[ENFP] xNFP and selfishness?

[Charmed Justice]

What I have found is if I take care of an Fi user they will take care of me with Fe. But it is never expected.

No matter what I do an Fe user will take care of me and it is expected in return.

Could you elaborate on this Poki, especially the bolded? Fe=unwavering and Fi=circumstantial...

 

[neptunesnet]

It's not about the noise. It's about the inconsideration.

But the Fi-user wasn't trying to be inconsiderate. By bringing the issue [our waking you up] to our attention, the next step for us was to try not to wake you out of your sleep in the future. I see no legitimate reason to go stomping around the house the next night because the Fi-user didn't exactly say the words "I apologize for disrespecting you," even though the apology was implicitly there and it was genuine.

I don't see how this pertains to the discussion. Enlighten me?

I was trying to switch the dialogue so the Fi-user was the one offended in the situation, and I probably confused you in the process.

I would change it, but I'm too lazy to.

I apologize.

Here's the logic - you've disrespected me. You said nothing to indicate that you even care that you've disrespected me.

Yes, the Fi-user did.

"Okay, I'll be more mindful" implies at least to me that I'll be extra careful so as not to wake you up, or rather "disrespect you," next time.

So therefore, why do you demand that I act respectfully in turn, when you won't grant me the same level of consideration?

Isn't the assumption here that we intentionally meant to disrespect you? Isn't it clear that the person didn't intend to?

I really don't understand why anyone would want to "disrespect you" because they would just know that you felt disrespected, give you a "piss-poor apology," and then are surprised when you make noise the next night. That doesn't make any sense to me.

You indicated that you didn't think waking someone up was a big deal...

If I did, that's not what I meant.

I don't like to wake people up from out of their sleep because I don't like to be woken up by noise either. However, I do understand that sometimes we aren't aware that we're making noise that is disturbing other people. In that case, when the person brings it to our attention, we adjust.

An apology is in the adjustment.

then you act like it was a big deal.

No, we make a big deal out of your being spiteful.

As we see it, you complained to us about making noise while you were sleeping and we adjusted. Thus, when we complain about the noise, we expect you to adjust, too, because we had to. I figured adjustment was a sign of consideration and thus respect.

Is that difficult?

There's a few ways of interpreting this - you're either acting selfishly in that what's good for the goose isn't good for the gander, you're acting childishly in not remembering the previous issue, or you're trying to mock me for having made the issue in the first place - which disrespects me even more.

I really think you're being overly paranoid here when you don't have to be.

With Fe, if you don't mend the status of disrespect, you'll remain categorized as disrespectful, and the worst will be assumed of you. On the other hand, if you validate and respect the other person, there's practically no limit to the benefit of the doubt that's extended toward you.

Yeah. I got that, but don't you think that's a little rigid and unforgiving?

Think about offending an Fi value. That's what we feel when others act inconsiderately towards us.

I already explained how Fi-users would believe if a value is trampled. Notice in my explanation that the Fi-user doesn't act preemptively (aka "being petty and spiteful") because he realizes that sometimes what he considers offensive isn't always apparent to others, unless he's young or unhealthy.

When a statement is made that's factually true, but offensive toward you, do you think it's right to be disregarded in that instance?

Well, most of my values aren't irrational, so for the most part yes, but I'd have to think about it a little more. I don't think it's usually that cut and dry.

Lack of respect puts you in the "distrusted" category. People in that category are seen as potential threats. The competition is an attempt to neutralize that potential threat. Admitting fault and apologizing for the inconsideration is a sign of respect that puts you back into the "trusted" category, also known as "good graces".

The thing is that I would apologize if I knew that I disrespected you to such a degree, but to me as long as I'm sincere whether the apology is explicit or implied does not matter.

I think we're just going to have to disagree here.

It's just so beyond my comprehension that anyone would put so much emphasis on the principle of the thing. That seems kind of divisive and contradictory to what Fe is actually supposed to do: unite.

Implied apologies are piss-poor apologies, for the above reasons.

Like I said before, that you need an explicit apology seems ridiculous to me because I'm not naturally inclined to think along those Fe lines and I'm definitely going to slip up on those social rules, so I'm not going to give you an apology for something I can't necessarily help (i.e, feeling comfortable, confident, and apt inside of those conventional lines). I feel as long as I'm sincere, which I am, that whether my apology is implied or not doesn't matter.

