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

[Society]

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

i should clarify that while it would certainly be a sight for sore eyes, i don't expect @March to go out of her way and confront any of those, both for pragmatic reasons (her own time and effort) and in principle it would be a lot less meaningful (the goal would be to learn how to fish, not have fish served for me).

what i was pointing out was that the reasons for my accumulated pessimism are neither theoretical in origin or built on my prior experience, but rather they are right here - the main bag of evidence contradicting my hope isn't hidden down in a secret lab, but rather in talking & observing INFJs - many of which are from here. and yes, after two years, my emotional tone on the matter is probably quite jaded.

 

[1487610420]

 

[Eilonwy]

 

[1487610420]

At least you didn't pick M.C.

 

[Eilonwy]

At least you didn't pick M.C.

I prefer this version:

 

[March]

Back from a busy week!

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

Here's where my difficulties having different conversations at the same time come in. If I were a in-person friend of yours, all you'd ever hear from me (unless you asked) was "Man, that sucks. What bitches/bastards. I can't imagine how hurt you are. Ugh, the nerve of some people. I hope their decisions come back to bite them in the backside." I'm not defending their actions at all - I think those actions are despicable.

But right now I'm both sympathetic to your bad experiences with your INFJ ex (I think I have the gist of the story from some other very long threads) and the other INFJ-scorched folks on here, and also an INFJ doing a what's going on behind the scenes/where did we go wrong meta analysis with you.

Maybe it's a personal flaw and other people have no problems hearing and being heard wearing two hats, but it's hard for me to interpret things 'correctly' if the two aims of receiving emotional support and receiving new perspectives and skills are present at the same time. My - problematic - efforts to juggle them result in monster posts going 'If I interpret X from perspective A, I'd say P, and if I interpret X from perspective B, I'd say Q. But wait - were you maybe thinking of perspective C, D or E? If so, R, S and T. Maybe. Unless F. And oh wait, Q and T are mutually exclusive, so please pick one?' And I don't think anybody wants THAT.

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.

Haha, I like your conflating of 'humanly possible' and 'piece of cake.' I'll assume that's accidental. (Cause I did not say, nor did I mean to imply, that it's easy. I think it's SIMPLE, but whether it's easy depends on soooo many things.)

I wish I could 'then do it' on demand, but I can't.

For one, I don't have an actual beef with the other INFJs you call out (or anyone here), so it would be hypocritical for me to pretend that I do and impossible for me to pick an 'image contrary to their ego' that I think they need to accept. Keyword here is 'real life misgivings,' and right now I don't have any.

For two, Fe is a relational function - I don't have actual relationships with the other INFJs (nor anyone here), so I have no relationship weight to call on. This would also prevent me from 'calling out' anyone else I'm not in a direct conversation with, by the way, so it's not some secret INFJ-INFJ protection scheme. In other words: why should they care? They have no obligations to me.

For three, things like solving interpersonal problems in which someone really hurt someone is sacred, intimate, and relationship-dependent to me. You asking 'Well, if you say you are capable of {apologizing properly and taking other people's perspectives into account}, prove it to me by {showing me how you'd do it or ask in such a way that other people will do it}' makes the exact same sense to me as 'Well, if you say you are capable of {putting together a touching wedding proposal}, prove it to me by {going down on one knee for me or asking someone else to go down on one knee for you}' or 'Well, if you say you are capable of {meeting your spouse's sexual needs}, prove it to me by {doing the things you do together for me or asking someone else to display that behaviour}'.

So I think it's impossible. And even if it weren't, it would be too icky for me to comply, even in jest or to test a hypothesis. Sorry 'bout that. I can tell you HOW I'd do it, but I can't actually DO it.

I still stand by my claim that it's possible to tell an INFJ the truth about how you feel and what you want and have them accept that truth and change their ways. Some caveats apply, of course, like picking a common language to duke things out in and the INFJ having mental space to think so they don't act stupid, but I think they apply to all fights. If you're interested, I could sketch a hypothetical situation & point out what I think the essentials are.

