how do you communicate with a hidden agenda

[prplchknz]

Yeah, I do hear you (was adding an eta on this part when your reply came up).

*sigh* I just don't know that adding functional deception in there (even for the best of reasons and not for harm) will assist - or if it does, at what cost.

it's frustrating, I had a problem in my make up thread earlier. and it frustrates me, cuz it happens constantly.

 

[Werebudgie]

Well, if thats the case I would suggest INFPs be more expressive about their thoughts and feelings because i find alot of things prpl says interesting and thought provoking

Seconded. But introverts can be pretty guarded about the inner world, and INFPs are probably no exception. I think it's a rare gift when someone doesn't do this in such a public context. Many people who know my partner as an acquaintance or co-worker would be very surprised at what's inside there. And the unfettered Fi-Ne flow that prpl shares here is pretty awesome IMO.

 

[prplchknz]

Seconded. But introverts can be pretty guarded about the inner world, and INFPs are probably no exception. I think it's a rare gift when someone doesn't do this in such a public context. Many people who know my partner as an acquaintance or co-worker would be very surprised at what's inside there. And the unfettered Fi-Ne flow that prpl shares here is pretty awesome IMO.

stahp! my ego's getting too inflated

 

[Ozones]

Seconded. But introverts can be pretty guarded about the inner world, and INFPs are probably no exception. I think it's a rare gift when someone doesn't do this in such a public context. Many people who know my partner as an acquaintance or co-worker would be very surprised at what's inside there. And the unfettered Fi-Ne flow that prpl shares here is pretty awesome IMO.

I think we may have unconsciously started a prpl fanclub haha

haha keep doing you [MENTION=360]prplchknz[/MENTION] thats all

 

[prplchknz]

I think we may have unconsciously started a prpl fanclub haha

haha keep doing you [MENTION=360]prplchknz[/MENTION] thats all

I dunno if i can accept having a fan club. you'd think it make me feel good, but in reality i feel like i'm being deceptive by simply having a fan club

 

[Werebudgie]

it's frustrating, I had a problem in my make up thread earlier. and it frustrates me, cuz it happens constantly.

I just did a search for your makeup thread and the first comment I saw displaying this was this one which I followed back and forward.

I know you say the situation happens to you a lot, but I can say this on that example: I have had various interactions with that particular individual, and in my assessment, he's speaking from his (considerable) internal distortions, and not about you in any real way. In that exchange, it seems to me he's positioning you as a stand-in for whatever he's dealing with in his own little script related to the dynamic, not an actual person in your own right. I'm not really sure how to avoid being cast in other people's scripts like that, other than ignoring them when they start running that crap.

eta: and wow, I just found this comment in that interchange. Whoa. Just whoa. Seriously and quite clearly IMO about the other person's issues, and so very much not about you or what you said.

And I do see that someone answered that interchange with:

Prlpls is probably the absolute last person to have an agenda. Shes pretty much the most visible on the forum.

But - prpl, you say this happens to you constantly. Do you have other examples you would link to that aren't with that particular person (yeghor) - if so would you post them? I wonder if you just end up getting cast in other people's scripts a lot or if something else is going on.

stahp! my ego's getting too inflated

Uh-oh. Nothing worse than an INFP with an inflated ego. I will try to stop.

 

[Rail Tracer]

EASY!

Either you are just naturally direct in speech, which makes people skeptical of your motives,

Or naturally indirect in speech, which makes people skeptical of your motives.

Generally, people are skeptical of others motives, no matter how honest or direct the person is.

 

[yeghor]

I just did a search for your makeup thread and the first comment I saw displaying this was this one which I followed back and forward.

I know you say the situation happens to you a lot, but I can say this on that example: I have had various interactions with that particular individual, and in my assessment, he's speaking from his (considerable) internal distortions, and not about you in any real way. In that exchange, it seems to me he's positioning you as a stand-in for whatever he's dealing with in his own little script related to the dynamic, not an actual person in your own right. I'm not really sure how to avoid being cast in other people's scripts like that, other than ignoring them when they start running that crap.

I think this thread is more or less related to me so I'll intervene...

