[INFJ] When an INFJ doorslams you / cuts you out of their life / breaks off contact

[Fidelia]

I don't know. I don't relate to doorslamming as a way of life. From what I've read here, many people have said they did it more when they were younger. There are very few people that I would. The very few (2?) times that I ever did it were in response to realizing that the person had been lying for a very long time. I am pretty forgiving when I can see where the person is coming from and can stand in their shoes. That kind of deception though (especially when it affects other people than myself) indicates something about character and that the person simply isn't the kind that I want to have for a close, close friend (I don't doorslam acquaintance friends. If they're not for me, I just sort of let the relationship to them become more and more periodic).

I suppose if there was evidence (over a period of time) that the person had changed and if they acknowledged what happened, why they think it happened, how it affected those around them and why it will not happen in the future and they've regained my trust, I may rethink things.

 

[cafe]

Ivy, I know it's been a long time since you posted this, but I just came across it. Very interesting. I don't think I would have understood what you meant here even two months ago. But now I think I do understand. You bring up an excellent point.

There is a self-protection aspect going on here. I think that I achieved an entirely new level of understanding of doorslamming when I began to better understand my Fi and how it operates in my psyche.

In the past, my hurt Fi has caused me to shut people out for finite periods. When Fi is hurt, it becomes deeply hurt. I'm highly motivated to protect it. I sort of feel like I'm compelled to shore up my defenses. And, if the offending party tries to approach me, all I want to do is either avoid them or hold them at arms length. More importantly, it is VERY uncomfortable for me to consciously reflect on my hurt Fi. It feels like to do so would be jumping over the precipice. In other words, if I start hashing through the muck of my Fi, then I'll drown in it. So I have a tendency (which I sometimes take too far) to avoid dealing with painful, overwhelming Fi stuff. <--- This is my biggest personal challenge right now. And, I'm working on ways to overcome it / work through it.

This insight into my own struggles re: dealing with my own emotional overwhelm-ment, has helped me see how an INFJ could feel relief after doorslamming someone. Not so much because they are trying to hurt someone (though doing so might hurt someone), but because they are trying to save themselves and have decided that they cannot / will not get bogged down in their Fe connections with the doorslammee. I bet it'd be akin to pulling themselves out of the flotsam and jetsam of their NiFe loop. A survival technique. (Not all doorslamming would fall into this category, but a lot of doorslams would.)

^^^^^
Any INFJs want to comment on this? Does this ring true?

Also, something that has not been discussed on this thread in many moons is that if an INFJ has doorslammed you for the above reasons, then do any INFJs have any suggestions on how the doorslammee might approach the INFJ in the future. Or how they have worked through their doorslamming tendencies and have reached out to someone previously doorslammed?

I guess I would like to know is if you think it is possible that a doorslam for reasons of self-preservation (even if the doorslamee is not intentionally destructive or a bad person) could be a legitimate permanent choice for an INFJ to make. Do they have the right to choose to never interact with someone again simply because they have decided it is not in their own best interest? Is it conceivably possible that the best approach would be to simply not approach at all?

 

[Lotr246]

When I reach out to others, but they don't give back. It really depresses me, especially if it's someone who I thought cared about me. I can only try so much. Or when someone sucks the life out of me. My main reasons for shutting them out.

 

[ExAstrisSpes]

I've door-slammed people before, (door-slam a lot of exes who I don't want in my life anyway) but I rarely do it anymore.

The problem with me is, I let unhealthy people get too close. As an ENFJ, I attract them, and some arrogant part of me used to assume I could help. Now, I watch for warning signs, and ignore those I want nothing to do with before that happens. It sounds cruel and immature, but actually, doing the contrary is like filling your life with people constantly feigning suicide, and realizing that many of them are just too immature to stand on their own two feet. I call them sympathy vampires. They're looking for an easy way out of their issues, and you are it.

Sympathy vampires look like ordinary people at first, so when I accidentally let one in, I have to door slam them. There's no other way to get them off of you, as they don't want your help, nor advice on how to stand on their own.

Not just unhealthy people, but it's possible the situation itself has become unhealthy for one or both parties. At some point you have to say "STOP!" and save yourself from the sinking ship.

