[MBTI General] INFJ Compatibility - Why the INFJ/ENTP dynamic is hands down the best.

[1487610420]

Fe is not in the way, you need it. I think one of the most concise things I've read on Fe in INFJ is on the personalitypages.com website. Here's an excerpt:



Link: http://www.personalitypage.com/html/INFJ_per.html


This is what I think you're doing, here, lately, in this thread and in your blog. Using your Fe on YOU in this healthy way to expand your framework and not on others for the purpose of retaining an existing one. I think there's a fair corollary in that as an Fi user I have had to learn to use Fi on OTHERS and not just me. Meaning, when people treat me badly it's not because I was wrong or stupid or deserved it somehow. I need to look OUT. As I see it and have shared in the past, it's about using your Fe IN. I wish I had better words to explain.

Fe is your friend. It really, really is. The evidence is in the process you are experiencing. It is enabling you to expand your framework in positive ways, optimize your interactions with others, learn more about YOU in that process too. But it's a long and slow task. The only advantage I've had is a head-start since the world is not patient with Pe users and I've had to adapt from a younger age. We are all still learning, really.

So, you have nothing to apologize for in any way.

Nice find. It likely summarizes Pe povs regarding Je in INFJs [MENTION=15291]Mane[/MENTION] et al.

 

[Eilonwy]

That's all I was looking for. Maybe it's the Fi-hang-up thing, but I hate to see people bending over backwards for others at the expense of who they are. It puts them at risk for self-flagellation, martyr syndrome and generally being miserable for no good reason. Otoh, the willingness to grow and integrate things is

It just occurred to me, too, that I don't just think about these things, I immerse myself in them in order to fully experience them and try to understand them. And that's what's showing on the outside.* I can see how that can go either way--putting myself through it deliberately in order to grow, or letting it happen to me and feeling like a martyr. And it would be very easy to fall into martyrdom. That's why I try to be accountable. I might not always act responsibly, but I'll take responsibility for those acts.

Gosh, I hope with this one that what I say and what I demonstrate match and I'm not completely fooling myself.




ETA: Besides, I wouldn't bend over backwards for others. I'm an INFJ, which essentially means that I'm self-centered, so it's all about MEEEEEEEEEE!



I hope everyone realizes that I'm joking.



Or am I?



*ETA2: And that's what I'm reporting here, on the forum, too--what the immersion experience is like for me. Admittedly, part of me can't help but want sympathy and support, but, if I'm not completely fooling myself here, then a big reason I go into so much detail about the experience is to try to inform. I know I keep mentioning it, but I've done a lot of the same thing in my blog, where I've repeatedly asked people to not respond to, or feel responsible for, the emotions I write about. I tend to forget to put the same disclaimer in my public posts.

Sorry for all the ETA's. It's part of how the brain works, and I'm too distracted in real life to compose my thoughts better than I'm doing.

 

[Eilonwy]

Throwing some thoughts out there.

I've been thinking about my ex-husband and about what I've learned from here and it seems to me that, despite what word choices and a possible lack of some social skills when younger convey, ENTPs don't complain much. I know, I know. Some people will read that and be shocked because it will seem that all some of you do on the forum is complain, but that's not true. That's way after the fact--and after a lot of frustration from not being heard.

Anyway, back to my ex. I've been realizing that he rarely complained, and when he did, it was mostly about his brother, and maybe his mother. Even then, after seeing what the family dynamic was in his case, his complaints were minuscule compared to what he had suffered through. Which makes me wonder how much he suffered through with me without complaining.

I, on the other hand, complained about his family a lot. It wasn't right how they treated him. And he and I did have arguments, but it seems to me now that I was the one who initiated those. It's been so long I can't be sure, but the ones I remember were the ones I started. He was always so laid-back, so that's probably correct--that I'm the one who initiated.