Werebudgie, I know you are speaking your mind but your anger towards me seeps into it...like in the bolded parts...Anyone interpreting your words thru their own system of understanding is reduced to the status of an idiot if their interpretation does not turn out to match yours....So stop the devaluing\belittling thing...

-----------------

[MENTION=360]prplchknz[/MENTION], you did not mention in your OP anything about a "no make-up" thread but this:

since you get to see girls without make up, it's only fair we get to see you with makeup

Mind your use of the present tense but not the past tense (i.e. no referral to a past thread but to a general concept)...You were referring to a general case not to a past thread, and was connecting the issue to a perceived (but wrong IMO) fairness in your mind...

Then you got all sullen when I addressed it, and then you made the belowgiven comment, which I find offending as well as hysterical (though you may not be aware of it):

I'm not manipulating, it's my observation, based on past experience. I never said that there was reciprocation. Jesus fucking christ, I thought it be fun, but you are being a dense person. I'm just saying that it seems that women are more willing to go outside their comfort zones, than men.

thanks for ruining the thread. It was done in fun, not for any other reason.

oh and i was clarifying. I don't get how me clarifying=manipulation

also I wasn't expecting anyone to post a picture after I made the post inwhich you accused me of being manipulative in.

The crucial point here is the word "willing"...I shouldn't have to let go of my privacy so as to prove my "willingness" or self-confidence...Cause willingness has to come first not last...it's not an end-product but a pre-requisite...

-------------------

I beg to differ on the unINFP part! (please may I?). Anyway, I think prpl just reveals the inside of the INFP mind in a very direct and clear way. My own personal INFP agrees with this. It is true that some other INFPs maybe don't reveal the inner INFP so publicly/openly, but knowing an INFP intimately may give me a different vantage point. For me, reading prpl's stuff is it's like seeing these little unadulterated squirts of concentrated INFP-ness. Lots of Fi+Ne.

Presence of Fi doesn't match with what she claims about her being direct when she inadvertantly offends people...I believe it's due to low F in particular...Not even remotely close to an INFP....

-------------------

[MENTION=360]prplchknz[/MENTION] I think you are not uncaring but unaware that the way you word things come across as offensive...I still think you are an INTP...

• They may be extremely caustic and insulting to others.
• They may unknowingly or uncaringly hurt people's feelings.
• They may be completely unaware of how to express their inner world to others in a meaningful way.
• They may be completely unaware of the type of communication that is often desireable and (to some degree) expected in an intimate relationship. If they are aware of the kinds of things that are appropriate to say and do to foster emotional bonding, they may be unable to appreciate the value of such actions. They may feel too vulnerable to express themselves in this fashion, and so reject the entire idea.
• Under stress, they may show intense emotions that seem disproportionate to the situation. (Such as your post that I found offensive and hysterical...)
• They may not recognize basic social principles, such as appropriate dress and general behavior.

Edit: You are lacking F (or some other) filter, hence your thoughts are coming out unfiltered in a raw form...It doesn't make them any less offending though...

--------------------

[MENTION=20789]Werebudgie[/MENTION] [MENTION=360]prplchknz[/MENTION]

If this thread's gonna turn into yeghor-bashing please do carry it onto private messaging or address me directly... Let me warn you that I'll report any futher post that I deem to be personally belittling\degrading in any case...

 

[prplchknz]

I think this thread is more or less related to me so I'll intervene...

Werebudgie, I know you are speaking your mind but your anger towards me seeps into it...like in the bolded parts...Anyone interpreting your words thru their own system of understanding is reduced to the status of an idiot if their interpretation does not turn out to match yours....So stop the devaluing\belittling thing...

-----------------

[MENTION=360]prplchknz[/MENTION], you did not mention in your OP anything about a "no make-up" thread but this:



Mind your use of the present tense but not the past tense (i.e. no referral to a past thread but to a general concept)...You were referring to a general case not to a past thread, and was connecting the issue to a perceived (but wrong IMO) fairness in your mind...

Then you got all sullen when I addressed it, and then you made the belowgiven comment, which I find offending as well as hysterical (though you may not be aware of it):



The crucial point here is the word "willing"...I shouldn't have to let go of my privacy so as to prove my "willingness" or self-confidence...Cause willingness has to come first not last...it's not an end-product but a pre-requisite...