It would really baffle me if I offerred (and followed up) to be more mindful of someone's feelings and they considered that disrespectful because I didn't admit fault explicitly. I suppose Fi types are more comfortable with implicit statements in that regard. If I felt that I was at fault, I would probably say something along the lines of 'I'm sorry, I'll be more mindful in the future.' If I felt I wasn't I would say why 'The door creaks and there just nothing that can be done about it.' or what have you. Really though, the person at fault is only a side issue as long as the issue gets resolved. Someone can admit fault all they want, but the true measure of whether they understand and are sorry is what they do to keep it from happening the the future. No changing the past.

Yeah.

 

[Amargith]

I have to agree on the whole 'insisting on an appology when someone clearly had no intention of pissing you off, or did something on purpose.' It seems petty.

Honestly, that's the thing that wears me out about Fe. It expects you to catch every little consideration for everyone around with an overabundance of thank you's, pleases, and sorries, to the point where it becomes a bully. It like feels self-righteous to demand these things from people and becomes rude and rather uncivil in the process, which just looks ironic and hypocritical to me. Not to mention judgemental. This is also why Fi always feels Fe is judgemental, coz it expresses leading thoughts, jumping to conclusions according to the social norm and according to what social bonusses you received by your actions which you haven't even thought of but they won't even believe you hadn't, instead of listening to the reasoning as to why a Fi-user did something. It assumes. And, gets paranoid about the correction of its assumptions. Drives me mental that. Then it demands that you confess your lies or you're deceitful, lying, selfish, cruel or worse, in denial and need a reality check.

At this point, I just wanna cry. Really. How you can believe such things about me, it's just downright hurtful. I give you the benefit of the doubt and all you can do is accuse me and demand I appologize for trivial things coz they weren't up to your standards. And when I refuse, you slander my name and guilttrip me for being a horrible person?

At that point, I'd give anythign to wake up and discover it's all a bad dream.

/rant.

 

[onemoretime]

LOL. This is exactly what I do when I'm in a group. Coz yeah, it is the only way of keeping the peace...Fe. At least...if I'm not in a pissy mood after that first comment, or consider it smart to not let it get to me, coz it might be beneficial to keep the person as a friend.

When it's someone I know well though, it is nice to just be able to drop those forced 'manners'

Unfortunately, the "manners" are hardwired into our evolutionary survival strategy. That's not to say Fi has no part in it - it takes Fi to identify what those manners are in the first place.

You're missing what I'm saying here, namely that tert Fe is looking for trouble if it invests so much of itself in these stupid little things and refuses to look at it beyond literal and self-preservational Fe.

And I'm not sure you're understanding what I'm saying here - this isn't "looking" for anything. It's how humans instinctively handle other people. The things I'm describing all go on subconsciously; I never think about any of those steps except in retrospect.

These aren't "stupid little things", they're the very mortar that keeps humans banded together, which is one of the deepest of instinctive impulses. It's the reason F is so distinct from other forms of cognition as to exist separately as a function within the Jungian scheme. Yes, we have an evolutionary imperative to eat. T handles practically all of that. However, we have just as strong an evolutionary imperative to stay together in social groups. That's entirely F's province. Reproduction mixes the two.

You can't just reject some of them because you find them personally distasteful, because they're deeply important within the psyche of many people, and what else, it's entirely rational and logical for them to be so. A person who doesn't act respectfully indicates a few things - one, that he's different enough from you to possibly not share relatively much in the way of genes with you. Second, it indicates that this person considers you a competitor for resources, and as such is probably a competitor for resources himself. Third, it indicates that given the opportunity, it would make rational sense for him to eliminate you as a competitor to his genes. So naturally, you don't trust the person, and assume the worst of him.

I realize that this is the source of much of the strife in this world - but it's entirely reasonable. Humans aren't getting rid of ingroup-outgroup dynamics, but we make peace by expanding the size of the ingroup.

Same here, It does not add up with what you said before, namely that something needs to be expressed if it is to be complained about in a non-hypocritical manner. So if he follows that reasoning, then why does he expect me to apologise for something he hadn't expressed before?

He's expressing right then that you acted inconsiderately and disrespected him. In his mind, that's what's "so obvious," and what needs to be addressed.

Also, admitting wrongdoing may be a sign of respect for someone, but not for everyone and definitely not to the same degree. ETPs seem to forget that.