I've always believed that he left because he saw that I was emotionally miserable--he was doing it for me. And now I'm wondering if that was his way of problem solving. Instead of complaining, he would just see a problem and solve it the best he could. I think he took on more than his fair share of responsibility and didn't say anything about it, so I never knew that he was doing that. From the outside, it didn't show. I would have never guessed from his laid-back, joking exterior that he was taking on so much serious responsibility. I misinterpreted his actions based on that. And so, maybe he needed to learn to set some firm boundaries, just as much as I needed to learn to be more responsible. Speculation and guesses.

 

[1487610420]

This is something that has come up again and again and again- pointing out there is another point of view. The reason it’s puzzling to me (that it comes up again and again) is because it seems like a given. It’s obvious that there are other points of view. There are *a lot* of other points of view out there. And I think this (new) tangent about feeling understood is an important part of whether or not *I* give someone else’s point of view much weight. It really doesn’t have as much to do with ‘whether the information is flattering’ as some people/the other thread kept suggesting, it has to do with a mutual respect and ability to empathize: where I sense respect and the ability to empathize in reciprocated proportion isn’t present (for balanced dynamics), I don’t think it’s healthy or productive to continue pouring much of my time/energy into trying to understand their point of view. This isn't about only excepting/listening to complaints issued in socially acceptable formats, this is about actual mutual respect- why should I continue interaction where someone is demanding respect without feeling any obligation to return that respect or reciprocate concern? [Even if someone insists they are returning respect- one key question is, do they care if I don't feel heard? Because if someone doesn't care that I don't feel heard- while they're simultaneously arguing that they DO respect my POV, and maybe they try arguing that I SHOULD feel heard because they DO respect my POV (therefore, there's something wrong with my feelings if I feel like they don't respect my POV...)- that's really not the same as actually having respect for my POV.]

So this thing about there being another point of view….I don’t know, it seems strange to have it repeatedly pointed out because that much seems obvious. It’s about priorities and whether or not someone else’s POV is worth investing my own time and effort into understanding. (I believe, for many of us) It isn’t about 'realizing' there are other points of view out there, that much is obviously true. It’s about figuring out which ones to invest in. Just because other points of view exist doesn’t mean it’s worth investing in them.

When I have respect for someone’s judgment and/or find exchanges rewarding enough to keep interacting with them, I generally do whatever I can think of to make the person feel heard/understood. To me, it’s a way of showing them that I respect them and that I care about how interacting with me effects them. So where I don’t feel heard, and where it seems like the other person doesn’t especially care whether I feel heard- I generally end up mirroring that (lack of) effort. Where someone isn’t especially important to me, why should I bother? I can see the occasional outpouring of compassion for someone who doesn't have it in them to return concern while they're down- but this shouldn't apply to an overall relationship to someone, as soon as that imbalance is spotted as being a regular part of a relationship.....it's time to either make it clear or to move on. Why should anyone expect to be important to me if they aren’t willing to care about whether or not I feel heard? It’s not doing myself or that other person, really (because it’s enabling them), any favors in continuing such unbalanced interaction.

[In B 4 argument that INFJs only ‘feel heard’ or ‘feel respected’ if you have flattering opinion of them…] And if someone is dealing with the kind of INFJ who backs away and doesn’t feel heard simply because you won’t harbor a delusional/flattering opinion of them, then why complain about them backing away? Who needs friends/significant others like that? I’d consider it a GOOD thing to have someone like that back away.

Also, I don’t think Je thinks in terms of ‘right’ or ‘wrong’, I think it’s more like ‘productive’ and ‘unproductive’. At any rate, any ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ label Je slaps on something isn’t really personal- it’s just about making navigation of the external world run smoothly, the more personal and deeply subjective evaluations are Ji territory.

I'm going to assume it's obvious what are the consequences of @bold in the context of intimacy, where the opposite is a necessary requirement.

Fe is not in the way, you need it. I think one of the most concise things I've read on Fe in INFJ is on the personalitypages.com website. Here's an excerpt:

When Introverted iNtuition dominates the INFJ such that the other functions cannot serve their own purposes, we find the INFJ cutting off information that it needs to consider. If the psyche is presented with information that looks anything like something that Introverted iNtuition has processed in the past, it uses Extraverted Feeling to quickly reject that information. The psyche uses Extraverted Feeling to reject the ideas, rather than taking the information into its intuitive framework, and therefore potentially causing that framework to be reshaped and redefined.


