[ENFP] ENFP: The ENFP bitchslap

[jenocyde]

Freedom, potentially. The need to NOT have to deal with subtext in all future postings on any topic.

Indeed. The trouble is I am very unsure what is real. What, for example, is the truth of any interactions that have played out in other threads since this one? Do I need a defensive posture when posting? Will I be arguing the overt case of whichever topic, or dealing with some unresolved hidden forces?

And what to do? Say sorry? For what? Being the unassuming magnetic ball of attraction I so obviously am? People can't control themselves around me.

Taking responsibility for the feelings of others has a limit, and I would assume it is marked at the point where they no longer take responsibility for their own.

I wasn't suggesting that you take responsibility for anyone's feelings, only your own part in it. If you are truly an innocent bystander, then I can understand your confusion - but I don't think you really believe that, do you?

Either way, there is an ignore function on this site if you feel so threatened and scared of your future posts and their implications to her. But posts like the one above were done directly to antagonize her or communicate with her, and you know it.

I don't care what you do. I really don't. I was just trying to be helpful because you seem nice enough and I care for her deeply, and she seems to be hurting. But if you don't think that you had anything to do with any of this, and all of this was the imagination and ranting of a crazy woman, then I feel for you and I urge you again to stop riling her up.

I guess I'm done here. Good luck with everything.

 

[Kalach]

If you are truly an innocent bystander, then I can understand your confusion - but I don't think you really believe that, do you?

Actually, honestly, I kind of do. I really don't get how the interactions snowballed into this. I did make several strategic errors, like basically ignoring overblown emotional appeals. They didn't fit the interaction as I saw it so I more or less assumed they weren't real. Next strategic mistake was to attempt to continue what I supposed were intellectual interactions. I didn't get how I was supposed to deal with the subjective, and didn't want to.

Either way, there is an ignore function on this site if you feel so threatened and scared of your future posts and their implications to her.

Technically it doesn't work. Only if one is logged in does one get stuff screened out. Good for rep, inadequate for casual browsing, really poor for a concept of wholeness of understanding and correctness in judgment.

On the other hand, yeah. A corollary to my own polemic is I can and should deal with my own issues and not have to make the forum into their playground.


...to some degree.

After all, can one actually take responsibility by keeping quiet? If we want to be wholistic about it, the real ENFP bitchslap is the explosion that comes of keeping quiet too long.

 

[uumlau]

Actually, honestly, I kind of do. I really don't get how the interactions snowballed into this. I did make several strategic errors, like basically ignoring overblown emotional appeals. They didn't fit the interaction as I saw it so I more or less assumed they weren't real. Next strategic mistake was to attempt to continue what I supposed were intellectual interactions. I didn't get how I was supposed to deal with the subjective, and didn't want to.



Technically it doesn't work. Only if one is logged in does one get stuff screened out. Good for rep, inadequate for casual browsing, really poor for a concept of wholeness of understanding and correctness in judgment.

On the other hand, yeah. A corollary to my own polemic is I can and should deal with my own issues and not have to make the forum into their playground.


...to some degree.

After all, can one actually take responsibility by keeping quiet? If we want to be wholistic about it, the real ENFP bitchslap is the explosion that comes of keeping quiet too long.

Actually, I understand this.

It's how I lost my ESFJ wife. I ignored the problems/issues/messages that I didn't know how to deal with. It snowballed into divorce.

Is it "your fault?"

On the one hand, not really. Ignorance and lack of skill are legitimate excuses, in my thinking.

On the other hand, it is best to treat it as much your fault as you can: ignorance and lack of skill can be fixed, post facto. It may not fix the issue at hand, but it will help prevent it from coming up again.

 

[onemoretime]

Actually, I understand this.

It's how I lost my ESFJ wife. I ignored the problems/issues/messages that I didn't know how to deal with. It snowballed into divorce.

Is it "your fault?"

On the one hand, not really. Ignorance and lack of skill are legitimate excuses, in my thinking.

On the other hand, it is best to treat it as much your fault as you can: ignorance and lack of skill can be fixed, post facto. It may not fix the issue at hand, but it will help prevent it from coming up again.

Intent doesn't matter. If you fuck up, you've got to own up to it. Even (especially) if you didn't mean it. Otherwise, how is the other person supposed to know?

 

[uumlau]

Intent doesn't matter. If you fuck up, you've got to own up to it. Even (especially) if you didn't mean it. Otherwise, how is the other person supposed to know?

Intent does matter. You are correct, however, in that it's a matter of degree.

It is best to do no wrong, but it is better to unintentionally do wrong than to intentionally do wrong.

I would perhaps also agree that it is more important to own up to it if it is unintentional. You'll keep messing up if you don't. If it's intentional, you already know it's evil, you just don't care, or don't think it's evil: there's no way to fix that without a change of heart.

