• You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

[INFP] An INFP's Dilemma or Just Mine?

Meursault

New member
Joined
May 29, 2007
Messages
44
in the thread about when and if INFs give up on people, toonia disliked my comments and searched my old posts and found what she felt were conflicts between what i was saying in that thread and what i had said at other times.

because of this i went back and re-read all of my old posts here, and this got me to thinking about something--i would admit that i am internally conflicted a lot these days about what i think of people in general and what i think of people specifically--and from reading posts on infpgc, it seems that this may be problem of older infps in general--on the one hand i have a deep love of humanity and the idea of people, but on the other i have been treated very badly by people who meant a lot to me over my life and avoid close relationships for the most part now. to prevent cynicism and maintain my idealism, i have largely kept myself from interacting with people for the last two years.

i don't have any ill feelings toward those people who hurt me, i've never been able to hold a grudge and i don't see them as bad people, but i do have trust and attachment issues from it, and to be honest, for the last two years i have mostly been a hermit, and i now prefer the company of people who are openly flawed in some way to people who seem to have it all together (i spent a day last week working with a mildly retarded woman and it was the most pleasant day i've had in a long time with another person, because there was no gamesmanship, no dissembling, no power-plays, it was just really honest--it made me sad to think how life could be if everyone wasn't motivated by fear and trying to convince everybody else that they aren't as screwed up as the next person and don't really suck like we all do).

anyway, my question is this: is this something other infps here have experienced a conflict between your generalized love of humanity and the reality of how you have been treated that causes sort of a disconnect in your thinking? and if so, have you reacted like i have, to preserve the love of humanity at the expense of actually having people in your life?

(ps: before the triumvirate of toonia, cafe, and heart jump on me with "aha!"--i didn't bail on anyone, they all bailed on me--the boys i knew left for prettier girls and the girls i knew left for husbands and kids and life got in the way with everyone else--married people are allergic to single people...and by 35 just about everyone you ever knew is now married...).
 

heart

heart on fire
Joined
May 19, 2007
Messages
8,456
I really don't have the concentration to get too deep into this one right now, but I want to say there is a BIG difference between someone who has personal issues that are hard for them to overcome and someone who is self-destructive or a user of others.

You might find this article interesting.
 
R

RDF

Guest
[...] on the one hand i have a deep love of humanity and the idea of people, but on the other i have been treated very badly by people who meant a lot to me over my life and avoid close relationships for the most part now. to prevent cynicism and maintain my idealism, i have largely kept myself from interacting with people for the last two years.[...]

[...] have you reacted like i have, to preserve the love of humanity at the expense of actually having people in your life? [...]

I've addressed this issue in the past on other forums, so I'll respond. Forgive me if I put my own spin on things by spouting my own ideas about the nature of "idealism." But the two sentences quoted above seem to be at the center of the OP, and the concept of idealism seems to be at the center of the two sentences quoted above.

I'll provide my own ideas about the nature of idealism, and then I'll answer your question: ("An INFP's Dilemma or Just Mine?")

I don't like idealism for 4 reasons:

1) It's kind of a fraud. What good does it do to say, "I like humanity, but I don't get along with humans," or "I like women, but I have to keep them away from me because I never get along with any of them"? It would be more honest to say "I like a fiction that I've invented in my head and that's loosely based on a real thing in life that I can't stand or that can't stand me."

2) Like most fictions, ideals tend to be self-serving. When I had my own ideals, I noticed that they didn't match other people's ideals. They were really only about me and what would serve my needs best. But what good are ideals if they are self-serving? One person says, "I love humanity, as long as it doesn't include gays." Another person says, "I love humanity, as long as everyone is always generous and self-sacrificing and never does anything selfish." Those two people both love humanity, but their ideals are unrealistic. Both are always going to find plenty of reason to point their finger at others and find plenty of people to dislike.

3) Ideals tend to be used as clubs for beating people over the head. The two guys mentioned in point number 2 are going to spend their lives berating people for not living up to their ideals. Meantime, people who have learned to live with humanity in its actual, flawed form are going to wonder why these two idealists and lovers of humanity exude so much discontent and spend so much time arguing with others. In a way, it's a positive feature: A lot of the hate and venom in the world is due to people wanting to improve the world and make the world to live up to an ideal. But the downside is that a lot of people are being clubbed on the head in the process.

