[NF] Do you regret opening up to people?

[Thalassa]

I don't believe that you are viewing the connection or the understanding as an object unto itself. You insist that there must be some other objective, if I'm not mistaken. Relationship is the entire objective.

I think it is a mistake to completely discount the validation of others. While being completely reliant upon external validation is a mistake - and in fact, a personality disorder - the balance of one's own values and self-opinion combined with the perspectives and validations of others helps us to learn more about the human experience both for ourselves and for others. My life isn't fulfilling if I cannot maintain some sort of social perspective and connection to others.

If you need an objective to why this would be necessary, take into account jobs like psychologist, pastor, hospice care worker, parenting, early childhood worker, adolescent guidance counselor, addictions counselor, death row counselor, corrections officer, writer, artist, musician, and any other occupation that a person could acquire in which making deep connections, providing understanding, and comprehending the emotional complexity of the human experience is paramount. You could probably even include "forum moderator" into that mix, not to mention simple, basic things like friend and lover.

 

[Amethyst]

Sometimes...I usually don't care when I open up, but if I truly open up to people, then I sort of panic inside, regardless of their response to me opening up. I feel like they see me as an entirely different person.

I have only truly opened up to about 3 people in real life, probably more online.

 

[cafe]

My original challenge was to Malkavia's question, where it was to challenge the NEED for validation, not from your personalised perspective of why you regret opening up to people. If anything, it had nothing to do with your personalised perspective.

Generally speaking, everyone's emotions are valid, where they have a right to them. But to rely on someone else to make us more or equal to ourselves, is too much power to give another who has his/her own challenges and self to consider.

It's when we have expectations of others, that we get disappointed. But are those expectations reasonable from their perspective since they too, are separate individuals?

Once again, throwing out more thoughts for consideration.

I don't think someone has to have a right to their emotions. I think emotions just are. Like the leaves in spring are green and ripe strawberries are red.

I guess it comes down to your having a theory and my having an ideal. In my ideal, relationships are symbiotic and reciprocal and in your theory, we don't need them to feel complete or whatever. It's apples and oranges and neither really reflect reality, so meh.

 

[rav3n]

I don't think someone has to have a right to their emotions. I think emotions just are. Like the leaves in spring are green and ripe strawberries are red.

I guess it comes down to your having a theory and my having an ideal. In my ideal, relationships are symbiotic and reciprocal and in your theory, we don't need them to feel complete or whatever. It's apples and oranges and neither really reflect reality, so meh.

Where does one begin and end in your ideal for a relationship?

 

[Amargith]

Thanks, this provides me with more fuel for thought. I do understand that in order to get a deeper connection, there has to be a better understanding of the individual as a whole which includes trying or managing to understand their point of view. It can provide you with a larger picture perspective, in a complementary way of richness of tapestry.

You and Satine are expressing similar concepts of depth of connection from different perspectives. Where Satine is more about depth of connection, your opinion appears to be based on the complementary nature of the interpersonal dynamic and how the other person can benefit you.

But in both, what someone thinks of you, neither minimalises or maximises who you inherently are, unless you allow their opinions to cause change within you.

Don't get me wrong. It is nice to be validated.

But where I hair-split, is where validation is necessary to be who you are. External view leans towards bias, since people view others and their actions through biased lenses of their own lives, experiences or perspectives; or the individual themselves hold back a part of themselves whether deliberately for many different reasons or simply because the observer is unable to grasp or is even interested in that side of them.

Anyways, hopefully we've provided each other with differing views.

I agree to a certain extent with you, yes. You are right on that. But when you're naturally inclined towards that harmony, it's easy to get lost in whose feelings you are in fact...well 'feeling'. You become so in tune with what others think, that you easily get biased as to your own feelings and as to how you view yourself. Moods and emotions are contagious. And while that's a good thing when promoting harmony and feeling good and happy and stuff...it can also contaminate you when someone feels sad or angry and projects that on you. You yourself either become sad or angry yourself and mirror it back at them, causing a chain reaction, or you start getting defensive, thinking that that person is aiming that purposefully at you. It takes al evel of self-awareness and mastery to realize what's going on and detach from it. It also makes you sensitive to taking on their views of yourself, as it works in that same contagious way. It's the risk you run when you open up to others, especially if that self-awareness is lacking. And even when that self-awareness is there, and you are able to step back..it is nice to see that the way you strive to project yourself towards others, the way you strive to be the best you are, being affirmed and having that content feeling from others mirrorred back at you, knowing that you caused that contentment in them. Knowing that who you are, is in fact greatly appreciated by them. It's a kick, a rush, and gives purpose, as well as reinforces that harmony. The same happens however when you have the opposite happening. When they feel bad around you, and you've verified that it is in fact you that causes this...it's in your power to change this..to recreate that harmony. Why wouldn't you do so? It's in the best interest of your bond with this person afterall (this depends on how important this person is to you). The validation/feedback has just helped you to givey ou the information you need to strenghten that bond and become a better person in order to fulfill the purpose that you strive to achieve (promote that group harmony or grow in that bond with that particular individual).