And we get back to the initial point - Fi selfishness... but once again, it's really about Te. If what I'm thinking's correct, Te sees apology as a sign of weakness and submission. It doesn't give a damn about the other person's feelings, nor the bonds of sociality - it just sees something that needs to be corrected. Of course, because it deals in the objective realm, it completely misses that the problem doesn't exist in the objective realm one bit - it's in the social realm.

Refusing to apologize for disrespect is just as painful and offensive to Fe as invalidating personal feelings is to Fi. They reject and objectify the other person.

Ah, I thought you advised the "I want you not to bug me" approach, my bad. And that's just sugar-coating. In the end you want to read now (what you want over his needs). There's no need to be rude about it and you can slap on some sugar, but you'll always have some priority conflicts unless you find someone that wants what you wants (or is capable of manipulating you to want what they want) all the time (sounds familiar, yeah?). It's not sustainable like that. The most selfish acts can be made while trying desperately not to be selfish. Similarly for Fi, the most horrific acts can be made while trying desperately not to be immoral.

Sigh... it's not sugar-coating, and if you want to learn something, you need to get that conceptualization out of your head, because it'll cause you nothing but harm. Maintaining that social bond is your priority, period. It's written into our genetic code. Alienating others will lead to nothing but depression, because on a base, limbic level, alienation equals impending death.

Maintaining that bond doesn't mean having to drop everything for that person. It just means that when you do have priority conflicts, you've got to validate that person before you shift to what you were doing.

I'm under the impression that unhealthy (tert) Fe users expect everything to revolve around (them) getting validation and respect and really overdo it, driving many people away in the process. It also seems that their perception of themselves as goody-two-shoes trying to do best for everyone ("woe is me and other people are disappointing me all the time because they don't go with what I want") and the way they come across to other people (Fi and Fe users) is radically different. Selfless - selfish respectively. And I mean you've mostly been instructing me on how to handle ETPs to their benefit, not really discussing things or responding to critical remarks...

Everything does revolve around this. To deny this is to be ignorant of what makes humans human.

The problem with tert Fe users is that oftentimes, a sense of perpetual, unequivocal validation is never established at critical ages (attachment issues). As such, they're unable to get past the post-infant stage of emotional development, because they're constantly searching for that one person who will love them unconditionally, and will treat them with kindness and affection, even when they've acted wrongly. For example, the movie Good Will Hunting.

This isn't instruction in how to handle ETPs, btw. This is explaining why descriptions of ETPs at their best consistently include their "charm", and why our leadership styles center around building people up to make them better. It's also pointing out deeply subconscious levels of how humans interact with each other, and things that simply can't be ignored when it comes to preserving social cohesion.

Rejection does suck and I think a lot of people feel your pain regardless of type, but then why not look at yourself a little instead of at what other people can do for you? Methinks you might enjoy embracing some Fi.

Have you missed the point of all of this? That both sides have to act respectfully and take consideration of one another? I'm not going to modify my behavior to make it more Fi-palatable if I don't believe the same consideration will be granted toward me, and the more these conversations go on, the more intransigent it seems Te-users (because this is a Te issue) become toward changing any aspect of their behavior. Asking someone to act toward your own benefit without providing something in return isn't establishing a relationship with them, it's exploiting them. That's fine if you see other humans as objects to be exploited, but as you probably can tell, most people find that deeply offensive.

Fe asks that we all engage on common ground, and act with common respect. Te demands that things be done its own way. Fe balks at this inconsideration of social cohesion, and either retaliates, or excludes Te. However, the Te-user still needs the safety of the group. There are a few options - either learn the rules and play by them, or attack the group and force them to follow your will through fear of reprisal. As appealing as that might seem to some, that's where the issue with xxTPs comes about - their purpose (especially xSTPs) is to eliminate those who would subjugate the group. That's where our anti-authoritarian bent comes from.

Like it or not, you're still going to have to learn how to play nice with the other kids, because if you don't, they're not going to let you play with them. You might be able to bully them into letting them play with you, but if you do that, eventually one of those sarcastic kids is going to kick the crap out of you, and you'll be alone once again.

Yes and it may lead to the aforementioned paranoia if you don't balance it out with logical reasoning.

It isn't paranoia. It's a perfectly rational and stable strategy, when you know very little about the other actor.