4) Idealists tend to be vulnerable and defensive in debates. That is, an idealist berates other people in a debate for not living up to an ideal. But then the other people in the debate notice that they are being held to an unusually high standard and they ask the idealist how he deals with certain real-life situations. And since the ideal is largely a fiction, the idealist himself can't prove he is living up to his ideal in his own real-life circumstances and he quickly ends up on the defensive. And that becomes another reason for the idealist to become venomous and club the other people over their head even harder with the ideal.

As a result of all this, I tend not to like idealists. I've been one myself, and I didn't like the results. So I try to accept others as they are. When I meet other idealists, I try not to debate them; I write off their strong language and sideswipes at others as mere hyperbole, and in my head I retranslate their language into more moderate terms for communication purposes. But I do kind of snicker when other folks take idealists at face value and argue with them. I figure the burden is on the idealist to wise up and accept reality or face self-banishment from the thing they supposedly love so much.

To answer your question from the OP: Yes, one sees this kind of idealism a lot among INFPs. Keirsey labels us the Idealists as a personality type, and idealists tend to run into the problem of needing to separate themselves from the thing they love so that they can remain in love with the fictional version and won't have to face up to and admit their dislike for the real thing itself (or won't have to learn to genuinely like the real thing).

I used to post on INFP-GC and ran into a lot of idealists with your problem to one degree or another. Like I said, I tried to deal with them by reinterpreting their language as hyperbole. But it wore on me, and I increasingly wanted to throttle them and yell, "But what about real life!?!" I got tired of responding to posts about hypothetical situations and saying, "Well in real life, here's what happens..."

Like I said, this is my own spin on idealism. I admit that it's pretty cynical; and I've oversimplified things a bit for brevity's sake. But that's how I see things. It's a personal opinion; take it with a grain of salt. I'm not looking to debate with you or put your back against the wall on this or any other issue. It's just that I've responded to other questions about the nature of INFP idealism in the past and I have this nice neat response worked out as a result.

If you don't like it, then ignore it and move on. It's a personal observation about the nature of idealism and INFPs in general, not an attack against you personally or a negative reaction to anything you've said and done here.
 

Maverick

New member
Joined
Apr 29, 2007
Messages
880
MBTI Type
ENTJ
I know NF's who do social work and their outlook is essentially similar: Original idealism and love of people that turns to dissapointment. They are also more comfortable being with people who are somewhat "flawed" as you suggest than people who have it all together. This is because they have trust issues and feel more at ease with someone that would/could not try to harm them. They also feel that they can bring something to someone "flawed" whereas they cannot do anything for someone who has it all together.

I think this is the danger of high idealism. When your expectations and beliefs of people are too high, you can only go downhill to dissapointment.
 

Mempy

Mamma said knock you out
Joined
Jul 29, 2007
Messages
2,227
It may comfort you to know that everyone is flawed, whether openly or not. Do you hold it against those who want to hide their flaws? I'm pretty sure a lot of people do that, unless they're really unselfconscious.

It's weird that you say you like openly flawed people but also say that it's flawed people in the past who have hurt you. I'm not sure how you can like flawed people, in that case, and only let those kinds of people into your life, when logically speaking the people who hurt you would have to be flawed, too.

FineLine and Maverick have points. The highest price of idealism is bitter disappointment, and if you set the bar too high, who's ever going to meet it? But the paradox here is that you seem to like flaws - which everyone has - but not like humanity. If you like flaws, you should LOVE humanity, hehe. I mean, what better place to find them?
 

JivinJeffJones

New member
Joined
Apr 25, 2007
Messages
3,702
MBTI Type
INFP
I went to insta-reply and realized that I will have to give this one some more thought. I have a few opinions to offer, but I suspect they are more convenient than true.
 

Varelse

Wait, what?
Joined
Apr 25, 2007
Messages
1,698
MBTI Type
INTJ
I've certainly seen cases where an NF's idealism wound up causing problems, generally because they expected things to go ideally, and then got hurt and angry when things didn't. :(
 

Eve

New member
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
64
To answer your question from the OP: Yes, one sees this kind of idealism a lot among INFPs. Keirsey labels us the Idealists as a personality type, and idealists tend to run into the problem of needing to separate themselves from the thing they love so that they can remain in love with the fictional version and won't have to face up to and admit their dislike for the real thing itself (or won't have to learn to genuinely like the real thing).

:rofl1:

So true! I'm getting over that. I'm turning a bit cynical, but I like it.


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

Meursault -When you are isolated it's very easy for you to live up to your ideals and blame other people for being so flawed, there is nobody challenging your patience and you don't have to confront your demons, therefore you don't have to adjust your views to reality. (Not sure I'm being clear enough)

I find it has been more rewarding to adjust my views and live among people. Isolation caused me a lot of harm.
 