-------------------



Presence of Fi doesn't match with what she claims about her being direct when she inadvertantly offends people...I believe it's due to low F in particular...Not even remotely close to an INFP....

-------------------

[MENTION=360]prplchknz[/MENTION] I think you are not uncaring but unaware that the way you word things come across as offensive...I still think you are an INTP...

• They may be extremely caustic and insulting to others.
• They may unknowingly or uncaringly hurt people's feelings.
• They may be completely unaware of how to express their inner world to others in a meaningful way.
• They may be completely unaware of the type of communication that is often desireable and (to some degree) expected in an intimate relationship. If they are aware of the kinds of things that are appropriate to say and do to foster emotional bonding, they may be unable to appreciate the value of such actions. They may feel too vulnerable to express themselves in this fashion, and so reject the entire idea.
• Under stress, they may show intense emotions that seem disproportionate to the situation. (Such as your post that I found offensive and hysterical...)
• They may not recognize basic social principles, such as appropriate dress and general behavior.

Edit: You are lacking F (or some other) filter, hence your thoughts are coming out unfiltered in a raw form...It doesn't make them any less offending though...

--------------------

[MENTION=20789]Werebudgie[/MENTION] [MENTION=360]prplchknz[/MENTION]

If this thread's gonna turn into yeghor-bashing please do carry it onto private messaging or address me directly... Let me warn you that I'll report any futher post that I deem to be personally belittling\degrading in any case...

it was never gonna become a yeghor bashing thread, you really aren't that important. it was just an example I used, because it was the most recent one

 

[prplchknz]

I just did a search for your makeup thread and the first comment I saw displaying this was this one which I followed back and forward.

I know you say the situation happens to you a lot, but I can say this on that example: I have had various interactions with that particular individual, and in my assessment, he's speaking from his (considerable) internal distortions, and not about you in any real way. In that exchange, it seems to me he's positioning you as a stand-in for whatever he's dealing with in his own little script related to the dynamic, not an actual person in your own right. I'm not really sure how to avoid being cast in other people's scripts like that, other than ignoring them when they start running that crap.

eta: and wow, I just found this comment in that interchange. Whoa. Just whoa. Seriously and quite clearly IMO about the other person's issues, and so very much not about you or what you said.

And I do see that someone answered that interchange with:



But - prpl, you say this happens to you constantly. Do you have other examples you would link to that aren't with that particular person (yeghor) - if so would you post them? I wonder if you just end up getting cast in other people's scripts a lot or if something else is going on.



Uh-oh. Nothing worse than an INFP with an inflated ego. I will try to stop.

Most of them have been deleted, because as I'm trying to clarify the person gets angrier and the thread explodes and they get deleted.but i'll look around in the graveyard

I do have a real life example I'll try to get it as close as possible, but i know it's not the same as on here
me:you know, I would be just as happy staying at home learning russian and playing final fantasy
friend: oh so you'd rather be at home then hang out with me?
me: no I'm saying that I'd like both equally
friend: if you want i can drop you off
me: No I'd be happy either way. I'm happy hanging out with you, but I'd also be happy if we didn't hang out
friend: what are you saying?
me: That I would be happy in the same situation
friend: oh you're saying that you would have had a good day either way?
me: yes

I think the only reason why she didn't get super pissed is because she knows me and knows that has happened to me in the past.


oh and I don't want to make a new thread so I'm gonna ask this here: how do you tell if you're just extremely angry at someone or if you actually hate them?

 

[Werebudgie]

Most of them have been deleted, because as I'm trying to clarify the person gets angrier and the thread explodes and they get deleted.but i'll look around in the graveyard

Yeah, it can be easier to see the actual exchange as it played out...

But I appreciate the example you shared here:

I do have a real life example I'll try to get it as close as possible, but i know it's not the same as on here
me:you know, I would be just as happy staying at home learning russian and playing final fantasy
friend: oh so you'd rather be at home then hang out with me?
me: no I'm saying that I'd like both equally
friend: if you want i can drop you off
me: No I'd be happy either way. I'm happy hanging out with you, but I'd also be happy if we didn't hang out
friend: what are you saying?
me: That I would be happy in the same situation
friend: oh you're saying that you would have had a good day either way?
me: yes

I think the only reason why she didn't get super pissed is because she knows me and knows that has happened to me in the past.