PS: speaking of practicing what you preach - how does your addressing me with the rather rude and perspectivally narrow "where you screwed up" fit into the Fe construct? (honest question)

The "you're trying to frame me as a bad person, and I'mma smack you upside the head for attacking me" part of the Fe construct. But that's mostly Ti, really.

 

[Uytuun]

I'm not going to modify my behavior to make it more Fi-palatable if I don't believe the same consideration will be granted toward me

Heh. I suggested it because you might benefit from it (aka be a happier person), not in the context of interaction at all.

You don't seem particularly open to discussing this well...openly, so that's it for me.

 

[onemoretime]

Really though, the person at fault is only a side issue as long as the issue gets resolved.

That's objectifying me as a person.

But the Fi-user wasn't trying to be inconsiderate. By bringing it to our attention that we woke you up, you brought the issue to our attention and the next step for us was to try not to wake you up again out of your sleep in the future. I see no legitimate reason to go stomping around the house the next night because the Fi-user didn't exactly say the words "I apologize for disrespecting you," even though the apology was implicitly there and it was genuine.

And how, exactly, am I supposed to know that? I am not a mind-reader. I don't know if you are genuinely contrite for acting disrespectfully toward me, or if you really don't care and just want to brush the issue aside.

Here's the thing - I don't care about intent in that circumstance. I'm assuming good faith by raising the issue, and giving you an opportunity to confirm my good faith by expressing regret for acting disrespectfully. If you don't do this, then what reason do I have to assume good faith on your part from that point forward?

I was trying to switch the dialogue so the Fi-user was the one offended in the situation, and I probably confused you in the process.

I would change it, but I'm too lazy to do it.

I apologize.

Accepted.

Yes, the Fi-user did.

"Okay, I'll be more mindful" implies at least to me that I'll be extra careful so as not to wake you up, or rather "disrespect you," next time.

Objectification, once again. It's implying that you'll be extra careful to not cause a response. It's saying nothing about the feelings of inconsideration that were the result of the action, which is the actual issue.

Isn't the assumption here that we intentionally meant to disrespect you? Isn't it clear that the person didn't intend to?

Once again, intent has nothing to do with it. An action happened. The action indicated a lack of regard for the other person. This offends Fe. Fe then wants you to realize this, and revalidate your social bond through a respectful apology. Reciprocity - you harmed me through disrespect. Recognizing that, and showing a little humility through apology, demonstrates that you're not trying to exploit or take advantage of me.

I really don't understand why anyone would want to "disrespect you" because they just know that you were disrespect, give you a "piss-poor apology," and then are surprised when you make noise the next night.

Intent has nothing to do with it.

If I did, that's not what I meant.

See above.

I don't like to wake people up from out of their sleep because I don't like to be waken up by noise either. However, I do understand that sometimes we aren't aware that we're making noise that is disturbing the other people. In that case, when the person brings it to our attention, we adjust.

An apology is in the adjustment.

But it doesn't address the issue of harm through disrespect.

No, we make a big deal out of your being spiteful.

As we see it, you complained to us about making noise while you were sleeping and we adjusted. Thus, when we complain about the noise, we expect you to adjust, too, because we had to. I figured adjustment was a sign of consideration and thus respect.

Is that difficult?

The harm outstanding hasn't been remedied. To make a gross exaggeration, if you negligently chop off someone's arm with a chainsaw, do you think they'd find it acceptable if you said "K, I'll be more mindful in the future" without addressing the fact that you just cut his arm off? Same deal.

I really think you're being overly paranoid here when you don't have to be.

I'm not "being" anything. This is what happens subconsciously.

Yeah. I got that, but don't you think that's a little rigid and unforgiving?

Not at all. "Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me".

I already explained how Fi-users would believe if a value is trampled. Notice in my explanation that the Fi-user doesn't act preemptively (aka "being petty and spiteful") because he realizes that sometimes what he considers offensive isn't always apparent to others, unless he's young or unhealthy.

So why not accept that we're harmed in the same way? We generally make allowances for Fi values once we get to know that person.

The thing is that I would apologize if I knew that I disrespected you to such a degree, but to me as long as I'm sincere whether the apology is explicit or implied does not matter.

Great. You've resolved your own emotional state without any regard for the other person's emotional state.

Can't you see why this may be seen as somewhat... selfish?