Totenkindly

@.~*virinaĉo*~.@
Joined
Apr 19, 2007
Messages
50,187
MBTI Type
BELF
Enneagram
594
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
Reading this, I realized that I do not really understand this sort of idealism. I have noticed it in my INFP friend I meet weekly too. For a long time, he seemed to take someone's humanity (i.e., their weaknesses and failures) personally.

The difference especially came out when a mutual friend lied to everyone for months about the nature of a relationship of his and eventually left his wife/family for this other woman. I suspected all along he was cheating because his story did not "make sense" to me... but I did not take it as a personal affront to me, although obviously he was lying to me directly at times. I just took it as a sign of his particular issues. I could see what he COULD be if he changed in positive ways and wished he could; but I also accepted his humanity and saw the realistic parts and did not hold them against them.

But my INFP friend felt so betrayed by the lies that he could not talk to this person even when they tried to reestablish a relationship later, whereas I might have still judged the adulterer's behavior as "wrong" to me but I could still relate to him normally. My friend is one of the kindest, outwardly non-judgmental people I've ever known; but he took this action very very personally, like a slur against his idealism.

My friend and I both "love humanity" (oh, I think I've made that joke forever -- "I love humanity, it's people I hate"), but he has the same protective devices up, the same hard judgments. And these are the only times I really get a glimpse of him "angry" -- on those rare occasions he has opened up and shared how BADLY he was hurt by someone behaving a certain way, violating his ideals for them.

I wish I could understand it better than I do.

I do agree with FineLine's assessment and would have grown frustrated having to keep dragging the conversation back to "real life." Idealistically, people COULD be "here"... but realistically, they are never there, they are always a bit lower on the ladder. So why is their failure to meet the ideal such a personal affront? It's unrealistic. Shouldn't the ideal just be the goal, and a very real wish for someone, but not a burden for them to suffer under as they can never really meet it?

(And realistically, a relationship is not what exists in your head, it is what actually exists between you and the other person. I don't think it's very possible to "love humanity" if one can't deal with people. It's more like one is actually in love with their personal vision [for humanity], just in love with a part of themselves... and not really in love with actual people. Reading a poet like EA Robinson, who managed to somehow convey love and affection for individual people who were very flawed and letting others down -- to me that is real love of humanity.)

I don't know. I just wish I could understand it better.
 

heart

heart on fire
Joined
May 19, 2007
Messages
8,456
If a friend will lie to his wife and family about an affair, he will someday lie too YOU.

I would never trust this person again. I would always know when dealing with them what they proven to me themselves they were capable of.

That's just common sense self protection and nothing there about pie in the sky idealism.
 
R

RDF

Guest
I don't know. I just wish I could understand it better.

I'll take a stab at this. I have a picture in my head of how it works, and I'll try to make it intelligible for others.

I'm just presenting a model, and I'm not saying it's perfect. My model allows me to integrate a bunch of disparate elements and see them working together as a cohesive whole. But take it with a grain of salt. It's just me playing around with some ideas. Someone else could present another model or improve on my model.

(The following is a long post. If you don't want to read the entire thing, you can skip down to the second set of asterisks and read the summing up. That'll give you the gist.)

*****************

Traditional Freudian psychology says that as children we all undergo individuation (splitting off from our parents and developing our own identity), and subsequently we seek ways to influence our environment in order to achieve our own desires. Since our parents are the main ones able to deliver us what we want, this process largely comes down to a contract we develop with our primary caretaker. The child effectively says to the parent, "I will behave in X manner, and you will be amused/impressed/grateful enough to provide me what I want in return (usually love and approbation)."

Again, Freudian theory says that having found the behavior X to be a successful way of getting what we want, we tend to perfect it and use it as our main way of dealing with people right up into adulthood. From this, you get the Freudian truism that in our adult relationships we are just playing out the conflicts and dynamics that we developed as children with our parents. You also get the truism that dysfunctional relationship dynamics (a flawed or unhealthy X behavior) have their roots in the childhood environment. For example, traditional psychology tends to hold that personality disorders originate with a dysfunctional environment and dynamics in childhood.

That's all pretty standard stuff, and none of it necessarily conflicts with traditional Jungian MBTI theory. It just raises the assumption that to some extent we "chose" our personality type functions because they worked or were favored in the our relationship with caregivers and our general childhood environment. (and/or were a best match with our natural talents).

Thus one might look at the 16 MBTI behaviors/beliefs/value systems as 16 different contracts with the world: "I will provide product/behavior X, and you will respect and love me."