The better use of Extraverted Feeling for an INFJ would be to use it to assess the INFJ's rich insights and weigh them against the external world. When the INFJ personality uses Extraverted Feeling to cut off incoming information, rather than to judge internal intuitions, it is effectively cheating itself. It's like getting the answers to a test without having to really understand the questions. It's easier to get the answer right away, rather than to have to figure everything out. For the INFJ, who has a tremendous amount of information and "studying" that needs to be done, it's very tempting to take shortcuts. Most INFJs will do this to some extent. The real problems occur when an INFJ personality has become so imbalanced that its owner is extremely self-important and rarely consider anyone else's opinions or ideas.

Solutions

To grow as an individual, the INFJ needs to focus on applying their judgment to things only after they have gone through their intuition. In other words, the INFJ needs to consciously try not to use their judgment to dismiss ideas prematurely. Rather, they should use their judgment against their own ideas. One cannot effectively judge something that they don't understand. The INFJ needs to take things entirely into their intuition in order to understand them. It may be neccesary to give your intuition enough time to work through the new information so that it can rebuild its global framework of understanding. INFJs need to focus on using their judgment not to dismiss ideas, but rather to support their intuitive framework.

An INFJ who is concerned with personal growth will pay close attention to the subject of their judgments, and their motivation for making judgments. Are they judging something external to themself, or are they judging something that they have sifted through their intuition? Is the motivation for judging something to be able to understand its usefulness in the world, or to dismiss it? Too often, an INFJ will judge something without properly understanding it, and with the intention of dismissing it. Seek first to understand, then to judge.

Link: http://www.personalitypage.com/html/INFJ_per.html


This is what I think you're doing, here, lately, in this thread and in your blog. Using your Fe on YOU in this healthy way to expand your framework and not on others for the purpose of retaining an existing one. I think there's a fair corollary in that as an Fi user I have had to learn to use Fi on OTHERS and not just me. Meaning, when people treat me badly it's not because I was wrong or stupid or deserved it somehow. I need to look OUT. As I see it and have shared in the past, it's about using your Fe IN. I wish I had better words to explain.

Fe is your friend. It really, really is. The evidence is in the process you are experiencing. It is enabling you to expand your framework in positive ways, optimize your interactions with others, learn more about YOU in that process too. But it's a long and slow task. The only advantage I've had is a head-start since the world is not patient with Pe users and I've had to adapt from a younger age. We are all still learning, really.

So, you have nothing to apologize for in any way.

Throwing some thoughts out there.

I've been thinking about my ex-husband and about what I've learned from here and it seems to me that, despite what word choices convey and a possible lack of some social skills when younger, ENTPs don't complain much. I know, I know. Some people will read that and be shocked because it will seem that all some of you do on the forum is complain, but that's not true.

Anyway, back to my ex. I've been realizing that he rarely complained, and when he did, it was mostly about his brother, and maybe his mother. Even then, after seeing what the family dynamic was in his case, his complaints were minuscule compared to what he had suffered through. Which makes me wonder how much he suffered through with me without complaining.

I, on the other hand, complained about his family a lot. It wasn't right how they treated him. And he and I did have arguments, but it seems to me now that I was the one who initiated those. It's been so long I can't be sure, but the ones I remember were the ones I started. He was always so laid-back, so that's probably correct--that I'm the one who initiated.

I've always believed that he left because he saw that I was emotionally miserable--he was doing it for me. And now I'm wondering if that was his way of problem solving. Instead of complaining, he would just see a problem and solve it the best he could. I think he took on more than his fair share of responsibility and didn't say anything about it, so I never knew that he was doing that. From the outside, it didn't show. I would have never guessed from his laid-back, joking exterior that he was taking on so much serious responsibility. I misinterpreted his actions based on that. And so, maybe he needed to learn to set some firm boundaries, just as much as I needed to learn to be more responsible. Speculation and guesses.

 

[Z Buck McFate]

I'm going to assume it's obvious what are the consequences of @bold in the context of intimacy, where the opposite is a necessary requirement.

