I haven't seen this conversation until now and only just skimmed it.
I'm happy to participate, but I haven't identified a clear topic yet other than "NFPs annoy someone".
So regarding this question....I may be interpreting it incorrectly, given I am not totally clear on the context.
But here goes... [MENTION=4347]Virtual ghost[/MENTION]
Criticism often stems from someone feeling someone else is wrong and you need to correct them. The problem here is - is this standard you are measuring them with really objective?
The vast majority of the time, the standard is really upholding one or both of these things:
- A value you prioritise above other values.
Every action or goal you are choosing above other things. You asserting values at every moment. This is the perspective of the Feeling types. If an NFP is, say, bad at time management, it certainly may be a flaw, but it often stems from prioritizing differently. It's not personal. They aren't disrespecting other people's time intentionally or blowing off a deadline intentionally. And the decision they make is rational in the sense that they have prioritized something they consider more valuable than time.
So when you ascribe bad motive to the NFP, they are hearing that something they feel is frivolous (time) is being used to judge their entire character. And to them, this can be nonsense, because they feel that what motivates them is so much bigger than time.
An alternate approach is to not ascribe bad motive or judge character based on a difference in how you value stuff in reality. It is logical to you to take ABC steps to reach Y goal by X time, but to the NFP, something more important than Y goal was given precedence.
This means recognizing that your own actions and goals, on some level, stem from a premise of value. You have deemed it worthwhile and significant, etc. Realizing that, you have to recognize that not everyone assigns the same value to things.
- Your interpretation of reality and events therein.
The illustration of several people witnessing a crime and giving different accounts of it is applicable here. We don't all experience reality the same way. We frame things differently, and it's not just situations, but our entire life experience that creates a bigger context. Some criticism can basically assert that your interpretation is somehow THE interpretation. It is the TRUTH of reality. But it's not. We all have bias, blindspots, incomplete information, etc.
When other people don't live up to your standards, it is not necessarily deliberate defiance of objective standards or total incompetency or anything like that. They don't interpret reality the same way. Things don't mean to them what they mean to you. This obviously connects to the previous point about differences in values. This means they have different standards.
This means criticism often stems from a person's need to assert they are RIGHT. They need to feel their standards are CORRECT, because this validates their perspective and experience. It boosts their EGO. Obviously, this in itself is a perspective, and IMO, it is a common one of NFPs that your standards are not objective, but a preference.
Things are logical only if you are prioritizing a particular goal.
Imagine that someone is prioritizing something very different...now their actions are given totally different meaning, and may actually make quite a bit of sense. To do this, you have to accept there is possibly not one right way or that your value is not objectively more important; that can be threatening for some people.
Also, emotional content for Feeling types often doesn't cloud communication. Rather, it clarifies, because it signifies value. The tone of voice, the little flairs in phrasing, etc, this tells you how important something or someone is to you and why someone else should be motivated to bother with what you value. When emotional communication is done poorly, you can inadvertently send value messages you don't even intend to send. Basically, you can't assume that others will prioritize as you do, and if you want them to prioritize what you do, then you have to appeal to what they value. Rapport does this. Feeling types often value human relationships - seeing these as a fundamental aspect of human happiness and survival - and so people DO motivate others by appealing to this. It is in essence motivating others by saying, "uphold this value of mine because you value ME." That can be some manipulative stuff right there, yeah, but it's not irrational if you consider it a part of a larger system of interacting for mutual benefit. It's really a cornerstone for concepts like respect and honor and the golden rule.
So maybe you mean to just communicate facts or correct an error - nothing personal! Except someone hears "You are stupid, weak and incompetent. I don't respect you or what you value. I am RIGHT. You are WRONG and BAD."
Hearing that, someone doesn't hear an upholding of objective standards, but judgement stemming from a personal bias. You just demotivated them. The "logical" thing for them is to devalue you in return (because they experienced you as the instigator of this dynamic) and find situations and people which value their abilities and also share what they value.
That's average people too, or particularly, average NFPs. Really, really, really emotionally mature people will react less and have insight into why someone is poor at emotional messages. But most people are, of course, average.