--------

Segue to [MENTION=15291]Mane[/MENTION]'s quotes by [MENTION=6275]the state i am in[/MENTION], [MENTION=7842]Z Buck McFate[/MENTION] and [MENTION=20789]Werebudgie[/MENTION], and also [MENTION=5999]PeaceBaby[/MENTION]'s reply to [MENTION=20789]Werebudgie[/MENTION].

I think Z Buck and Werebudgie are talking about the same thing with regards to 'investing in POVs'. I think The state i am in was talking about something else (sounded to me like zie thinks it's HARD to interpret your words the way you intend them, not that zie refuses to do so because zie's decided to disinvest in your POV, but I could be wrong). [MENTION=5999]PeaceBaby[/MENTION], I'm interpreting your reply to [MENTION=20789]Werebudgie[/MENTION] of "Still, I palpably feel your hurting spaces. I feel you as a real 3 dimensional human being" as describing what you mean by investing, is that correct?

If so, can y'all who dislike those quotes elaborate a little on what you think investing or choosing not to invest in someone's POV (edited to clarify) MEANS?

• What does investing in someone's POV (or choosing not to) mean to you in terms of feelings, thoughts, actions, priorities? When they're in the same room with you and when they're not?
• Is investing in a person a 'requirement for mimimal decency as a person' or an 'above and beyond' thing? Whose POV should a minimally decent POV invest in? If the answer's anything other than 'everyone on earth', what are acceptable ways to distinguish? What percentage of the world's population would it make sense for you to say you're invested in?
• What's the least amount of effort a person needs to put in to show they're investing in someone's POV? What would be the key difference between 'minimally invested' and 'not invested'?
• And what's maximum amount of effort a person can expend before they become ridiculously overinvested? Or is there even such a thing?

Cause from other posts, I'm pretty sure that we all believe things like relationships (edited to add: of any kind) should be good for all people in them, people have the right to enter and leave relationships, people have the right to ask their partner to help meet their needs, people have the right to refuse their partners' needs-meeting requests but shouldn't expect partner to stick around if that happens too often, etc. None of us seems to be devoting 100% of their energy and time to meeting other people's needs arbitrarily and without discrimination. So I'm expecting there to be way more common ground than there currently seems to be.

 

[Society]

[had a long winded argument that almost obscured the much more important aspect here <- deleted]

I can tell you HOW I'd do it, but I can't actually DO it.


I still stand by my claim that it's possible to tell an INFJ the truth about how you feel and what you want and have them accept that truth and change their ways. Some caveats apply, of course, like picking a common language to duke things out in and the INFJ having mental space to think so they don't act stupid, but I think they apply to all fights. If you're interested, I could sketch a hypothetical situation & point out what I think the essentials are.

yes to the bold.

also, i your willing - this:

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

 

[Z Buck McFate]

Segue to [MENTION=15291]Mane[/MENTION]'s quotes by [MENTION=6275]the state i am in[/MENTION], [MENTION=7842]Z Buck McFate[/MENTION] and [MENTION=20789]Werebudgie[/MENTION], and also [MENTION=5999]PeaceBaby[/MENTION]'s reply to [MENTION=20789]Werebudgie[/MENTION].

I think Z Buck and Werebudgie are talking about the same thing with regards to 'investing in POVs'. I think The state i am in was talking about something else (sounded to me like zie thinks it's HARD to interpret your words the way you intend them, not that zie refuses to do so because zie's decided to disinvest in your POV, but I could be wrong). [MENTION=5999]PeaceBaby[/MENTION], I'm interpreting your reply to [MENTION=20789]Werebudgie[/MENTION] of "Still, I palpably feel your hurting spaces. I feel you as a real 3 dimensional human being" as describing what you mean by investing, is that correct?

If so, can y'all who dislike those quotes elaborate a little on what you think investing or choosing not to invest in someone's POV (edited to clarify) MEANS?