It's just so beyond my comprehension that anyone would put so much emphasis on the principle of the thing. That seems kind of divisive and contradictory to what Fe is actually supposed to do: unite.

Unite and protect the group. This is the protection side of it. Fe looks for the people who may potentially harm the group. Social graces such as these are shibboleths which indicate to others that you're trustworthy.

Like I said before, that you need an explicit apology seems ridiculous to me because I'm not naturally inclined to think along those Fe lines and I'm definitely going to slip up on those social rules and not give you an apology for something I can't necessarily help (i.e, feeling comfortable, confident, and apt inside of those conventional lines). I feel as long as I'm sincere, which I am, that whether my apology is implied or not doesn't matter.

And you've still done nothing to address the other person's emotional harm. Once again... selfish.

 

[uumlau]

Have you missed the point of all of this? That both sides have to act respectfully and take consideration of one another? I'm not going to modify my behavior to make it more Fi-palatable if I don't believe the same consideration will be granted toward me, ...

The best way to make sure that people will almost never pay you any respect is to insist that they act respectfully first. It is by acting respectfully in the first place, and by acting respectfully even when they're being complete and total ass-hats, that you will gain genuine respect from most everyone you know.

This truth is not dependent on MBTI-type, though different types might express it differently.

(To be clear, by "respectfully" I don't mean deferentially, or expressing honor towards others above and beyond simple respect and courtesy. "Being nice" would be a reasonable synonym.)

 

[onemoretime]

The best way to make sure that people will almost never pay you any respect is to insist that they act respectfully first. It is by acting respectfully in the first place, and by acting respectfully even when they're being complete and total ass-hats, that you will gain genuine respect from most everyone you know.

This truth is not dependent on MBTI-type, though different types might express it differently.

(To be clear, by "respectfully" I don't mean deferentially, or expressing honor towards others above and beyond simple respect and courtesy. "Being nice" would be a reasonable synonym.)

You also don't gain any respect, and may very well lose it, when you let someone insult you without standing up for yourself.

I don't ever throw the first punch, but I'm committed to throwing the last one.

 

[Amargith]

Ok, no offense, OMT, but now you're defending Fe-tiranny, imo.

 

[onemoretime]

Ok, no offense, OMT, but now you're defending Fe-tiranny, imo.

If caring about the feelings of others is tyrannical, well, call me an enlightened despot.

 

[Amargith]

If caring about the feelings of others is tyrannical, well, call me an enlightened despot.

You're not, in this situation though. You're caring about the 'group norm'. You should be focusing on the relationship between you and the person at hand, not defending a group that isn't even there. Negotiate the bond between the two of you, instead of insisting they stick to the 'generic social contract'. You're hurting their feelings..ignoring their needs, because it just happens not to correspond with the norm.

At that point, it's not your job to teach them on the social norm, it's your job to understand their pov, and explain yours so you can negotiate a win-win situation between the two of you, which will make you both happy. Otherwise, you are oppressing them, and using the 'because the majority says it's gotto be this way!' thing just to get your way. You talk about caring for the feelings of others..what others? It's just you and him in that situation and you sure as hell aint caring about his feelings. Only yours left. How's that not selfish?

 

[onemoretime]

You're not, in this situation though. You're caring about the 'group norm'. You should be focusing on the relationship between you and the person at hand, not defending a group that isn't even there. Negotiate the bond between the two of you, instead of insisting they stick to the 'generic social contract'. You're hurting their feelings..ignoring their needs, because it just happens not to correspond with the norm.

At that point, it's not your job to teach them on the social norm, it's your job to understand their pov, and explain yours so you can negotiate a win-win situation between the two of you, which will make you both happy. Otherwise, you are oppressing them, and using the 'because the majority says it's gotto be this way!' thing just to get your way. You talk about caring for the feelings of others..what others? It's just you and him in that situation and you sure as hell aint caring about his feelings. Only yours left. How's that not selfish?

He doesn't care about mine in the first place. Why should I give him what he's unwilling to grant to me?

 

[Amargith]

He doesn't care about mine in the first place. Why should I give him what he's unwilling to grant to me?

At least he's trying to negotiate! You just assume that those rules are already in place and get pissed when he's clueless about breaking them.

Why on earth would you instantly assume he doesn't care about yours? You didn't even bother to let him know your wishes in the first place.