Of course, depending on the personality type, "providing product/behavior X" can mean a lot of different things: "I will entertain you by being funny;" "I will protect you from disorder by providing you with a clean and organized household"; "I will fascinate you with my technical/mechanical/athletic/intellectual/oratorical prowess"; "I will give you pleasure by servicing your physical needs"; "I will protect you from fear and doubt by being super-competent and always having solutions to all your problems;" and so on.

A couple themes keep popping up, for example offers of protection, offers of entertainment, etc. These reflect the deals we made with our parents and the things that earned us the greatest rewards in childhood (and/or were a best match with our natural talents).

In addition, a couple other sub-themes pop up. For example, some behavior or products are interactive and hands-on: I will provide a certain environment or certain services for you (I will be a good homemaker, I will service your needs, I will protect you from dangers and fears). Others are more solipsist and mostly concern display and entertainment: I will fish around inside of me, pull something out of my butt, and attract your attention: I will amuse you, I will provide art for you, I will create weighty thoughts for you. The athlete, artist, comedian, philosopher, and moralist fall into the latter category. Obviously the INFP idealist falls into this category as well.

The athlete, artist, comedian, philosopher, and moralist detach themselves from the audience, create distance between themselves and the audience by climbing up on a stage, and they say to the audience, "Watch me, I will entertain you!" (Let's call these people "actors," since that's really what they are.) Again, it's the reenactment of the old childhood contract with the parent: "I will behave in X manner, and you will be amused/impressed/grateful enough to provide me what I want in return (usually love and approbation)."

If the entertainment is successful, the audience will applaud and approve the entertainment, and the contract will be successful for the actor. If the entertainment is a failure, the audience will boo, the actor will tell himself that the audience doesn't recognize true art, and either he will work on his act to improve it or he will refuse to have anything to do with the audience again. In the latter case, he'll insist that he loves the art and the stage and the audience, but he'll refuse to have anything to do with any of them because the audience isn't good enough for him.

The degree of one's solipsism affects the chances of one's success. Good actors avoid the trap of solipsism; they pay attention to their audience, interact with it, figure out what the audience wants to see, and improve their act to better deliver what the audience wants. These are your successful athletes, artists, comedians, philosophers, and moralists. They honor the old saying: "Know your audience."

Bad actors, on the other hand, are often too solipsist to really pay attention to the audience. They see themselves as the center of the world; the audience is only an indiscriminate mass beyond the footlights. Solipsist actors care only about what's inside them and what they themselves are feeling; it doesn't matter what the audience wants. In the heat of performance, the solipsist actor may be so focused on being true to himself that he barely registers the audience. He may see the audience as little more than a mirror in which he watches himself.

And when the audience gets bored and registers its disapproval by booing, the negative feedback can be crushing to the solipsist actor. At the end of the performance, the solipsist actor still needs the audience's approval; after all, that's what this whole exercise is about. The audience may only be a mere mirror to the solipsist actor, but mirrors have the power to make us feel good or feel bad. If the audience reflects back a negative image of the actor, the actor may be too crushed to ever act again. He may break the mirror and reject the audience forever.

I've mentioned in another thread that I see the INFP mindset as potentially highly solipsist. Many INFPs rummage around inside themselves (fantasy worlds, childhood memories) for emotional experiences. It can give them an inward, self-involved orientation.

Furthermore, the occupation of moralist and idealist can be one of the most difficult and least rewarding. When an idealist gets on the stage and harangues the audience about how they don't measure up to his ideals, it's easy to lose the audience and get bad feedback.

Effective idealists who interact successfully with an audience can, in fact, earn the highest praise and respect: They are accorded the title of "prophet" or "revolutionary". But that requires a high degree of skill and ability to interact with the audience. Most idealists are too solipsist and self-involved to interact effectively with the audience. They are usually pulling their morals from inside, and they forget to account for how the morals will be received by the audience.

So the audience gets tired of being harangued and starts booing, and the idealist is chased from the stage. The idealist takes this negative experience as one more proof that the audience is unworthy of him (can't live up to his high ideals), and rather than learn from the experience about the need to interact successfully with the audience and fit his message to the audience, the disillusioned idealist goes off into the desert to play the role of "voice in the wilderness"; meantime, the audience turns its attention to the next actor on the stage.

*******************

To sum up:

One's interactions with the world around them tend to follow (in some manner or other) the model of a childhood contract with the parent: "I will behave in X manner, and you will be amused/impressed/grateful enough to provide me what I want in return (usually love and approbation)."