I'm not reading most of the posts in this thread (I only came back to read this one because you tagged me), so I think I'm missing out on what you’re asking here. I had said to Eilonwy in a post: "Just because other points of view exist doesn’t mean it’s worth investing in them." As far as I know, it wasn’t because of anything anyone else said- at least I hadn’t seen anyone else bring the word “invest” into it.

It seems obvious to me that my comment doesn’t apply to relationships in which there’s already an investment. I was more or less responding to the repeating theme of “there’s another point of view out there that isn’t INFJ, and INFJs should want to see it.” I was disagreeing with the “INFJs should want to see it” aspect.

In regard to your post- it does seem like the two contexts of “people who are already close to us” and “people we barely know” keep getting convoluted in this whole discussion. These are two very different contexts. It’s very obvious to me that people I am close to/feel invested in are worth the effort of trying to understand their point of view, but people I don’t know well (and don’t particularly want to know well) aren’t. There’s nothing blurry about those lines to me- and yet this post leads me to believe that supposedly it’s being argued that those lines are blurry for INFJs? I don't even know anymore, and I stopped caring. This whole 'what INFJs don't see' tangent is just weird to me, and there are too many people with their own bad experiences projecting too many weird things into what others are saying for this discussion to even begin to feel productive.

Personally- when my connection to someone is important, I invest far more energy than I should into fixing that connection when it seems broken. 'Sunk cost fallacy'- in regard to saving relationships- is actually a huge problem that I have. I've let people cross boundaries with me because of it (and frankly, the only other person I know with this same problem is also INFJ). I know this is something that’s true about me, and the people who were around to witness this about me know that it’s true. On the other end of the spectrum- there are some people that I just don’t feel compelled to invest much energy into understanding, and I’m okay with that. Usually, for me, that happens because communication feels kind of pointless or vapid (not that there's something pointless or vapid about the person, more that we're just not compatible). There’s no confusion, to me, between those two contexts.

 

[March]

Ah, sorry [MENTION=7842]Z Buck McFate[/MENTION]. I was hesitating whether or not to tag you (because not nice to talk about people without letting them know! because not nice to drag people into something!), and I'm sorry for your confusion. Going for the 'talk about people without involving them' option for now.

Let the record state that I agree with your post 100%. You weren't the only person using the 'invest' terminology (and if I didn't do it in this thread, I'm sure I've done it elsewhere - it seems like a great term for that). Mane pulled a couple of 'invest' quotes together and linked them to objectification of people, and I think Peacebaby continued on from that.

I don't think it's being argued that the lines are blurry for INFJs, but rather that it's wrong-headed (or maybe just ill-advised?) of INFJs to have rigid lines like that. Which is why I hoped people who did not use the 'invest' term themselves could explain what they think it means.

 

[1487610420]

Thread Corollary & OP fallacy: either a change of heart occurs somewhere along the way re investment/willingness to listen/care or misperception exists from the get go that results in/feeds miscommunication.

 

[Eilonwy]

I don't think it's being argued that the lines are blurry for INFJs, but rather that it's wrong-headed (or maybe just ill-advised?) of INFJs to have rigid lines like that.

It's not that lines shouldn't be drawn. It's that the lines are being drawn before fully understanding the information that's being presented, and that there's little to no chance of those lines being redrawn once they are in place. Little to no chance that the information will be revisited, rethought, reinterpreted, once new information is presented. New information is rejected or rationalized as being unimportant because redrawing the lines takes a lot of restructuring of mental frameworks.

Of the choices you presented, I'll go with ill-advised.

 

[March]

It's not that lines shouldn't be drawn. It's that the lines are being drawn before fully understanding the information that's being presented, and that there's little to no chance of those lines being redrawn once they are in place. Little to no chance that the information will be revisited, rethought, reinterpreted, once new information is presented. New information is rejected or rationalized as being unimportant because redrawing the lines takes a lot of restructuring of mental frameworks.

Hmm, is that what the ick-reaction to 'investment' is about?

