], The good news is that this situation is not really on you. The bad news is that the situation is not really on you. It's ok to be a sensitive person in this world, but if you are also going to be an adult... then your responsibility is to communicate effectively with the other party. Lettuce say, for an example, that we have sensitive person A who happens to be a carrot with purple hair. This carrot has a friend who is person B represented by a bunny rabbit with red fur. If the bunny makes jokes about how delicious the carrot looks and the carrot gets hit in the carroty feels with such an insensitive comment... Then it really is not on the bunny to change topics to the relative merits of arugula over spinach unless that carrot speaks up.

Or something. I mean there is to some extent a need to self filter certain topics based on the audience... like, maybe you don't make comments about how awful Robert Jordan's Wheel of Time series was to your friend who has Rand Al'Thor bedsheets. But if it's just random things spun from the air that set a person off... there is only so much you can do.

/Rambling Transmission.

 

[magpie]

Thanks for the input.
I'm approaching this in terms of the underlying principles, and not the more complex application in actual life.

I used nausea as an example because it is simple, everyone can understand it, and it does relate to the larger issue of sensitivity. People with HSP are sensitive to sensory stimuli as well as emotional issues. There are also many people with high emotional sensitivity that have chronic physical pain. Nausea is a common issue for people who internalize emotions, but it is the simpler issue for everyone to relate to. There is a tendency for people to assume that we have complete control over our emotional reactions - there are many inspirational posters/quotes to this effect, and I don't think it is true. I like to use the simpler physical ailments because it makes it easier for people in general to understand sensitivity and that it isn't always something we control.

A psychologically healthy person has a balanced sense of "Self" and "Other". People with personality disorders have sense of "Self", but "Other" is dismissed. One psychological theory is that this occurs when early childhood development is damaged. As an infant we only dimly begin to have a sense of "Self", and the mother is an extension of self. As the toddler grows in a healthy environment they learn to understand the mother is a separate individual with a separate set of needs. The child learns empathy instead of "Me, me, mine, mine". The individual with personality disorder is stuck psychologically in those early stages of life, and so is emotionally much like a toddler, but with the added abstract thinking and manipulative potential of an adult.

It isn't that we "owe" anyone empathy, but being able to value others and their needs in a similar way to how we value ourself is a sign of psychological health.

I agree that people can't always control their emotional reactions. Obviously it's a fine line. No one should be made to feel uncomfortable (by a display of emotion), but no one is entitled to try and stop displays of emotion that are unappealing to them. Both are abusive and controlling. Of course, there are nuances to each of these situations, but that would fall into real world application.

But I disagree with using empathy as some sort of marker of normalcy or health, especially as you have defined it, which would be as an ability and not an action. Anyone can complete an action but not everyone has an ability. Or, in other words, an ability is an action. I am not saying that there aren't people who commit horrible deeds, but for some reason, I almost never hear the word sociopath in relation to them. Instead, I hear that they were depressed or any other bevy of mental illnesses. Sociopath seems to me to be a perjorative term applied theoretically to whatever traits are useful. Especially if you acknowledge that a "personality disorder" happens as a result of trauma. Then it's not a disorder or an illness, it's a reaction. A subconcious reaction due to survival instinct. If a psychologically healthy person is one who feels empathy, than real life application is extremely important. You can feel all the empathy you want and it may never make a bit of difference.

And I agree that certain physical issues can sometimes come as a result of suffering or emotion, but the keywords you use make it difficult for me to determine how much (if any) of what you are saying is euphimism. Do you think illnesses like fibromyalgia and chronic fatigue syndrome are somatic?

 

[Siúil a Rúin]

I agree that people can't always control their emotional reactions. Obviously it's a fine line. No one should be made to feel uncomfortable (by a display of emotion), but no one is entitled to try and stop displays of emotion that are unappealing to them. Both are abusive and controlling. Of course, there are nuances to each of these situations, but that would fall into real world application.

But I disagree with using empathy as some sort of marker of normalcy or health, especially as you have defined it, which would be as an ability and not an action. Anyone can complete an action but not everyone has an ability. Or, in other words, an ability is an action. I am not saying that there aren't people who commit horrible deeds, but for some reason, I almost never hear the word sociopath in relation to them. Instead, I hear that they were depressed or any other bevy of mental illnesses. Sociopath seems to me to be a perjorative term applied theoretically to whatever traits are useful. Especially if you acknowledge that a "personality disorder" happens as a result of trauma. Then it's not a disorder or an illness, it's a reaction. A subconcious reaction due to survival instinct. If a psychologically healthy person is one who feels empathy, than real life application is extremely important. You can feel all the empathy you want and it may never make a bit of difference.

That is a good distinction, it is about treating others in a healthy way, not necessarily have a high emotional intelligence to perceive the true state of others. A lot of being kind to people is rather obvious: If I don't enjoy being yelled at and called a jerk, probably another person won't either. If I don't like being punched in the stomach, someone else probably won't either.

[Edit: for a healthy empathy, a healthy sense of "self" and "other", I'm proposing here a fairly simple standard of at least self-projection, and the ability to value the existence and well being of other human beings on the basis of being one. I'm not referring to a highly nuanced, deep, insightful empathy. It is normal and healthy for humans to make mistakes in their attempts at empathy. It is just that baseline ability to acknowledge the life of another human or creature as having worth and rights to not suffer.]

What is disturbing about people who cause harm is that there is typically an explanation. We are the result of cause-and-effect, but the behavior still has to be given boundaries and corrected when it violates another person. Yes, the condition of many narcissistic is wretched and explainable, but that doesn't mean their behavior can be accepted based on that. There is a disregard of others that sees them as objects to be manipulated for personal gain. While it is horrible if this resulted from being in a state daycare 24/7 at the mercy of harsh nurses (for example), it still results in adding suffering to the world. I'm not certain what therapies are available for such conditions, but the person needs a desire to change.

And I agree that certain physical issues can sometimes come as a result of suffering or emotion, but the keywords you use make it difficult for me to determine how much (if any) of what you are saying is euphimism. Do you think illnesses like fibromyalgia and chronic fatigue syndrome are somatic?

I know a trauma counselor with 30 years of experience who told me that nearly all of her clients with psychological trauma also have chronic pain issues. I've read some articles that say pre-verbal trauma is stored in the body and can be experienced as physical pain.

There wouldn't be a 100% correlation, and certainly people can have chronic pain without emotional trauma, but the emotional and physical are part of the same system and can have interactive effects.

 

[magpie]

I know a trauma counselor with 30 years of experience who told me that nearly all of her clients with psychological trauma also have chronic pain issues. I've read some articles that say pre-verbal trauma is stored in the body and can be experienced as physical pain.

There wouldn't be a 100% correlation, and certainly people can have chronic pain without emotional trauma, but the emotional and physical are part of the same system and can have interactive effects.

Yes, they can, but some people who have a history of trauma also have physical illness unrelated to trauma.

 

[Siúil a Rúin]

I just corrected my post above. I made a mess with the quotes, but I think I fixed it, so the quotes and responses are correct.