This whole topic is just a clusterf#ck of people injecting their own baggage into phrases that hook some emotional response.

What I wrote is coming from the assumption there is not yet an investment. Ergo, it would not apply to any context in which any intimacy might be established.

 

[1487610420]

This whole topic is just a clusterf#ck of people injecting their own baggage into phrases that hook some emotional response.

What I wrote is coming from the assumption there is not yet an investment. Ergo, it would not apply to any context in which any intimacy might be established.

Wrong thread?

 

[Z Buck McFate]

Wrong thread?

I suppose my response was a bit of a derail from the op, it was in response to something Eilonwy said.

 

[1487610420]

How serendipitous.

 

[Ginkgo]

Jeebus. This is still alive?

And it's not even about the INTJ/ENFP dynamics?

I'm going to chalk it up to being in the NF section, rather than the NT section.

The NT section is where all animals threads go when they pine for the sweet release of death.

 

[c00kiez_n_cream]

INFJs, do you really want to listen to nonsense like this for the rest of your lives? ^

Yes

 

[Society]

My making explicit what I thought you meant was a (misguided, in retrospect) attempt to answer that call.

it was - asking for advice about how to address that very problem, a.k.a. the "are you implying that i... [insert intent]" leap of logic which seems to be the common reaction.

Good to know. That wasn't what twigged my 'don't know if serious radar,' so it helps to have your confirmation that I'm just miscalibrated.

i am curious as to what did.

It's like the funhouse mirror or Monster of Frankenstein version of what's going on in me. Most of the parts are there, but the connections are messed up, the relative sizes are wrong, and I don't think it's actually viable. I could try to expand to the regular mirror/regular living human version, sure.

yes please

"Understanding what is, and understanding what useful to express" sounds like you think the latter is unrelated to the former.

not quite - intuitively my expectation says otherwise, but i thought you where making the point that it isn't, a.k.a. "if my husband cheated i wouldn't call him a cheater but convince him that he is better then that" <- its something i've contemplated as a more strategic approach for goading responsibility.

And I'm absolutely convinced that your option A is feasible when you say [...] Even though I also understand you're not feeling too optimistic about that.

then do it.

there is nothing forcing you to have only one type-based front in establishing your case, as eilonwy proved, and you have plenty of cases to do so all around: you have werebudgie who's arguments take the format of the emperor new clothes, you have z buck who expressed the firm belief that everyone complaining about INFJs in their lives and comparing patterns among themselves while sharing some of the most vulnerable stories to do so... are just part of a big conspiracy to make her feel bad about herself, done not necessarily by them but by their combined subconscious minds, who are apparently in denial about their entire motivational structure not revolving around the state of how she feels about herself, because - i kid you not - they are the ones suffering from a condition that leads to paranoid delusions in which one explains the behavior of others by large mental schemes centering around themselves (a.k.a. NPD). you have "the state i am in" who firmly believes that saying something by carefully avoiding finding out that it isn't true on the basis that its more emotionally compelling is - in his own words - the truth - who firmly believes relationships exclude causality. all 3 of the above view picking which perspective counts according to what suits them emotionally to both be a right and a reasonable decision - go ahead and confront one of them when ours doesn't. how about the nicer of the bunch (not sarcastic in that statement -they really are the nicer ones), where you have fia and cafe who think those stories and patterns must be provocations for them to defend their friends/themselves from and retaliate, thereby rationalizing the process in which one's response to hearing about someone abandoned mid pregnancy or getting cheated on or loosing their kid or having their house stolen (different people btw) is to attack them (well, "attack back" in their own mind). and that's just the tip of the iceberg selected by recent activity - in total you have more test subjects here then some professional researchers can afford in their budget. you even have the home court advantage in doing it. pick any.

you want to show an INFJ can be related to honestly and confronted with an image of themselves in contrary to their ego, that Ni self delusional walls can be climbed over.. then do it: confront an INFJ with a mental image contrary to their ego. show me. if confronting INFJs honestly about real life misgivings is humanly possible, then this should be a piece of cake.