'Cause they seem like two different things to me - I can (and do) revisit, rethink, reinterpret information even while completely disinvested in the person who provided me with that information. I've cut all ties and burned all bridges with my old boss, I hope he gets his comeuppance for what he put me and others through, and I never want to speak to him again. But the dude definitely did have a couple of good points, and I've learned from them and am still learning from them even though I haven't gotten any new info out of him for three years now.

And even with people who I've not disinvested myself of but just drifted away from, their perspectives still regularly influence and update my course of action and scope of interpretation.

The whole thing with investing in someone is that they get to dictate the schedule of me investigating/incorporating that information. If my husband, my boss or anyone on my invested list is displeased with me, I drop EVERYTHING until I understand and fix it. Whereas with people who I'm not invested in I'll work on my understanding when I decide to. It's not like I toss their information out the window and forget it existed, it just loses the privilege of being allowed to go directly to the top of the 'Current Projects' list and gets entered onto the 'Someday/Not scheduled' list instead, just like every other thing that may be worthwhile picking up at some point.

 

[Eilonwy]

Hmm, is that what the ick-reaction to 'investment' is about?

Maybe. Energy draining, slooooooooooooow processing area for us, it seems--the reframing. *We, possibly unconsciously, find ways to avoid doing it. I'm trying to find ways to speed the process up or find short-cuts. I'm trying to pay attention to the actual process to see what is going on--where the sticking points might be--how to overcome them (if they can be overcome).

*ETA


ETA2: Sorry. Possibly branching the conversation off of track. Going back to letting you concentrate on the main convo.

 

[Z Buck McFate]

I don't think it's being argued that the lines are blurry for INFJs, but rather that it's wrong-headed (or maybe just ill-advised?) of INFJs to have rigid lines like that. Which is why I hoped people who did not use the 'invest' term themselves could explain what they think it means.

The 'blurry lines' notion is because I asked [MENTION=6723]phobik[/MENTION] what he meant- I didn't really understand his response (apparently the loose notion of what I thought he meant was incorrect, if what you say is true), and I didn't bother pursuing it. [And not pursuing it has nothing to do with phobik, per se, but because this thread/topic has become more tedious than it's worth to me.]

I think personally (and it feels somehow farcical of me to post, since I'm only reading the comments of half the people posting in this conversation, but here I go anyway), the beef I have with this whole thing is that it seems to me like I already do see those rigid lines. I feel like something that I already know is being pointed out over and over again. I'm okay with those rigid lines being there, and take responsibility for it in my own life with my relationships to others. But .


[And the tagging was totally okay- I know what you mean about feeling the need to tag someone if you mention them by name, especially in a thread where there's been a little bit of hostility.]

 

[Eilonwy]

I'm okay with those rigid lines being there, and take responsibility for it in my own life with my relationships to others. But .

Sorry to once again bring you back to this thread. I see a problem between how what you stated works in real life versus online. In real life it's much easier to enforce the lines you've drawn by avoiding people/information that is outside of the lines, thus taking responsibility for the lines you've drawn. But this becomes more difficult on a public forum. Yes, you can avoid people/information by ignoring posts, but, since there's a limited population here and discussions which are of interest to you are public and will probably also be of interest to the people you're ignoring, the information will end up leaking through your lines. How do you stay responsible then (a serious question, not being facetious)? How does one participate in public discussion, within a limited population, where one is likely to have to deal with people/information that consistently bumps up against their boundaries? So far, the answer has seemed to be that one or the other is forced to stay out of the discussion, which is fair to neither. So, how does someone with rigid boundaries participate in public discussion and take responsibility for those boundaries without forcing everyone to abide by those same rigid boundaries (again, serious question, not being facetious)?