 

[rav3n]

I agree to a certain extent with you, yes. You are right on that. But when you're naturally inclined towards that harmony, it's easy to get lost in whose feelings you are in fact...well 'feeling'. You become so in tune with what others think, that you easily get biased as to your own feelings and as to how you view yourself. Moods and emotions are contagious. And while that's a good thing when promoting harmony and feeling good and happy and stuff...it can also contaminate you when someone feels sad or angry and projects that on you. You yourself either become sad or angry yourself and mirror it back at them, causing a chain reaction, or you start getting defensive, thinking that that person is aiming that purposefully at you. It takes al evel of self-awareness and mastery to realize what's going on and detach from it. It also makes you sensitive to taking on their views of yourself, as it works in that same contagious way. It's the risk you run when you open up to others, especially if that self-awareness is lacking. And even when that self-awareness is there, and you are able to step back..it is nice to see that the way you strive to project yourself towards others, the way you strive to be the best you are, being affirmed and having that content feeling from others mirrorred back at you, knowing that you caused that contentment in them. Knowing that who you are, is in fact greatly appreciated by them. It's a kick, a rush, and gives purpose, as well as reinforces that harmony. The same happens however when you have the opposite happening. When they feel bad around you, and you've verified that it is in fact you that causes this...it's in your power to change this..to recreate that harmony. Why wouldn't you do so? It's in the best interest of your bond with this person afterall (this depends on how important this person is to you). The validation/feedback has just helped you to givey ou the information you need to strenghten that bond and become a better person in order to fulfill the purpose that you strive to achieve (promote that group harmony or grow in that bond with that particular individual).

When explained this way, I get it and can relate to it somewhat but not completely, since it's not my natural preference.

As previously stated, you rock Satine! Somehow you can explain feeler cognition to me so it makes sense.

 

[rav3n]

Hold it, hold it, hold it. Got it 100% if it can be viewed as such. That a mutually respectful conversation, is a form of mutual validation.

 

[Amargith]

Correct

 

[skylights]

NFPs tend to see past a lot of the vague dips into insecurities. They may need some guidance toward the juicy center of them, but they get their foot in that elevator door before it closes out the rest of the world.
Questioning out of pure curiosity is a weakness, methinks. Something that will make an ENFJ starry-eyed and more likely to share, but you're right about the security bit. You need to have proper authorization and your fingerprint/eyescan has to pass before you can go to a different level . I personally find someone misinterpreting me to spark a subconscious need to explain more of myself to them.

@ bold - agreed. the more someone keeps something secret, the more i want to know it (because hyper security means it's really important to them), but it's bad news if you get trusted with information that you're not sufficiently mentally prepared to handle with care, so to speak. actually that's part of what makes ENFJs so interesting. introverts are quiet, so it's not really surprising if they hold back info, but even sometimes introverts will open up to me in ways that make me be like and then ENFJs are often very social and yet they have this tangible wall! but yes, it's so important to care about the person, not just want to know their secrets for the sake of it.

ENFPs and ENFJs keeping each other in check. D'aw!
I've not witnessed or been involved in a tussle with an ENFP and it makes me curious. Most of mine have been with INFPs, which is like a different ball game on the same playing field.

haha probably. it's very strange. as i've experienced it, it's like Fe/Ni wall of protection versus Ne/Fi outpouring. essentially i think the Ne/Fi has to STFU and the Fe/Ni has to be willing to drop their guard a bit - which, of course, is exactly what both of us don't want to do when we feel threatened.