As they grow up, some people become increasingly solipsist. Their act (the behavior X) may become increasingly important to them. If their act becomes all-important to them and they cease interacting with their audience (their spouse, their workplace, the society around them) and/or they cease accepting corrective feedback needed to keep the audience engaged, then they may find themselves isolated and alone: A lone voice in the wilderness.

INFPs tend to be solipsist by nature (seeking emotional experiences from inside) and also by calling (the message of the moralist and idealist comes from inside and is not an easy one to sell to an audience). A few INFPs manage to bridge the gap between their message and the audience and are acclaimed prophets and healers and revolutionaries. But most INFPs don't. And being too solipsist to learn from their experience, they end up rejecting their audience (their spouse, their workplace, the society around them) and find themselves alone.

They break the mirror, reject the audience, and go off alone. They still insist that they love the audience (like everyone else, they still want to act out the childhood contract with the audience), but interactions with an immoral (unappreciative) audience are too painful.

Of course, there is a simple solution. The audience need only approve the INFP. The approval may be insincere, but many INFPs are too solipsist and self-involved to notice the insincerity. And with time and patience, the INFP can be induced to pay more attention to the audience and incorporate feedback. And after all, the central message of this whole thread (at least my part of it) is accepting people as they are. The INFP deserves that acceptance too, as flawed as he may be. ;)

Also, some of you other types may want to consider how your "act" (the behavior X) may be separating you from your "audience" and isolating you.

Again, take this message with a grain of salt. I'm just theorizing and playing around. Please note that there's a tongue-in-cheek (INFP hyperbole) element to this message, as always.

Also, the post is overlong and could be condensed and made more effective with a rewrite. But the wife and I are headed out dancing, and I figure I'll send the post off as is. Remember the nature of INFPs: A little insincere approval from the audience is a good thing and a sign of acceptance of people as they are. :party2:
 
R

RDF

Guest
If a friend will lie to his wife and family about an affair, he will someday lie too YOU.

I would never trust this person again. I would always know when dealing with them what they proven to me themselves they were capable of.

That's just common sense self protection and nothing there about pie in the sky idealism.

I spent the better part of seven years in the Marine Corps living cheek-by-jowl in the barracks with some pretty shady characters. It was unrealistic to expect everyone to live up to my high ideals, and it was unrealistic to shun them and have nothing to do with them when they didn't act according to my ideals.

In the end, I did what everyone else does. I adjusted. That is, you get a feel for the limits of their dishonesty and work up an "honor among thieves" code. The only guys who truly got shunned were lone wolf types who couldn't even be trusted to observe simple "honor among thieves" codes. And that was largely determined by consensus of the barracks as a whole rather than by me personally.

That's how things tend to get worked out in a communal environment. I'm not saying it's the only model or the right one. I'm just saying that the response to dishonesty depends on the circumstances. By contrast, idealism sometimes tends to say that "One solution fits all." But in real life, solutions tend to be relative and depend on the circumstances.

Just my own opinion, of course, FWIW.
 

Eve

New member
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
64
If a friend will lie to his wife and family about an affair, he will someday lie too YOU.

I would never trust this person again. I would always know when dealing with them what they proven to me themselves they were capable of.

That's just common sense self protection and nothing there about pie in the sky idealism.

I disagree with you there. Things are not so black and white. You have to see situations and people inside a context, when you do that, you'll see there's a gray area that you are probably missing. We are humans and humans have contradictory feelings and actions. I'm not talking about naively trusting people that prove to be deceitful time and time again, but simply cutting someone off because of one thing wrong that they did, without trying to understand their point the view and the situation, seems a bit too harsh.
 

Mempy

Mamma said knock you out
Joined
Jul 29, 2007
Messages
2,227
quote FineLine's post

Jesus, that was a long post. It was good though, it was well written.

I agree, overall. Except with me, when I'm feeling insecure I'm usually too insecure to do without people's approval, so I keep trying. I tend to reach out, not withdraw or cut off. But I haven't lived very long either.

If a friend will lie to his wife and family about an affair, he will someday lie too YOU.

Jennifer said that he did lie to her, but that doesn't mean he'd ever hurt her. It doesn't mean he's dangerous. So he lied. Maybe he was just ashamed of his affair, or confused, or maybe he's just really private about his relationships. For all you know he could be the most awesome friend typically: fun, funny, kind, receptive, etc.

Flaws can be pretty big, but everybody's got them, including me. If I have a lot of fun with someone and they don't cause me significant harm, even if they have flaws that are pretty big, as long as we enjoy each other I'll keep them.