Not to mention that your response is really passive-aggressive. The way you're going about it, none of you get what you want. Lose-lose situation..how crappy is that.

 

[onemoretime]

At least he's trying to negotiate! You just assume that those rules are already in place and get pissed when he's clueless about breaking them.

Why on earth would you instantly assume he doesn't care about yours? You didn't even bother to let him know your wishes in the first place.

No he's not. He's trying to save face, as far as I'm concerned.

If he cared about my feelings, he'd realize that he had harmed them, and then recompensed me in some way. An apology would be enough.

 

[neptunesnet]

He doesn't care about mine in the first place. Why should I give him what he's unwilling to grant to me?

You keep saying that when we've already told you that he does care overall and he did care in the first place or he wouldn't have adjusted.

You see "caring" and "consideration" expressed very limitedly.

No he's not. He's trying to save face, as far as I'm concerned.

We don't see it as a competition the way you do.

He's not "saving face." He's not saving anything. He wants to make sure he doesn't disrespect you again, so he's "mindful next time."

If he cared about my feelings, he'd realize that he had harmed them, and then recompensed me in some way. An apology would be enough.

He already gave you a sincere apology.


EDIT: Oh, and because sim [below me] is just waiting for me to give him a quick Fi shout-out hey. Also, one) I'm sure the e3s appreciate your calling them all histrionic, and two) I don't find you hypocritical at all for skipping over the good in my post because you didn't like the way I presented my ideas.

 

[simulatedworld]

As usual Amargith is the only NFP doing a decent job of explaining any of this.

I got a few ideas for how to approach NFPs a little better from her in this thread, so thanks Amargith.

I read one line of neptune's post, realized it was going to be useless histrionic 4w3 garbage, and skipped to the next Amargith post. No surprise there.

 

[Poki]

Could you elaborate on this Poki, especially the bolded? Fe=unwavering and Fi=circumstantial...

I meant more Fe=Pre. Fi=Post. Will comment more later.

 

[Amargith]

No he's not. He's trying to save face, as far as I'm concerned.

If he cared about my feelings, he'd realize that he had harmed them, and then recompensed me in some way. An apology would be enough.

Wow. And that's how the judgement thing comes into place. Interesting.


So..you basically assume that everyone should just adhere to the social contract, and when that doesn't happen, it must be willfull stubbornness on the other side, who's bent on trying to piss you off? Then not instantly appologizing is strike 2????

The fact that someone has a different pov, or even is just not as competent at adhering to these rules (Kinda like speaking a foreign language), and thus makes mistakes, doesn't even occur to you? Tolerance isn't your forte, is it?

I get it now. Miscommunication doesn't exist for you..it's automatically willfull breach of contract. Must be, coz *everyone* knows the contract, and you'd only break it if you were an ass or disrespectful of the person.

I'll keep in mind that when an ENTP is socially not following the contract with me, from now on, that he just means to disrespect me, and breaks the social contract on purpose to either provoke me or make it clear to me that he doesn't care for me. Thanks for the insight.

 

[uumlau]

You also don't gain any respect, and may very well lose it, when you let someone insult you without standing up for yourself.

You can stand up for yourself without being disrespectful. You can maintain your boundaries without punishing others for crossing them.

I don't ever throw the first punch, but I'm committed to throwing the last one.

That very attitude will earn you disrespect from many people.

 

[onemoretime]

Wow. And that's how the judgement thing comes into place. Interesting.


So..you basically assume that everyone should just adhere to the social contract, and when that doesn't happen, it must be willfull stubbornness on the other side, who's bent on trying to piss you off? Then not instantly appologizing is strike 2????

The fact that someone has a different pov, or even is just not as competent at adhering to these rules (Kinda like speaking a foreign language), and thus makes mistakes, doesn't even occur to you? Tolerance isn't your forte, is it?

I get it now. Miscommunication doesn't exist for you..it's automatically willfull breach of contract. Must be, coz *everyone* knows the contract, and you'd only break it if you were an ass or disrespectful of the person.

I'll keep in mind that when an ENTP is socially not following the contract with me, from now on, that he just means to disrespect me, and breaks the social contract on purpose to either provoke me or make it clear to me that he doesn't care for me. Thanks for the insight.

I've repeatedly stated that intent has nothing to do with it. Negligence still causes harm. It's the harm that has to be healed. Not the action that caused the harm.