I think the problem a lot of people have with validating others is that they are unwilling to simply listen objectively and attempt to empathize, instead impulsively judging the other person's perceived faults based on their own biases. This is often done out of a desire to help the other person, but sometimes the other person doesn't want or need "help" or a quick solution to the problem. They just want someone to listen and attempt to understand their point of view.

Doesn't sound all that difficult. But in practice, it's exceedingly rare.

very true.

My original challenge was to Malkavia's question, where it was to challenge the NEED for validation, not from your personalised perspective of why you regret opening up to people. If anything, it had nothing to do with your personalised perspective.

Generally speaking, everyone's emotions are valid, where they have a right to them. But to rely on someone else to make us more or equal to ourselves, is too much power to give another who has his/her own challenges and self to consider.

It's when we have expectations of others, that we get disappointed. But are those expectations reasonable from their perspective since they too, are separate individuals?

i agree with the bold.

i open up for the sake of helping/connecting with someone else, usually. if i don't get any positive response from them, then it feels like i revisited a potentially hurting part of myself for nothing, and let another person see a side of me that isn't so flattering. for it's not even about giving the other person power as much as it about disappointment and frustration and embarrassment that i gave what i could and they didn't give back. on the bright side, the times that this happens are much, much fewer in comparison to the times where both of us connect and benefit from the sharing, so i'm generally willing to take the risk.

i also like what satine said about contamination. it's true. when you're so in tune with emotions, it's hard to read emotion and remove yourself from emotion at the same time. it also can be hard to see where someone else's feelings end and yours begin, when you're sympathizing or empathizing with someone. it doesn't just work one-directionally - if you're strong enough, you can infuse the other person with positivity too. that's hard though, because you don't want to deny someone the time they might need to spend figuring things out and you don't want to piss them off by trying to "pretend everything is okay" either. not that it's always so conscious, but especially with other Fs i feel like there's a certain art to emotional flow in relationships. if you get it right, you can comfort, calm, and inspire one another.

 

[cafe]

Where does one begin and end in your ideal for a relationship?

In the middle.

 

[Oaky]

This explains a lot. Mhmm. :jots things down on clip board:

What conclusion will be derived from the information I projected with your perception of it?

 

[RDF]

Generally speaking, everyone's emotions are valid, where they have a right to them. But to rely on someone else to make us more or equal to ourselves, is too much power to give another who has his/her own challenges and self to consider.

It's when we have expectations of others, that we get disappointed. But are those expectations reasonable from their perspective since they too, are separate individuals?

@Metaphor:

First off, I think you're focused too much on the validation transaction as an exchange between two individuals. Here's how you seem to be interpreting the situation: In hopes of validation, I pour out intimate and potentially embarrassing personal details to a friend; the friend may indeed validate me, but he/she may just as likely invalidate me and judge me harshly.

Again, that seems to be the way you see the validation transaction. Given such an interpretation of the transaction, I would agree with you: it seems like I'm putting a lot on the line (giving a lot of power to another) in exchange for something rather evanescent: Why should I need validation in the first place? Can't I just trust my own feelings?

However, I see the transaction differently:

I see the validation transaction more as a process of employing a sounding board (such as a faceless Greek chorus representing society as a whole, or even a faceless message board of like-minded peers) to test the viability of emotions, ideas, plans, and experiences.

For example: "Dear Message Board: My girlfriend left me. I can't eat or sleep or study. Half the time I want to beg her forgiveness, and the other half the time I hate her for turning me into the sniveling wimp I have become since she left me. I have been leaving phone messages and texting her all day. Is this normal for a bad break-up? Signed, Feeler."

"Dear Feeler: Yeah, that sounds about right for a bad break-up. But I would back off on the part about hating her for turning you into a wimp; you have to accept some of the responsibility for what happens in a relationship--you can't claim that you've been totally victimized. And you may want to stop with the phone messages and texting--that can come across as harassing or stalking, etc. etc.... Signed Message Board."

Even Thinkers go to outside sources for validation for their ideas and plans:

"Dear Message Board: It seems like we could rid the human race of inherited defects by simply testing people for bad genes and sterilizing those who fail the test. Whattaya think--doesn't that make sense?"

"Dear Message Board: I run a profitable workshop, but there's one Feeler there who always seems to be down in the dumps. She's bringing down morale and productivity. Can I just fire her for being a drag on productivity?"

And so on.