For me, loyalty is extremely important and I think I tend to err on the side of too much patience. However, there are a couple of possibilities in the situation you described. One is feeling taken advantage of/taken for granted as a friend. They probably were confused about your once in awhile friend behaviour, especially if you didn't explain, especially after you had leaned on them. I wouldn't doorslam someone over this, but I may distance myself if I had tried to help someone and they seemed to prefer to remain in a bad, but changeable situation just because it would be frustrating to me to see them constantly going through needless pain.

Me too!

 

[PeaceBaby]

It makes me curious why new data does not necessarily change the "door-slam" outcome.

Part of that may have to do with the fact that because we think a lot about the framework we put new ideas, thoughts, experience into to hold it all together, we are often very reluctant to restructure everything unless it is very obviously and clearly the better choice. It is a lengthy process and once we've considered all of that, it's hard to start over again.

There's a part of the answer ...

Something I’ve noticed about myself and a few other Js is that it can be really difficult for us to shift dynamics with someone according to new information. I think this might be particularly true of INFJs. Since our praxis of thought is far more in our heads than in the present moment (constantly taking into account past experiences of a person, as well as the individualized potential we’ve constructed about that person), it takes a while for information derived from the present moment to get incorporated into how we feel about him/her. We can be certain of it 'logically', but for some reason it doesn't quite seep into our feeling right away. And when the new information strongly contradicts what we thought we knew (especially if the person is/was close to us), it can take awhile to adequately process.

And there's more here too ...

But, I hope to understand better. Can anyone help me with the following?

The door-slam seems a drastic final act, and I can hear the pain behind the words in this thread describing how utterly difficult it is to make that decision to block interactions with a person.

But if an INFJ has made a decision based on incorrect data, why does the "door-slam" conclusion often still stand? Is it too hard or not "worth it" to revisit? Is one afraid of recriminations from the other person? Is it challenging to admit wrong? Is right or wrong irrelevant? Does it seem better not to dredge up the past and therefore all of those emotions too?

 

[cafe]

It's probably partially a result of limited resources/energy conservation, TBH. We can only 'afford' to invest in a meaningful way in a handful of relationships. It makes it possible (necessary?) to be somewhat . . . mercenary perhaps? about this kind of thing.

 

[Ivy]

It's probably partially a result of limited resources/energy conservation, TBH. We can only 'afford' to invest in a meaningful way in a handful of relationships. It makes it possible (necessary?) to be somewhat . . . mercenary perhaps? about this kind of thing.

Indeed. If I find myself getting drained instead of energized by a particular person then I have really no choice but to withdraw. My primary relationships will suffer if I don't.

 

[Fidelia]

Yeah, people don't make it in or out of my inner circle very easily. If I am not absolutely sure that the new information coming to light fits in consistently with what I know already or that it will continue to be true for awhile to come, it simply isn't work investing even more in a relationship that took a long time to conclude wasn't working. You only have so much to give and if people have proved over a long time or in a sudden drastic way that they are not trustworthy, there is no point to continue pouring something valuable to you down an unstopped sink. I have very few truly close people in my life, so I want to be sure that those relationships are woth investing in.

 

[Random Ness]

Although it's apparently an INFJ tendency, I personally would never do such a thing. I'm very much an advocate for open communication and hate it when someone else prefers to not talk things over or prefers to ignore me for the rest of both our natural lives. So, OP, not all INFJs believe in doing that kind of thing.

I'd reply to the OP post itself, but since there are several pages in this thread that would be redundant...

 

[Random Ness]

I'm saying this as an observer, not an insider...

Also, something that has not been discussed on this thread in many moons is that if an INFJ has doorslammed you for the above reasons, then do any INFJs have any suggestions on how the doorslammee might approach the INFJ in the future. Or how they have worked through their doorslamming tendencies and have reached out to someone previously doorslammed?

If it was a situation where you were in the wrong and it hurt the doorslammer really bad, then it *may* be a good idea to sincerely apologize. And don't expect to become friends again, but the doorslammer *may* be open to listening to your apology.

But the doorslammer could just be stubborn and not want to hear from you ever again. If that's the case, or if it wasn't a situation where you hurt the doorslammer badly and needed to apologize, then it's probably best just not to approach the doorslammer ever again, because there will only be bad consequences from it.