 

[Z Buck McFate]

you have z buck who expressed the firm belief that everyone complaining about INFJs in their lives and comparing patterns among themselves while sharing some of the most vulnerable stories to do so... are just part of a big conspiracy to make her feel bad about herself, done not necessarily by them but by their combined subconscious minds, who are apparently in denial about their entire motivational structure not revolving around the state of how she feels about herself, because - i kid you not - they are the ones suffering from a condition that leads to paranoid delusions in which one explains the behavior of others by large mental schemes centering around themselves (a.k.a. NPD). you have "the state i am in" who firmly believes that saying something by carefully avoiding finding out that it isn't true on the basis that its more emotionally compelling is - in his own words - the truth - who firmly believes relationships exclude causality. all 3 of the above view picking which perspective counts according to what suits them emotionally to both be a right and a reasonable decision - go ahead and confront one of them when ours doesn't. how about the nicer of the bunch (not sarcastic in that statement -they really are the nicer ones), where you have fia and cafe who think those stories and patterns must be provocations for them to defend their friends/themselves from and retaliate, thereby rationalizing the process in which one's response to hearing about someone abandoned mid pregnancy or getting cheated on or loosing their kid or having their house stolen (different people btw) is to attack them (well, "attack back" in their own mind). and that's just the tip of the iceberg selected by recent activity - in total you have more test subjects here then some professional researchers can afford in their budget. you even have the home court advantage in doing it. pick any.

I usually don't waste time reading your posts, but someone gave me a heads up that you mentioned me specifically. Could you provide a link to one of these posts where I directly accuse any member here of having NPD? Because I don't recall saying this. Thanks.

 

[Society]

Could you provide a link to one of these posts where I directly accuse any member here of having NPD? Because I don't recall saying this. Thanks.

yea, this:

it's a common tendency of narcissists though to make this accusation

..the accusation which just happens to fall in line with what you expressed perceiving yourself as being accused of by the apposing side in that thread.

that's totally not accusing the particular people you where arguing with of being narcissists, just like me saying that someone pretending to not talk about people by referancing contextually describing where she stands in regards to whatever opinions they expressed is an incredibly immature and unhealthy example of any type wouldn't be me talking about you, or if i say that everyone who expresses your opinion must be a [insert diagnosis / cursing / and other assortments of bullshit] to avoid confront your opinions directly. much like how you don't talk to peacebaby or anyone else you "don't talk too".... or "increasing" the standard of conversation to this:

...if i applied your logic of how you judge intent in others i'd have to think your life goal is to make my eyes roll.

also -as nice as indulging your BS here was - i'm not playing peekabo with you:
if you want to engage in meaningful conversation - as skeptical as i am of your capacity to do so - i'd consider it.
but you "not talking" only to take this sort of tactical break on your own terms isn't going to work.
so as long as that BS goes on, this is last time i am going to answer any of your questions.

for future reference:
your time is far better invested as serving discussions about the unhealthy extremes of your type as a living anecdote - you are welcomed to not waste it on me.

 

[Z Buck McFate]

yea, this:

..the accusation which just happens to fall in line with what you expressed perception of yourself as being accused of by the apposing side in that thread.

that's totally not accusing the particular people you where arguing with of being narcissists, just like me saying that someone pretending to not talk about people by referancing contextually describing where she stands in regards to whatever opinions they expressed is an incredibly immature and unhealthy example of any type wouldn't be me talking about you, or if i say that everyone who expresses your opinion must be a [insert diagnosis / cursing / and other assortments of bullshit] to avoid confront your opinions directly. much like how you don't talk to peacebaby or anyone else you "don't talk too".... or "increasing" the standard of conversation to this:

...if i applied your logic of how you judge intent in others i'd have to think your life goal is to make my eyes roll.

also -as nice as indulging your BS here was - i'm not playing peekabo with you:
if you want to engage in meaningful conversation - as skeptical as i am of your capacity to do so - i'd consider it.
but you "not talking" only to take this sort of tactical break on your own terms isn't going to work.
so as long as that BS goes on, this is last time i am going to answer any of your questions.

for future reference:
your time is far better invested as serving discussions about the unhealthy extremes of your type as a living anecdote - you are welcomed to not waste it on me.