 

[onemoretime]

Intent does matter. You are correct, however, in that it's a matter of degree.

It is best to do no wrong, but it is better to unintentionally do wrong than to intentionally do wrong.

Not as far as it goes toward the ones wronged. They're emotionally harmed the same either way. Claiming a lack of intent often is a way to deflect responsibility - a way to apologize without apologizing.

Cowardly, in a word.

I would perhaps also agree that it is more important to own up to it if it is unintentional. You'll keep messing up if you don't. If it's intentional, you already know it's evil, you just don't care, or don't think it's evil: there's no way to fix that without a change of heart.

True enough, but then there are several degrees of mens rea.

 

[uumlau]

Not as far as it goes toward the ones wronged. They're emotionally harmed the same either way. Claiming a lack of intent often is a way to deflect responsibility - a way to apologize without apologizing.

Cowardly, in a word.

Perhaps, but the cowardliness can be in the other direction, too: claiming wrongdoing when the problem is one's own perception.

Some people wear their hearts on their shoulder.

[I'm alluding to the old convention of putting a stick on one's shoulder, daring someone to knock it off, in order to justify a fight. Some people use their "hurt feelings" in the same manner.]

Note that your exception kind of proves the rule: that the lack of intent actually is regarded as an extenuating circumstance. Yes, it can be abused (or lied about), but that implies that it is otherwise legitimate.

 

[onemoretime]

Perhaps, but the cowardliness can be in the other direction, too: claiming wrongdoing when the problem is one's own perception.

Some people wear their hearts on their shoulder.

[I'm alluding to the old convention of putting a stick on one's shoulder, daring someone to knock it off, in order to justify a fight. Some people use their "hurt feelings" in the same manner.]

Note that your exception kind of proves the rule: that the lack of intent actually is regarded as an extenuating circumstance. Yes, it can be abused (or lied about), but that implies that it is otherwise legitimate.

Assume good faith, then punish malfeasance once proven. Assuming bad faith on the part of others is paranoia.

There aren't enough sociopaths in the world to justify distrusting everyone you come across. People don't say things without reason generally - it's just that everyone's got their own perspective on the thing, and means of judgment.

 

[uumlau]

Assume good faith, then punish malfeasance once proven. Assuming bad faith on the part of others is paranoia.

There aren't enough sociopaths in the world to justify distrusting everyone you come across. People don't say things without reason generally - it's just that everyone's got their own perspective on the thing, and means of judgment.

Therefore, assume good faith on the part of both parties.

That's what I usually do.

Most of the time, people are messing up due to stupidity, not malfeasance. Nearly as often, both parties of a transaction are just acting on bad assumptions. The trick is to learn from it, rather than to blame one another.

 

[onemoretime]

Therefore, assume good faith on the part of both parties.

That's what I usually do.

Most of the time, people are messing up due to stupidity, not malfeasance. Nearly as often, both parties of a transaction are just acting on bad assumptions. The trick is to learn from it, rather than to blame one another.

Right - contrition isn't a sign of weakness. It's quite the opposite, actually.

 

[Lady_X]

I don't think ENTP either except for this pusillanimous pretend directive extraverted feeling.

Coz either she's a type, or fucked up.

wow...you'd do better just to stop. an internet nutcase? she's just fucked up? come on...i have no idea what's going on between you two but that's just pissing me off...looks like she is just reaching out trying to get to a better place with this and you ought to just leave her be to do it.

 

[Kalach]

wow...you'd do better just to stop.

Or what?


Are you people assuming some kind of reciprocal love arrangement existed prior to all this noise? Are you somehow assuming that she needed this level of protection for her feelings? Are you perhaps assuming that because she said she did, then she did? Well, in that case, welcome to your world, because here I am saying something too.

 

[Lady_X]

it wasn't a threat. i was pointing out how it's the nicer and much cooler thing to do you see....and i'm not assuming anything...like i said no clue what's goin on between you two. not my business but ask yourself what the motive is? because as far as i know name calling has but one.

edit: i totally sound like a preschool teacher.

but! i still stand by my point!

 

[Kalach]

It's about one month since the OP. "Nicer and cooler" lasted that long. Then *I* got tired of pretending not to be under assault.


Or, if I may paraphrase... back off.

 

[Lady_X]

enfps are mad protective...can't help it. if someone is going to fight in our presence they'll likely have to hear about it a bit....but i'll try.

 

[jenocyde]

Are you people assuming some kind of reciprocal love arrangement existed prior to all this noise? Are you somehow assuming that she needed this level of protection for her feelings? Are you perhaps assuming that because she said she did, then she did?

I wasn't going to respond to any more in this thread until I saw this.

No, there have been no assumptions - on my end at least. It seems like you are the one doing the assuming.