The only deciding factor in who I keep as a friend is how much fun I have with them. If they're obviously lying to me all the time or ditching me every chance they get, they're not fun. But if someone lied directly to me for being in an affair, I could forgive that. That's not a big deal to me. Now if they were my best friend or close I'd wonder why, but I don't think I'd mind.
 

Totenkindly

@.~*virinaĉo*~.@
Joined
Apr 19, 2007
Messages
50,187
MBTI Type
BELF
Enneagram
594
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
If a friend will lie to his wife and family about an affair, he will someday lie to YOU. I would never trust this person again. I would always know when dealing with them what they proven to me themselves they were capable of. That's just common sense self protection and nothing there about pie in the sky idealism.

But he was such a BAD liar.

And I specifically told my friend and others (including the spouse) that this person was lying. (I wasn't mean or inappropriate in the time and manner in which I said it -- I just intuitively thought that the odds were extremely good that this person was lying).

This person also had been highly unstable, was probably a borderline personality, had been abused as a child, has numerous half-brothers and sisters (I would go on, but my point is that their childhood was VERY messed up by any standards)... and yet my idealist friend insisted on holding him to this very high standard that he was warned was probably not accurate... and then cut off all communication for 2+ years with this person, even when the person tried to open the door again, because the person basically did what it was obvious he was going to do.

And it was just odd, because my friend is so gracious I feel callous next to him... but I was willing to deal with this person as they were, while he just had standards that were unrealistic for this person.

So that is why I chalk it up as idealism; this person lied to me as well, but I knew his situation and trusted my instincts and so I could offer some grace. My friend's expectations were far too idealistic for this individual. And I have seen the idealism play out elsewhere with him as well; he often mistakes people's impersonal humanity/failed nature for personal betrayal.

Jennifer said that he did lie to her, but that doesn't mean he'd ever hurt her. It doesn't mean he's dangerous. So he lied. Maybe he was just ashamed of his affair, or confused, or maybe he's just really private about his relationships. For all you know he could be the most awesome friend typically: fun, funny, kind, receptive, etc.

This person was a very self-indulgent, self-centered ESFP type. At the core of his being was just a fear of rejection, and a fear of not being good enough. He didn't actually want to hurt people, he was just selfish and driven by his desires which he thought could not be met in other ways. (That is not an excuse for his irresponsibility; but as you mention, it differentiates him from a sociopath or antisocial personality who intends to be cruel. This person was just like a frightened 8-year-old in an adult's body.)
 

heart

heart on fire
Joined
May 19, 2007
Messages
8,456
I disagree with you there. Things are not so black and white. You have to see situations and people inside a context, when you do that, you'll see there's a gray area that you are probably missing. We are humans and humans have contradictory feelings and actions. I'm not talking about naively trusting people that prove to be deceitful time and time again, but simply cutting someone off because of one thing wrong that they did, without trying to understand their point the view and the situation, seems a bit too harsh.


Breaking the marriage vow and lying about it is one of the bigger lies that people tell in life. It is no white lie. When people get married, they vow with everything dear to them in their lives, their very souls, that they will be honest and faithful with this person and they can't keep that promise? Why as a friend to whom no such vows were exchanged should I doubt that they could do lie to me or hurt me if it became necessary to fit some whim or desire they had?

It is a clue as to how they solve their conflicts when life gets hard. Cheating and shopping the meat market while your spouse sits at home thinking everything is OK is a pretty low thing to do. There is no reason why an adult person cannot try marriage counseling and then if that does not work or the spouse does not agree to go, then seperation and letting the spouse know that you will now be entering the dating world is upfront way to handle an unsatisfying marriage relationship. It is just not fair to the other party to do otherwise.

It would indeed depend on the situation, but what I am saying is I would never be able to trust that person completely. They would have a lot of proving themselves back to me, but then again maybe they don't care either and that is fine too. No one is forced to be a friend of anyone in this world and those who want to lie and cheat and hurt others with impunity will find many people willing to befriend them.

I spent the better part of seven years in the Marine Corps living cheek-by-jowl in the barracks with some pretty shady characters. It was unrealistic to expect everyone to live up to my high ideals, and it was unrealistic to shun them and have nothing to do with them when they didn't act according to my ideals.

That's a working type of relationship, not a intimate, pick your friends kind of relationship. It is not the same thing.
 

heart

heart on fire
Joined
May 19, 2007
Messages
8,456
But he was such a BAD liar.

And I specifically told my friend and others (including the spouse) that this person was lying. (I wasn't mean or inappropriate in the time and manner in which I said it -- I just intuitively thought that the odds were extremely good that this person was lying).