Okay, I didn't read all the stuff underneath the quote, all I read is a quote didn't actually contain me accusing someone of having Narcissistic Personality Disorder. And since it didn't (and also because I haven't actually accused anyone here of having it), I'll take it somewhere in this post you admitted that what you said in the previous post- right after "I kid you not"- isn't actually true.



As an aside to anyone else: when people on your ignore list quote you, it no longer gives you notification. Woo-hoo!

 

[1487610420]

 

[Werebudgie]

Type talk as objectification - "normal" on this site, but not the only way to do it

This thread has helped to bring into my consciousness how very toxic I find some of the energy and discussion on this site. There are various threads and streams and patterns in this - some of which I don't have words for and some of which I do.

One of the problems I see underlying the toxicity on this site is a persistent use and acceptance of type talk as a form of objectification.

Stepping back for a minute: The reason MBTI and cognitive process conceptual language/framework is a positive resource in my relationship with my INFP partner is that we just don't look at each other as objectified "INFJ representative" and "INFP representative." Instead, we look at each other as actual people who have as part of our makeup specific ways of processing information. So I don't relate to my partner as "the INFP" and she doesn't relate to me as "the INFJ" - we relate to each other as multifacted layered human beings. For us, the purpose of talking about our differences in cognitive processes is as a tool to understand each other better - not as a way to reduce each other into two-dimensional type objects. For us, our differing cognitive processes are part of a larger whole being (and no, I don't mean "there's enneagram etc also!" I mean actual specific multilayered human beings, with all that such a thing actually means for human beings in respectful non-objectifying connection). The same is true with me and my ENTP friend.

In sharp contrast: On this site, people regularly relate to each other as two-dimensional representatives of type. Persistently, people make objects of each other in this way - objects they then seek to use for various purposes. This is a pattern of casual, persistent, and very often unremarked-upon dehumanization. From what I can see, this two-dimensional/objectifying/dehumanizing use of type/cognitive function talk is embedded so deeply in the group culture here that it appears as a relatively normal and unremarkable way to relate to other people.

In such a context, statements such as this can actually be part of what appears to be, by group cultural standards, normal and reasonable interaction between people:

for future reference:
your time is far better invested as serving discussions about the unhealthy extremes of your type as a living anecdote - you are welcomed to not waste it on me.

(Though this is a particularly explicit example, it is by no means the only one. Though a lot of the site's pattern of type-based objectification is more subtle than this.)

But outside of this site and contexts like it, outside of the invisible norms and assumptions here, my experience suggests that there are in fact some non-objectifying and non-dehumanizing ways to use the MBTI/cognitive process language. I have had long(ish)-term, persistent real life experience with approaches that are respectful, non-objectifying, non-dehumanizing and really valuable for human interaction.

So from my vantage point: While type-based objectification, dehumanization and use is too often the unremarked norm on this site (this thread is one among many displaying it in a variety of ways), such use of these concepts really isn't the only possible approach to using these concepts in interaction with others. Type-based objectification and use just seems normal and is so persistent in this environment because it is, somehow, embedded in invisible group norms of interaction between participants.

 

[Eilonwy]

This thread has helped to bring into my consciousness how very toxic I find some of the energy and discussion on this site. There are various threads and streams and patterns in this - some of which I don't have words for and some of which I do.

One of the problems I see underlying the toxicity on this site is a persistent use and acceptance of type talk as a form of objectification.

Stepping back for a minute: The reason MBTI and cognitive process conceptual language/framework is a positive resource in my relationship with my INFP partner is that we just don't look at each other as objectified "INFJ representative" and "INFP representative." Instead, we look at each other as actual people who have as part of our makeup specific ways of processing information. So I don't relate to my partner as "the INFP" and she doesn't relate to me as "the INFJ" - we relate to each other as multifacted layered human beings. For us, the purpose of talking about our differences in cognitive processes is as a tool to understand each other better - not as a way to reduce each other into two-dimensional type objects. For us, our differing cognitive processes are part of a larger whole being (and no, I don't mean "there's enneagram etc also!" I mean actual specific multilayered human beings, with all that such a thing actually means for human beings in respectful non-objectifying connection). The same is true with me and my ENTP friend.