Hmmm. I could see how someone might interpret your first statement as a "gentle" way of saying you'd prefer to stay at home. I could also see how your friend's first response might come from some insecurity s/he has about your desire to hang out with him/her. It depends on the dynamic between you two, which I don't know.

Something's pinging at the back of my head - what if the issue in that particular exchange is not your directness (which is specifically related to honesty and yields questions about hidden agendas etc), but rather your literalness (which is related to communication style and not honesty specifically)?

Like that first line of what you wrote ("you know, I would be just as happy staying at home learning russian and playing final fantasy") it means exactly what you say it means, in a very literal sense. But in the context of someone else suggesting you hang out with them and go out, it has more than one meaning because it weights things on the other side of what they're suggesting. Depending on the context, I could see it meaning either of those things in an interaction. Now, people who are more literally minded in communication won't be phased by this. But people whose communication style isn't so literal will pick up the other contextually possible meanings (as an example, INFJs can be direct, but I think we're seldom hardcore literal in our communication style). And then, people who aren't literal PLUS have their own internal issues and distortions and a practice of projecting that stuff onto others will really go to town with fantasies about what you're saying, no matter how much you try to correct them.

So my two cents: There's nothing wrong with having a literal communication style. It's just one way to communicate. IMO the second group - people who can misunderstand because we just aren't hardcore literal in our usual communication style - can learn through observation, interaction and dialogue that this is how you are. If you're so inclined, I think you could probably help people learn, by knowing about the literalness in how you communicate and explicitly letting people know about it (eta: assuming that I'm accurate in naming it that way, which I don't know for sure). So for example, dealing with someone new who you believe is just misunderstanding, you could mention at some point in that interaction that people do sometimes misinterpret what you say and you could let them know that really, you use words in a very literal (basic?) way and can best be understood from that space.

(BTW, I feel like I see echoes of some of the dynamics between my INPF and me in your interaction with your friend. My partner can be pretty literal in how she uses words sometimes, and I can pick up on multiple contextual meanings. It has led to misunderstandings. Hmmmm ... I need to think more about this.)

But people in the third group - people who have whatever issues they plug your words into and then take off running with projections of what they think you mean and keep going and going no matter how much you try to let them know what you're saying - those people aren't oriented toward learning how you interact, what you mean, etc. They're just freaking out and playing out a script and I don't think there's much that can be done with someone who's in that space because all they're going to do is argue with you when you seek to clarify what you meant, trying to get the interaction back into their script, and it will just escalate if you continue to engage.

I don't know the proportion - how many people you experience this with are in the second group (where it's misunderstanding based on different communication styles and who can/will learn) versus how many people you experience this with are in that third group.

I also feel like if you have enough personal history with someone and there has been real and unresolved hurt between you two as part of that, you could at some point get a mix of the second and third group response from someone. Meaning, someone who might otherwise know that that's how you communicate could get triggered based on some unresolved hurt between the two of you specifically, and kind of go off. In that case, seems to me the real issue isn't how you communicate but rather the confusion and pain generated from unresolved hurt between two people.

I don't know how much of what I just wrote makes sense outside my own head, though.

 

[prplchknz]

Yeah, it can be easier to see the actual exchange as it played out...

But I appreciate the example you shared here:



Hmmm. I could see how someone might interpret your first statement as a "gentle" way of saying you'd prefer to stay at home. I could also see how your friend's first response might come from some insecurity s/he has about your desire to hang out with him/her. It depends on the dynamic between you two, which I don't know.

Something's pinging at the back of my head - what if the issue in that particular exchange is not your directness (which is specifically related to honesty and yields questions about hidden agendas etc), but rather your literalness (which is related to communication style and not honesty specifically)?

Like that first line of what you wrote ("you know, I would be just as happy staying at home learning russian and playing final fantasy") it means exactly what you say it means, in a very literal sense. But in the context of someone else suggesting you hang out with them and go out, it has more than one meaning because it weights things on the other side of what they're suggesting. Depending on the context, I could see it meaning either of those things in an interaction. Now, people who are more literally minded in communication won't be phased by this. But people whose communication style isn't so literal will pick up the other contextually possible meanings (as an example, INFJs can be direct, but I think we're seldom hardcore literal in our communication style). And then, people who aren't literal PLUS have their own internal issues and distortions and a practice of projecting that stuff onto others will really go to town with fantasies about what you're saying, no matter how much you try to correct them.