Feelers may be more prone to share emotions and thus take the issue of validation/invalidation more personally. But if Thinkers are heavily invested in an idea or plan, the consequences of validation/invalidation may weigh as heavily for them as for any Feeler. And when it comes to sharing and dealing with emotions and personal traumas, Thinkers may be more vulnerable than Feelers due to less experience with such things.

Anyway, in general terms:

To share experience is to confirm the self as understandable and acceptable; it also creates intimacy, fulfilling the desire to know and be known. It allows people to discover what part of their inner experience is shareable and what part falls outside the pale of commonly accepted human experience. Being listened to spells the difference between feeling accepted and feeling isolated.

Again, I think it helps to think of the validation transaction as being between an individual (on one side) and society as a whole, as represented by a Greek chorus or even a message board (on the other side). Then it's easier to see the validation process as an escape from isolation: we share in order to find out what's acceptable and universal, versus what's unacceptable and unshareable and must be hidden from society. We need that knowledge in order to interact at all with others.

And to the extent that we choose to pick a single close friend or confidante with whom we entrust our secrets, that's usually just our way of trying to tip the balance in our favor. We hope our friends might be more disposed to lend a favorable ear than society as a whole.

@cafe and others: A good book on the subject of what constitutes proper validation: "The Lost Art of Listening" (subtitled: How Learning to Listen Can Improve Relationships), by Michael P. Nichols, PhD. It'll tell you how you yourself can get better at validating others, and it will give you specific things to look for to see whether or not you yourself are being properly validated by others.

 

[The Outsider]

Yes, I have trust issues, and I feel defenseless before the people I've opened up to afterward. Though I suppose it also strengthens the bond between us, which is good. But I'm just paranoid like that.

 

[SilkRoad]

It really depends. Sometimes, even if it's a relief at the time, and with a trusted friend, it can really end up making me feel vulnerable. Almost as though they have some dirt on me now and I don't like it. It's weird, because it's not like I don't trust the person I open up to in that situation...but it can make me feel exposed. I do kind of prefer it when they open up to me than the other way around

As I think some other people have said, it can also be frustrating and hurtful if someone opens up to you and you listen patiently, try not to be judgemental, offer validation and attempt to offer constructive advice if it seems appropriate, etc etc...and then when you open up to them and hope for something similar, they've got basically nothing for you. They brush you off or offer some pat dismissive answer or whatever. I'm realising that there are a lot of people who are simply not compassionate/smart/emotionally clued-in enough to even offer a bit of the comfort, reassurance, validation, constructive advice etc that you may be looking for. But sometimes it's a shame they can't just try a bit harder.

It can also happen that you open up to someone and they somehow actively use it against you. Not necessarily to spread evil gossip or whatever, but they turn it on its head and come back to you and tell you you're really messed up or attribute wrong motives to you, etc. It hasn't happened to me much but it's pretty unpleasant.

The thing is, even if I don't feel like opening up all that much...sometimes you can get resentful when it's others opening up to you so much more freely than you can do with them. It's great if you find friendships/relationships where it really can be mutual and ultimately upbuilding.

 

[stormyapril]

I open up sometimes a bit in the internets because there is some higher anonymity. I do so very much sometimes on this forum here. I do actually regret it sometimes because I guess I annoy people here sometimes with it and have such a feel, although no one really said it to me yet. I made a step in putting it mostly in my blog. But well, if you want so this post here is again some kind of opening up, and I might regret it also soon.

I also open up far more in the safety of the anon web world. In real life I almost always regret sharing with others as the things I think and do are just too weird or intense. I mostly do not share of this reason.

I do recognize many of the descriptions of validation-Those to me feel more like internal calibration of my own Fi. By externalizing what I feel and think, I can get feedback from others and determine how appropriate my judgment was or if the emotions and interpretations made in a situation were accurate. If not accurate, the sharing and feedback allows an editing of Fi, a growth cycle,, so that the next time an event occurs, the values and suggestions put forth will be more accurate. Since Fi is subjective and introverted, these cycles of feedback/editing ...aka validation...are of great value.

 

[JoSunshine]

Nope...I have no issue being completely raw with my besties...that's why they are my besties I have no inclination to open up to people I don't know well. It all works out.

 

[entropie]

Do you ever regret opening up to someone?

Even my close friends when I show them my true feelings. My unfiltered thoughts, I feel really stupid afterwards. The next day I usually think to myself, "that was a really bad idea, now they have "dirt" on me."