 

[1487610420]

Sorry to once again bring you back to this thread. I see a problem between how what you stated works in real life versus online. In real life it's much easier to enforce the lines you've drawn by avoiding people/information that is outside of the lines, thus taking responsibility for the lines you've drawn. But this becomes more difficult on a public forum. Yes, you can avoid people/information by ignoring posts, but, since there's a limited population here and discussions which are of interest to you are public and will probably also be of interest to the people you're ignoring, the information will end up leaking through your lines. How do you stay responsible then (a serious question, not being facetious)? How does one participate in public discussion, within a limited population, where one is likely to have to deal with people/information that consistently bumps up against their boundaries? So far, the answer has seemed to be that one or the other is forced to stay out of the discussion, which is fair to neither. So, how does someone with rigid boundaries participate in public discussion and take responsibility for those boundaries without forcing everyone to abide by those same rigid boundaries (again, serious question, not being facetious)?

 

[PeaceBaby]

Sorry to once again bring you back to this thread. I see a problem between how what you stated works in real life versus online. In real life it's much easier to enforce the lines you've drawn by avoiding people/information that is outside of the lines, thus taking responsibility for the lines you've drawn. But this becomes more difficult on a public forum. Yes, you can avoid people/information by ignoring posts, but, since there's a limited population here and discussions which are of interest to you are public and will probably also be of interest to the people you're ignoring, the information will end up leaking through your lines. How do you stay responsible then (a serious question, not being facetious)? How does one participate in public discussion, within a limited population, where one is likely to have to deal with people/information that consistently bumps up against their boundaries? So far, the answer has seemed to be that one or the other is forced to stay out of the discussion, which is fair to neither. So, how does someone with rigid boundaries participate in public discussion and take responsibility for those boundaries without forcing everyone to abide by those same rigid boundaries (again, serious question, not being facetious)?

This is an excellent post and really pertinent questions.

Part of the issue is that some persons with rigid boundaries continue to talk about the topics related to previous discussions. Essentially, what they have done is put a de facto gag order over every person and opposing piece of information moving forward because those people have been asked to not "participate". The "rigid boundary" person can always find out indirectly what is going on via rep and PM, and can reply indirectly through alliances and sympathizers. And we know this happens time and time again. Thus, it is not so much about boundaries to me as it about control. A desire to force everyone around them to participate by their own subjective whimsy.

And not only a desire to control information. A desire to control impressions of themselves as a suffering harassed victim and the person wishing to continue discussion as the aggressive pursuer. This desire to control the external reality via not only information control but image control is pervasively hurtful since the dynamic that exists in the actual discourse is not this dynamic at all. Yet the repercussions of implied rumor reverberate long and far for any individual who dares to discuss anything outside of this highly managed comfort zone.

There's a reason why free speech is upheld in the constitutions of many countries. It is the cornerstone of equality.

If a person has boundaries, most people desire to respect them as best as they can. If someone is trying to shut other people up and control them, force them into a subjugated position via power play, it's very dangerous to abide by that because frankly, all those potentially silenced pov's matter too. In esse, that is what's going on here. The patent lack of logic demonstrated by selectively choosing which information to regard yet replying as though one has the full picture view is astounding. And it's ok to be illogical. But let's not claim that we're being logical in the broad brush strokes of the definition.

The ignore function isn't supposed to be for ignoring other people. It's to ignore any unwanted or difficult emotional reaction one feels to other people.

Reach out and claim irrationality!

 

[1487610420]

This is an excellent post and really pertinent questions.

Part of the issue is that some persons with rigid boundaries continue to talk about the topics related to previous discussions. Essentially, what they have done is put a de facto gag order over every person and opposing piece of information moving forward because those people have been asked to not "participate". The "rigid boundary" person can always find out indirectly what is going on via rep and PM, and can reply indirectly through alliances and sympathizers. And we know this happens time and time again. Thus, it is not so much about boundaries to me as it about control. A desire to force everyone around them to participate by their own subjective whimsy.

And not only a desire to control information. A desire to control impressions of themselves as a suffering harassed victim and the person wishing to continue discussion as the aggressive pursuer. This desire to control the external reality via not only information control but image control is pervasively hurtful since the dynamic that exists in the actual discourse is not this dynamic at all. Yet the repercussions of implied rumor reverberate long and far for any individual who dares to discuss anything outside of this highly managed comfort zone.