In sharp contrast: On this site, people regularly relate to each other as two-dimensional representatives of type. Persistently, people make objects of each other in this way - objects they then seek to use for various purposes. This is a pattern of casual, persistent, and very often unremarked-upon dehumanization. From what I can see, this two-dimensional/objectifying/dehumanizing use of type/cognitive function talk is embedded so deeply in the group culture here that it appears as a relatively normal and unremarkable way to relate to other people.

In such a context, statements such as this can actually be part of what appears to be, by group cultural standards, normal and reasonable interaction between people:

Originally Posted by Mane

for future reference:
your time is far better invested as serving discussions about the unhealthy extremes of your type as a living anecdote - you are welcomed to not waste it on me.

(Though this is a particularly explicit example, it is by no means the only one. Though a lot of the site's pattern of type-based objectification is more subtle than this.)

But outside of this site and contexts like it, outside of the invisible norms and assumptions here, my experience suggests that there are in fact some non-objectifying and non-dehumanizing ways to use the MBTI/cognitive process language. I have had long(ish)-term, persistent real life experience with approaches that are respectful, non-objectifying, non-dehumanizing and really valuable for human interaction.

So from my vantage point: While type-based objectification, dehumanization and use is too often the unremarked norm on this site (this thread is one among many displaying it in a variety of ways), such use of these concepts really isn't the only possible approach to using these concepts in interaction with others. Type-based objectification and use just seems normal and is so persistent in this environment because it is, somehow, embedded in invisible group norms of interaction between participants.

Am I correct in assuming that you are including all types as participating in type-based objectification? Including the INFJs on this site? Or is @Mane your only example? Because, so far, I've only seen you cite Mane and [MENTION=5999]PeaceBaby[/MENTION] as examples. Admittedly, I haven't read every single one of your posts, so I might have missed other people you've used as examples. What would make your argument more convincing to me is if you cited quotes from people you didn't appear to have pov issues with.

ETA: Since you've said that type-based objectification isn't the only approach, I'd be interested in some examples of the other approaches you have in mind. Otherwise I see your post as a complaint and not a suggestion of how to improve.

 

[Society]

In sharp contrast: On this site, people regularly relate to each other as two-dimensional representatives of type. Persistently, people make objects of each other in this way - objects they then seek to use for various purposes.

is that supposed to be a sharp contrast with these:

i don't know if what you're saying is that only "common sense implications" are real or worthy of consideration. i feel a judgmental tone, but i don't really see your point or your needs, so it's difficult to really do anything with this.

(I believe, for many of us) It isn’t about 'realizing' there are other points of view out there, that much is obviously true. It’s about figuring out which ones to invest in. Just because other points of view exist doesn’t mean it’s worth investing in them.

I wonder how often it is that people whose POV we decide isn't worth investing in don't want to accept that that is the actual situation, so generalize it into "You need to understand there are other POVs."

?

whether they are able to see themselves in that manner or not, they are speaking up for your right to treat other perspectives as tv channels to turn off for their own entertainment, toys to disregard when they don't suit them. that is as objectifying for the people who's perspectives they choose to include only because the perspective serves them no less then it is to the people who's perspective is longer of use to them - even if you treat your toys nicely while your playing with them, they are still at the end of the day your toys, not people.

now, that the 3 above happen to be the same type of cognitive processing might be a coincidence... there's just a lot of accumulative coincidences to account for.

 

[PeaceBaby]

This thread has helped to bring into my consciousness how very toxic I find some of the energy and discussion on this site. There are various threads and streams and patterns in this - some of which I don't have words for and some of which I do.

This whole post: this is all about you. Think of your interactions with anyone here as a mirror. All I am is a mirror to your energy, what you bring to this site, so these words, they are all about a projection of YOUR interior state. Not about anyone else here. Not my interior state.