Do you feel like this sometimes? What do you think it comes from?

1 billion percent !

 

[SecondBest]

I usually feel lighter when I open up. But then I start panicking because I feel vulnerable. But then I realize I don't give a shit about myself so I stay open and vulnerable.

 

[figsfiggyfigs]

No I rarely do. Even to my bestfriends. I try to be as closed book as possible, without appearing so. I don't like people knowing my business.

There are things I'm willing to share, but generally, I keep away from it.

In the past I have regretted opening up to people.

 

[RDF]

Young children supposedly develop into extraverts because they are validated in some manner when they communicate. They encounter some kind of empathetic environment, get positive feedback, and learn to enjoy interacting and living in a public venue. They become expert at getting and giving validation, and at finding (and sometimes testing) the boundaries between publicly acceptable and publicly unacceptable.

The downside is that they may not develop a private, introverted side where they can indulge and exercise those facets of themselves that may not be attractive or acceptable. And without that freedom of privacy, they may find themselves constrained and hemmed in by living life on a stage; their lives may become about what other people want of them. Or their lives may be about categorizing and herding other people. In either event, eventually extraverts may find themselves clueless about who or what they themselves want to be.

And so in late youth or middle age, ESTJs may chuck successful careers to become yoga teachers. ENTJs may go on religious retreats and vacation at monasteries with vows of silence. ENTPs may go through personal crises and quit their jobs and wander off and become hermits. ENFPs may rebel against the wants of others, quarrel with all their friends, and find themselves truly alone for the first time in their lives.

****************************
Young children supposedly develop into introverts because they didn't get sufficient validation when they tried to communicate. They become experts at avoidance and cultivate the capacity to be alone. On the plus side, solitude provides space for repose and reflection, time for looking within the self, time for creative endeavor. But on the negative side, at least part of the foundation of introversion is defensive: A reaction to growing up in an environment that wasn't sufficiently empathetic. In fact, the silence of the solitary is often filled with imagined conversations, and online chatrooms and message boards are filled with introverts who enjoy interacting with a "safe" audience.

The downside of solitude is that introverts may end up living too much in their heads. If they are uninterested in the public life around them, they may lose track of the boundaries between appropriate and inappropriate, between acceptable and unacceptable. They may have skewed or unrealistic ideas about reality. In turn, clashes with a public life that they don't understand may cause them to turn away even more resolutely.

But as in the case of extraverts, with age and an increasing awareness of their mortality introverts may decide to face the problem head on. Middle aged introverts flock to Toastmaster, dancing classes, and social clubs and organizations. Even as extraverts may withdraw from public venues, introverts may flood in to fill the gap. And at this time, painfully but with greater confidence due to their age and experience, introverts slowly learn to communicate with others, to do the boundary-testing, and to seek and give the validation that seemed beyond their reach when they were younger.

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

Obviously my descriptions are simplistic and stereotypical. Still you get the idea. There are forces that pull us both ways. No extravert can be wholly social: our ego demands a personal zone where we can be selfish and creative and egotistical without negative feedback from our peers, and hence we crave a degree of introversion. Conversely, no introvert is an island: as much as we try to ignore it, the world is out there, both challenging us to seek its rewards and preventing us from drifting into total solipsism and arbitrariness, in other words serving as a reality check.

I was drawn into this thread because of the comedy of extraverts unable to understand why anyone would need validation, and introverts insisting on their personal need for outside validation. Those positions are kind of contrary to the essence of introversion and extraversion.

But at any particular time you have to look at where a person is coming from and where they are headed to, to determine their need for validation. Truth is, it's probably a swinging pendulum for most people. There are times when people need more validation and times when less is needed. I've seen ENTJs interacting heavily in the public arena in their youth, and then one day becoming disgusted with it all and fading across the years into solitude and decrepitude. Then one day they somehow rediscover the outside world again, and they appear alongside introverts trying to stumble through dance classes and pay more attention to their clothing and appearance.

In other words, I don't think that seeking validation is always a desirable objective, or that there is any one ideal destination for everyone's lives. In the end, I think there's just the pendulum swinging back and forth: a pendulum swinging between carving out an internal place where we can truly be ourselves and ignore the outside world (on one hand), and then seeking out the world to verify and validate what our internal life has prompted or generated, in the spirit of "keeping it real" (on the other hand).