So my two cents: There's nothing wrong with having a literal communication style. It's just one way to communicate. IMO the second group - people who can misunderstand because we just aren't hardcore literal in our usual communication style - can learn through observation, interaction and dialogue that this is how you are. If you're so inclined, I think you could probably help people learn, by knowing about the literalness in how you communicate and explicitly letting people know about it (eta: assuming that I'm accurate in naming it that way, which I don't know for sure). So for example, dealing with someone new who you believe is just misunderstanding, you could mention at some point in that interaction that people do sometimes misinterpret what you say and you could let them know that really, you use words in a very literal (basic?) way and can best be understood from that space.

(BTW, I feel like I see echoes of some of the dynamics between my INPF and me in your interaction with your friend. My partner can be pretty literal in how she uses words sometimes, and I can pick up on multiple contextual meanings. It has led to misunderstandings. Hmmmm ... I need to think more about this.)

But people in the third group - people who have whatever issues they plug your words into and then take off running with projections of what they think you mean and keep going and going no matter how much you try to let them know what you're saying - those people aren't oriented toward learning how you interact, what you mean, etc. They're just freaking out and playing out a script and I don't think there's much that can be done with someone who's in that space because all they're going to do is argue with you when you seek to clarify what you meant, trying to get the interaction back into their script, and it will just escalate if you continue to engage.

I don't know the proportion - how many people you experience this with are in the second group (where it's misunderstanding based on different communication styles and who can/will learn) versus how many people you experience this with are in that third group.

I also feel like if you have enough personal history with someone and there has been real and unresolved hurt between you two as part of that, you could at some point get a mix of the second and third group response from someone. Meaning, someone who might otherwise know that that's how you communicate could get triggered based on some unresolved hurt between the two of you specifically, and kind of go off. In that case, seems to me the real issue isn't how you communicate but rather the confusion and pain generated from unresolved hurt between two people.

I don't know how much of what I just wrote makes sense outside my own head, though.

I've always thought in literal terms, so that's how I communicate. she knows me well enough to not, but she sometimes does this to show how i'm coming across, and i'll go to her when someone's mad at me and explain the situation and she'll tell me what i did wrong and how i could've been perceived.

one time I corrected someone, and they got mad. so I told her about and she's like people don't like to be corrected. and I was like I do, so why wouldn't other people? which I still don't understand why people don't like being corrected. it makes no sense, as if someone corrects me then i'll know for next time.

 

[Werebudgie]

I've always thought in literal terms, so that's how I communicate. she knows me well enough to not, but she sometimes does this to show how i'm coming across, and i'll go to her when someone's mad at me and explain the situation and she'll tell me what i did wrong and how i could've been perceived.

Makes sense.

one time I corrected someone, and they got mad. so I told her about and she's like people don't like to be corrected. and I was like I do, so why wouldn't other people? which I still don't understand why people don't like being corrected. it makes no sense, as if someone corrects me then i'll know for next time.

My view on this: That's a universal statement, "people don't like being corrected." But there's lots of human diversity and so how can she accurately speak for all people? She can speak for herself - she doesn't like being corrected. Similarly, you can speak for yourself - you seem to value being corrected so you'll know for next time. Both can be true at the same time because you're different people with different experiences, preferences etc etc. The question for me then becomes, if and how you can interact given these differences.

(and this may be off-topic, but I have noticed that my INFP sometimes makes statements from her Fi values that feel universalizing to me, as if she's generalizing her own individual values to all people (to me this seems like Te-inf serving Fi-dom). Anyway, the reality we've uncovered is that there's some relatively complex thing that this is for her, which right now I can't remember/grasp enough to describe - I do remember that it's not exactly universalizing, but not exactly NOT universalizing either).

 

[prplchknz]

Makes sense.



My view on this: That's a universal statement, "people don't like being corrected." But there's lots of human diversity and so how can she accurately speak for all people? She can speak for herself - she doesn't like being corrected. Similarly, you can speak for yourself - you seem to value being corrected so you'll know for next time. Both can be true at the same time because you're different people with different experiences, preferences etc etc. The question for me then becomes, if and how you can interact given these differences.