The energy I feel emanating from you is scornful, negative, colored with a sense of condescending superiority in many realms. You aggressively avoid interacting with anyone who disagrees with your rigid perspectives and you do not much care that behind these 2 dimensional words on a screen are real living, breathing, hurting, loving people. The dehumanizing I see comes ... from you. The disrespect I see ... you own it.

That is what I see in YOU. There's more, but you're not in a place to hear it. Still, I palpably feel your hurting spaces. I feel you as a real 3 dimensional human being. I send you hugs for that, but until you drop your walls in this place I am afraid you will not find what you seek here.

Think of it another way: try to realize that what you are seeing in these dynamics is a remarkable privilege. The fact that you interpret the dynamics the way you do is illogical, is it not? That this site is populated with type objectifiers? What is more probable, the shallow conclusions you're selling or mine, that we are all human and showing 3-d sides of ourselves that never usually see the light of day? Open your mind, werebudgie ... or maybe more accurately, your heart.

What would make your argument more convincing to me is if you cited quotes from people you didn't appear to have pov issues with.

This is pure gold. werebudgie, you should think very long and hard about this one.

 

[Eilonwy]

Some more of my two cents:

What I was starting to see was an actual productive conversation between [MENTION=13502]March[/MENTION] and [MENTION=15291]Mane[/MENTION]. imo, it's the first really productive, neutral discussion about a highly charged subject that I've seen on this forum. I, for one, would like to see what results from it, no matter what results from it.


As I see it, this is what's being discussed:

(essentially: when confronting an INFJ, to what extent can i just be honest and allow out relating to things the way i see them vs. just nod and smile and take in whatever narrative makes them feel better). i'll be blunt that right now i tend to believe the later, which is problematic, because i don't see how i could get very good at meeting those requirements.

and this is an example of the bolded in the first quote--how Mane honestly sees things:

then do it.

there is nothing forcing you to have only one type-based front in establishing your case, as eilonwy proved, and you have plenty of cases to do so all around: you have werebudgie who's arguments take the format of the emperor new clothes, you have z buck who expressed the firm belief that everyone complaining about INFJs in their lives and comparing patterns among themselves while sharing some of the most vulnerable stories to do so... are just part of a big conspiracy to make her feel bad about herself, done not necessarily by them but by their combined subconscious minds, who are apparently in denial about their entire motivational structure not revolving around the state of how she feels about herself, because - i kid you not - they are the ones suffering from a condition that leads to paranoid delusions in which one explains the behavior of others by large mental schemes centering around themselves (a.k.a. NPD). you have "the state i am in" who firmly believes that saying something by carefully avoiding finding out that it isn't true on the basis that its more emotionally compelling is - in his own words - the truth - who firmly believes relationships exclude causality. all 3 of the above view picking which perspective counts according to what suits them emotionally to both be a right and a reasonable decision - go ahead and confront one of them when ours doesn't. how about the nicer of the bunch (not sarcastic in that statement -they really are the nicer ones), where you have fia and cafe who think those stories and patterns must be provocations for them to defend their friends/themselves from and retaliate, thereby rationalizing the process in which one's response to hearing about someone abandoned mid pregnancy or getting cheated on or loosing their kid or having their house stolen (different people btw) is to attack them (well, "attack back" in their own mind). and that's just the tip of the iceberg selected by recent activity - in total you have more test subjects here then some professional researchers can afford in their budget. you even have the home court advantage in doing it. pick any.

you want to show an INFJ can be related to honestly and confronted with an image of themselves in contrary to their ego, that Ni self delusional walls can be climbed over.. then do it: confront an INFJ with a mental image contrary to their ego. show me. if confronting INFJs honestly about real life misgivings is humanly possible, then this should be a piece of cake.

So, I'm very interested in if March still stands by this:

And I'm absolutely convinced that your option A is feasible when you say

Originally Posted by Mane
(essentially: when confronting an INFJ, to what extent can i just be honest and allow out relating to things the way i see them vs. just nod and smile and take in whatever narrative makes them feel better).

Even though I also understand you're not feeling too optimistic about that.