This person also had been highly unstable, was probably a borderline personality, had been abused as a child, has numerous half-brothers and sisters (I would go on, but my point is that their childhood was VERY messed up by any standards)... and yet my idealist friend insisted on holding him to this very high standard that he was warned was probably not accurate... and then cut off all communication for 2+ years with this person, even when the person tried to open the door again, because the person basically did what it was obvious he was going to do.


I am not saying that I would necessarily drop a friend for this, but I would never look at them the same again. Many people have been abused as children but not all of them take that pain into their adult lives and create hurt and pain for others.

ETA. Is it possible that there is more to what went on between your friend and the man who lied/cheated than you know? I have a troubled relationship with a family member and I have broken contact because I just cannot take the pain and chaos this person creates. My family as a whole doesn't understand because things happened between us that I don't want to tell them about.

For one thing, the family member BEGGED me not to tell them and I did promise that I would not and for other thing, these things would definately prejudice some family members against this person and I don't want to ruin their relationship with this person. This person has enough on their plate without everyone being alienated from them.

Is it all possible that you don't know all the facts between the INFP and the friend?
 

heart

heart on fire
Joined
May 19, 2007
Messages
8,456
Flaws can be pretty big, but everybody's got them, including me. If I have a lot of fun with someone and they don't cause me significant harm, even if they have flaws that are pretty big, as long as we enjoy each other I'll keep them.


To my way of thinking, there are flaws and then there are deal killers in friends. It all depends on what a person wants to bring into their lives.
 

heart

heart on fire
Joined
May 19, 2007
Messages
8,456
*****************

Others are more solipsist and mostly concern display and entertainment: I will fish around inside of me, pull something out of my butt, and attract your attention: I will amuse you, I will provide art for you, I will create weighty thoughts for you. The athlete, artist, comedian, philosopher, and moralist fall into the latter category. Obviously the INFP idealist falls into this category as well.

The athlete, artist, comedian, philosopher, and moralist detach themselves from the audience, create distance between themselves and the audience by climbing up on a stage, and they say to the audience, "Watch me, I will entertain you!" (Let's call these people "actors," since that's really what they are.) Again, it's the reenactment of the old childhood contract with the parent: "I will behave in X manner, and you will be amused/impressed/grateful enough to provide me what I want in return (usually love and approbation)."

If the entertainment is successful, the audience will applaud and approve the entertainment, and the contract will be successful for the actor. If the entertainment is a failure, the audience will boo, the actor will tell himself that the audience doesn't recognize true art, and either he will work on his act to improve it or he will refuse to have anything to do with the audience again. In the latter case, he'll insist that he loves the art and the stage and the audience, but he'll refuse to have anything to do with any of them because the audience isn't good enough for him.

The degree of one's solipsism affects the chances of one's success. Good actors avoid the trap of solipsism; they pay attention to their audience, interact with it, figure out what the audience wants to see, and improve their act to better deliver what the audience wants. These are your successful athletes, artists, comedians, philosophers, and moralists. They honor the old saying: "Know your audience."

Bad actors, on the other hand, are often too solipsist to really pay attention to the audience. They see themselves as the center of the world; the audience is only an indiscriminate mass beyond the footlights. Solipsist actors care only about what's inside them and what they themselves are feeling; it doesn't matter what the audience wants. In the heat of performance, the solipsist actor may be so focused on being true to himself that he barely registers the audience. He may see the audience as little more than a mirror in which he watches himself.

And when the audience gets bored and registers its disapproval by booing, the negative feedback can be crushing to the solipsist actor. At the end of the performance, the solipsist actor still needs the audience's approval; after all, that's what this whole exercise is about. The audience may only be a mere mirror to the solipsist actor, but mirrors have the power to make us feel good or feel bad. If the audience reflects back a negative image of the actor, the actor may be too crushed to ever act again. He may break the mirror and reject the audience forever.

I've mentioned in another thread that I see the INFP mindset as potentially highly solipsist. Many INFPs rummage around inside themselves (fantasy worlds, childhood memories) for emotional experiences. It can give them an inward, self-involved orientation.

Furthermore, the occupation of moralist and idealist can be one of the most difficult and least rewarding. When an idealist gets on the stage and harangues the audience about how they don't measure up to his ideals, it's easy to lose the audience and get bad feedback.

Effective idealists who interact successfully with an audience can, in fact, earn the highest praise and respect: They are accorded the title of "prophet" or "revolutionary". But that requires a high degree of skill and ability to interact with the audience. Most idealists are too solipsist and self-involved to interact effectively with the audience. They are usually pulling their morals from inside, and they forget to account for how the morals will be received by the audience.