(and this may be off-topic, but I have noticed that my INFP sometimes makes statements from her Fi values that feel universalizing to me, as if she's generalizing her own individual values to all people (to me this seems like Te-inf serving Fi-dom). Anyway, the reality we've uncovered is that there's some relatively complex thing that this is for her, which right now I can't remember/grasp enough to describe - I do remember that it's not exactly universalizing, but not exactly NOT universalizing either).

Yeah she did say most people didn't like to be corrected, not everyone. plus she knew who i was talking about

 

[Werebudgie]

Yeah she did say most people didn't like to be corrected, not everyone. plus she knew who i was talking about

Ooooh, I totally misunderstood that comment, I didn't get that you were talking about your friend who helps you understand rather than the person who got mad. Sorry! It seems obvious when I read it now. My comment wasn't relevant to what you were actually saying (eta: unless that vague Fi/universalizing stuff is somehow useful for you as a Fi-dom in your efforts to understand the situation, but it's so vague I don't really know if it will).

For me, my willingness to be corrected about someone's communication intent depends on the trust level, how much I care about the relationship, and/or whether I feel the other person is communicating in good faith.

 

[prplchknz]

Ooooh, I totally misunderstood that comment, I didn't get that you were talking about your friend who helps you understand rather than the person who got mad. Sorry! It seems obvious when I read it now. My comment wasn't relevant to what you were actually saying (eta: unless that vague Fi/universalizing stuff is somehow useful for you as a Fi-dom in your efforts to understand the situation, but it's so vague I don't really know if it will).

For me, my willingness to be corrected about someone's communication intent depends on the trust level, how much I care about the relationship, and/or whether I feel the other person is communicating in good faith.

yeah perhaps, maybe, me also taking 90% of what people say literally might hinder communication as well, because they'll ask a rhetorical question and I assume they actually want it answered and they don't

 

[Werebudgie]

yeah perhaps, maybe, me also taking 90% of what people say literally might hinder communication as well, because they'll ask a rhetorical question and I assume they actually want it answered and they don't

Hmmm, interesting! Seems really possible to me (for the record, rhetorical questions really seriously irritate me. Not sure why, but they do. That said, I usually recognize them as rhetorical questions rather than taking them literally).

So I talked with my INFP about this topic last night and she totally got where you're coming from with the literal communication. I mean, instantly, she related to where you're coming from with the literal use of words. I see it in her too but wanted to get her response to make sure I was accurate. We both realized that this "literal versus contextual" distinction explains some otherwise really confusing struggles we've had in our communication, and gives us another tool to understand each other and our differences. I'm really grateful for this discussion.

(BTW, in case this is of any use, she made the suggestion that when it comes to TypeC, you could put something in your sig file or otherwise upfront in your comments that you communicate literally and the meaning of your words are literally what those words say. She said that if people continue to misunderstand from there, at least you've done what you can to communicate clearly.)

 

[prplchknz]

deconstruct this

".you're direct and honest, so very aries"

i responded with "but I'm not an aries"

and said I missed the point. What was the point?

 

[Werebudgie]

deconstruct this

".you're direct and honest, so very aries"

i responded with "but I'm not an aries"

and said I missed the point. What was the point?

my guess is that the point was that you're direct and honest. The aries reference seems to be a descriptive marker ... like something that symbolizes or associates with directness and honesty to that person, and they're thinking, you're like that. It wouldn't doesn't matter if you're actually aries from that vantage point. What matters is the directness and honesty the person is trying to describe. That's my guess at least.

[note: you know, I might actually say the same thing that you did - "but I'm not an aries" - but I'd be coming from a different place. I'd respond that way because I'd suspect that they didn't mean aries literally, so my response would be partly joking and partly opening into possible lighthearted questioning their association of "directness and honesty = aries" (or vice versa) because .... I don't know. Really? Why? I associate aries with stubbornness, and actually my own astrological sign is supposed to be pretty blunt so .... yeah, all of that would be running underneath my response in my own head at least. Plus, I'd also be internally wondering or attending to what directness and honesty means to them in practice, what they've seen in me that yields that description etc.]