There's a reason why free speech is upheld in the constitutions of many countries. It is the cornerstone of equality.

If a person has boundaries, most people desire to respect them as best as they can. If someone is trying to shut other people up and control them, force them into a subjugated position via power play, it's very dangerous to abide by that because frankly, all those potentially silenced pov's matter too. In esse, that is what's going on here. The patent lack of logic demonstrated by selectively choosing which information to regard yet replying as though one has the full picture view is astounding. And it's ok to be illogical. But let's not claim that we're being logical in the broad brush strokes of the definition.

The ignore function isn't supposed to be for ignoring other people. It's to ignore any unwanted or difficult emotional reaction one feels to other people.

Touché.

ETA:Unfortunately, track record points to that those prone to engaging in the above are also prone to more fiercely rejecting/rationalizing/ruling it out/not wanting to hear/read it, thus perpetuating the cycle.

Reach out and claim irrationality and touch faith!

 

[Z Buck McFate]

Sorry to once again bring you back to this thread. I see a problem between how what you stated works in real life versus online. In real life it's much easier to enforce the lines you've drawn by avoiding people/information that is outside of the lines, thus taking responsibility for the lines you've drawn. But this becomes more difficult on a public forum. Yes, you can avoid people/information by ignoring posts, but, since there's a limited population here and discussions which are of interest to you are public and will probably also be of interest to the people you're ignoring, the information will end up leaking through your lines. How do you stay responsible then (a serious question, not being facetious)? How does one participate in public discussion, within a limited population, where one is likely to have to deal with people/information that consistently bumps up against their boundaries? So far, the answer has seemed to be that one or the other is forced to stay out of the discussion, which is fair to neither. So, how does someone with rigid boundaries participate in public discussion and take responsibility for those boundaries without forcing everyone to abide by those same rigid boundaries (again, serious question, not being facetious)?

@bolded- What exactly does this mean, what is "information"?

I don't really understand what you're asking. There are more than a couple people in these discussion boards from whom I have gotten the impression would prefer I not engage them- so I don't engage them. I do not feel like this prevents me from participating in discussions. I work around it, primarily because I can't imagine feeling so entitled to the attention of other people that I feel like ALL people owe it to me to pay attention to me regardless of how much I offend them. Honestly- it seems to me like most people here do have tendencies to interact more with certain people than with others. It goes on all the time- individuals avoiding each other. It's just that copious amounts of attention aren't drawn to it because usually the person (who isn't getting the attention they want from certain individuals) isn't make a huge public spectacle of it.

eta: I really don't see how my choice to avoid interacting with certain individuals is forcing anyone else to avoid interacting with those individuals. I truly don't. Maybe this should be it's own thread- because if it's true, then it certainly should be known to people outside the topic of "INFJ/ENTP relationships". I just seriously doubt there are many people here who can say there isn't at least one individual they tend to steer clear of, just like real life.

 

[Society]

Let the record state that I agree with your post 100%. You weren't the only person using the 'invest' terminology (and if I didn't do it in this thread, I'm sure I've done it elsewhere - it seems like a great term for that). Mane pulled a couple of 'invest' quotes together and linked them to objectification of people, and I think Peacebaby continued on from that.

that's a double dose of bullshit:
1. i quoted examples of INFJs standing up for their right to maintain their own tunnel vision and limit their perspective to whatever perspectives fit their own.
2. as the doorslam thread shows, people who are close to INFJs can not and should not trust INFJs carrying that mentality to maintain an "investment into their perspectives" anymore then anyone else, regardless if those INFJs are their co workers, life long friends, spouses or even immediate family.

for a better continuity of this discussion, here's a tip:
arguing that you are able to respect the boundaries of others and arguing that you have the right to fuck anyone you want makes for a very poor double defense.