So the audience gets tired of being harangued and starts booing, and the idealist is chased from the stage. The idealist takes this negative experience as one more proof that the audience is unworthy of him (can't live up to his high ideals), and rather than learn from the experience about the need to interact successfully with the audience and fit his message to the audience, the disillusioned idealist goes off into the desert to play the role of "voice in the wilderness"; meantime, the audience turns its attention to the next actor on the stage.

*******************

To sum up:

One's interactions with the world around them tend to follow (in some manner or other) the model of a childhood contract with the parent: "I will behave in X manner, and you will be amused/impressed/grateful enough to provide me what I want in return (usually love and approbation)."

As they grow up, some people become increasingly solipsist. Their act (the behavior X) may become increasingly important to them. If their act becomes all-important to them and they cease interacting with their audience (their spouse, their workplace, the society around them) and/or they cease accepting corrective feedback needed to keep the audience engaged, then they may find themselves isolated and alone: A lone voice in the wilderness.

INFPs tend to be solipsist by nature (seeking emotional experiences from inside) and also by calling (the message of the moralist and idealist comes from inside and is not an easy one to sell to an audience). A few INFPs manage to bridge the gap between their message and the audience and are acclaimed prophets and healers and revolutionaries. But most INFPs don't. And being too solipsist to learn from their experience, they end up rejecting their audience (their spouse, their workplace, the society around them) and find themselves alone.

They break the mirror, reject the audience, and go off alone. They still insist that they love the audience (like everyone else, they still want to act out the childhood contract with the audience), but interactions with an immoral (unappreciative) audience are too painful.

Of course, there is a simple solution. The audience need only approve the INFP. The approval may be insincere, but many INFPs are too solipsist and self-involved to notice the insincerity. And with time and patience, the INFP can be induced to pay more attention to the audience and incorporate feedback. And after all, the central message of this whole thread (at least my part of it) is accepting people as they are. The INFP deserves that acceptance too, as flawed as he may be. ;)

Also, some of you other types may want to consider how your "act" (the behavior X) may be separating you from your "audience" and isolating you.

Again, take this message with a grain of salt. I'm just theorizing and playing around. Please note that there's a tongue-in-cheek (INFP hyperbole) element to this message, as always.

Also, the post is overlong and could be condensed and made more effective with a rewrite. But the wife and I are headed out dancing, and I figure I'll send the post off as is. Remember the nature of INFPs: A little insincere approval from the audience is a good thing and a sign of acceptance of people as they are.
:party2:

Speaking just for myself, I don't care what the "audience" thinks of my beliefs and ideas. My ideas are for myself, as goals for myself to strive for. If people don't cheer their approval for me, that's fine. If people are turned off to me and don't want to be by buddy, that's fine too.

I really don't care if I am "pleasing" others with my viewpoints. That's not my goal in life. Flattery in fact is something that can knock a person off their balance in trying to find the only thing that really matters, their own voice of conscience.

I don't consider the way the topic slid as an example so much of ideals, but instead an example of the ways that a person may chose to protect themselves against others whose actions may not always be trustworthy. The OP mentioned people who had hurt her in her life. I assume that this was signifigant and long lasting patterns in people because she doesn't strike me as the sort who just flakes on people, from the things she says.

I don't think we're required to solve the problems of those who hurt us by allowing ourselves to be their whipping child over and over. I think a person can be free to say enough is enough and move on at some point without having it shoved back at them as some "proof" that they aren't allowed their own ideals about life or that they are hypocrties.

A healthy self interst is vital to living a truth in life. We're brainwashed in this society that we cannot be self protective or selfish in healthy ways. It is all hogwash.
 
Last edited:

SolitaryWalker

Tenured roisterer
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
3,504
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
so/sx
Speaking just for myself, I don't give a flying F what the "audience" thinks of my beliefs and ideas, include yourself in that category. My ideas are for myself, as goals for myself to strive for. If people don't cheer their approval for me, that's fine. If people are turned off to me and don't want to be by buddy, that's fine too..


:) Yes! That is the beauty of Introverted Judgment.
I really don't care if I am "pleasing" others with my viewpoints. That's not my goal in life. Flattery in fact is something that can knock a person off their balance in trying to find the only thing that really matters, their own voice of conscience.

Indeed, external standards are pernicious in a way that they are likely to derail us from our inner quest. And only through the latter could our existence be fulfilled, only after inner peace has been achieved.
 
Top