It's about one month since the OP. "Nicer and cooler" lasted that long. Then *I* got tired of pretending not to be under assault.

Yes, but over the course of that month, you were steadily replying and communicating to the OP. It wasn't like you weren't involved in the discussion. You said that you actually dismissed her emotional pleas to you and now are saying that you also pretended that her breakdown wasn't happening. But now you are shocked that she blew up? With all that ignoring over at least a month, I probably would have screamed at you too.

enfps are mad protective...can't help it. if someone is going to fight in our presence they'll likely have to hear about it a bit....but i'll try.

Agreed.

And ENTPs look for consistency. I find a lot of inconsistency in your statements, Kalach. That doesn't make you a bad person or make you in the wrong, but I think that maybe your emotions are clouding your judgment. Maybe you should reread the things that you have posted in the past month in response to her after you've had a good night's sleep, and then ask yourself honestly if this is all just her sandbagging you.

I know you are fed up, that is apparent. But talking about the frustration repeatedly won't change anything. Use that beautiful Ni to create a vision of what you want your future to look like and make steps toward that. If you want her to stop posting about you, stop giving her fuel for the fire.

Or you can sit there indignantly and go on an entitled rant, allowing this to continue for longer than necessary.

Maybe you are just enjoying the attention?

(and OMT, excellent points...)

 

[Kalach]

There's a great deal of truth missing from these stories, but is there that much left to tell? I am left with "internet nutcase" as an explanation. The audience is presumably left with "oblivious INTJ" or "stalkerboy" as their explanation.

Something went seriously wrong here, and I didn't do it. Made friends in the wrong way? With the wrong person? At the wrong time? For the wrong reasons? With self-serving interests? Whatever it was, I will not be accepting responsibility for it, thanks. To do so in this situation is essentially to make some rule that all relationships are based on chance. Not based on people paying attention and attempting to do right under their own power, but on chance. Accident. Whatever random thing someone else throws at you. That's what governs reality. Not some stable, fixed core that provides legitimate foundation.

Whomsoever chooses to attempt wiping out that claim by citing "tertiary temptation", be prepared for the entirety of your tertiary backstop to be wiped out too. Not all value judgments are the result of placing feeling in a merely utility role.

Responsibility in this case would seem to be to admit to not caring adequately for someone else's concerns. Well I didn't want to because those concerns weirded me out. Presumably that is where I should have taken responsibility. And backed off? How the [edit] would I know. Certainly the responsible thing would have been to be clear. To make a clear statement. Like she requested. And which I didn't do.


You'll note, as I do, a change in claim from the second paragraph to the fourth. Whatever.

 

[onemoretime]

There's a great deal of truth missing from these stories, but is there that much left to tell? I am left with "internet nutcase" as an explanation. The audience is presumably left with "oblivious INTJ" or "stalkerboy" as their explanation.

Something went seriously wrong here, and I didn't do it. Made friends in the wrong way? With the wrong person? At the wrong time? For the wrong reasons? With self-serving interests? Whatever it was, I will not be accepting responsibility for it, thanks. To do so in this situation is essentially to make some rule that all relationships are based on chance. Not based on people paying attention and attempting to do right under their own power, but on chance. Accident. Whatever random thing someone else throws at you. That's what governs reality. Not some stable, fixed core that provides legitimate foundation.

Whomsoever chooses to attempt wiping out that claim by citing "tertiary temptation", be prepared for the entirety of your tertiary backstop to be wiped out too. Not all value judgments are the result of placing feeling in a merely utility role.

Responsibility in this case would seem to be to admit to not caring adequately for someone else's concerns. Well I didn't want to because those concerns weirded me out. Presumably that is where I should have taken responsibility. And backed off? How the [edit] would I know. Certainly the responsible thing would have been to be clear. To make a clear statement. Like she requested. And which I didn't do.


You'll note, as I do, a change in claim from the second paragraph to the fourth. Whatever.

Sometimes, you have to deal with responsibilities that you didn't choose. It's called being an adult. Sometimes, you're going to have to deal with people on their terms, rather than your own. That's also called being an adult.

No amount of complaining is going to make it otherwise.

 

[garbage]

So we're arguing about archetypes, then? Or, well, what's going on

 

[Kalach]

Sometimes, you have to deal with responsibilities that you didn't choose. It's called being an adult. Sometimes, you're going to have to deal with people on their terms, rather than your own. That's also called being an adult.

No amount of complaining is going to make it otherwise.

To be equally prosaic, good luck applying cognitive norms to people who don't share them. "Deal" particularly has different meanings across the types. But what the real implication of that is, I don't know. Increased complexity of interactions or foreordained failure? Beats me.

I'm moderately willing to claim all anyone is fundamentally required to do is become aware of where their judgments can no longer apply and how much and what kind of information is needed before any judgment is legitimate.