 

[Esoteric Wench]

I don't know. I don't relate to doorslamming as a way of life. From what I've read here, many people have said they did it more when they were younger. There are very few people that I would. The very few (2?) times that I ever did it were in response to realizing that the person had been lying for a very long time. I am pretty forgiving when I can see where the person is coming from and can stand in their shoes. That kind of deception though (especially when it affects other people than myself) indicates something about character and that the person simply isn't the kind that I want to have for a close, close friend (I don't doorslam acquaintance friends. If they're not for me, I just sort of let the relationship to them become more and more periodic).

I suppose if there was evidence (over a period of time) that the person had changed and if they acknowledged what happened, why they think it happened, how it affected those around them and why it will not happen in the future and they've regained my trust, I may rethink things.

Now see, this is what I would expect from an INFJ at their best. This rings as healthy INFJ doorslamming to me. And, something that I also do now as well. But it took me a VERY long time to realize that some people just need to be held at arm's length.

 

[Esoteric Wench]

I guess I would like to know is if you think it is possible that a doorslam for reasons of self-preservation (even if the doorslamee is not intentionally destructive or a bad person) could be a legitimate permanent choice for an INFJ to make. Do they have the right to choose to never interact with someone again simply because they have decided it is not in their own best interest? Is it conceivably possible that the best approach would be to simply not approach at all?

I appreciate the question, cafe. Well, I guess the answer is that it all depends on how you define "legitimate permanent choice" and on the details of the situation.

In general, I feel that it's not my place to judge. If an INFJ doorslams someone, then it is certainly their right to do so. If you define "legitimate permanent choice" by the right of the INFJ to engage in such behavior then, yes, it is a legitimate permanent choice." In other words, of course, any INFJ has a right to doorslam someone.

However, if you define "legitimate permanent choice" in terms of long term helpfulness to the INFJ, then things get a bit murkier. I think doorslamming is a value neutral act. It can be appropriate and it can be inappropriate. It can be selfish and it can be the best for all involved. I guess it all depends on exactly why the INFJ doorslammed someone. In other words, the devil is indeed in the details.

Earlier in this thread I listed what I viewed to be valid, legitimate reasons for INFJ doorslamming. (Click here to see this post.) Let me repeat that maladaptive doorslamming occurs when the INFJ doorslams someone because that person is a threat to the INFJ's framework for understanding. This kind of doorslamming is not valid and is inappropriate. And, not every INFJ does this. But the ones that do, are taking shortcuts to protect their Ni at the expense of the best interests of others. And, they do indeed deserve a kick in the *ss.

I hope this answers your question.

Now I have a question: Why did you ask?

 

[Esoteric Wench]

It makes me curious why new data does not necessarily change the "door-slam" outcome.

The door-slam seems a drastic final act, and I can hear the pain behind the words in this thread describing how utterly difficult it is to make that decision to block interactions with a person.

But if an INFJ has made a decision based on incorrect data, why does the "door-slam" conclusion often still stand? Is it too hard or not "worth it" to revisit? Is one afraid of recriminations from the other person? Is it challenging to admit wrong? Is right or wrong irrelevant? Does it seem better not to dredge up the past and therefore all of those emotions too?

PeaceBaby, thanks for asking these questions because they are really important questions in my opinion.

In other words, I hear INFJs talk about if the offending party has changed they'd reconsider. But I don't hear anything about the INFJ re-examining their reasoning. This seems to be the last resort for a lot of INFJs. Which perhaps gives them their continuity, but it does so at the expense of re-evaluating their reasoning.

I prove myself an idiot everyday. If I didn't regularly re-evaluate my reasoning... well, it would be ugly. At what point does an INFJ say, "Oh shit, I screwed up royally."

This is a serious and humble question.

 

[Ivy]

IMO you're still kind of talking out of both sides of your mouth here. You've set up "long term helpfulness to the INFJ" as the measuring stick for whether a doorslam is appropriate or inappropriate. But after that, you seem to be measuring the appropriateness based on "the best interests of others." I trust "others" to take care of their own best interests. I don't believe that I owe anyone my time or talents, except for the two human beings that I helped bring into the world.

 

[Esoteric Wench]

Well if you're going to employ logic and all.

I'll think about what you said and get back to you.

 

[Ivy]

EW, to me, you seem to be missing something very fundamental about this, and I'm having trouble articulating exactly what it is. The right to choose the people I associate with is precious to me. If I decide not to associate with someone anymore, I don't expect them to understand or like it. They don't need to agree with my reasoning. It's not even ABOUT "reasoning," it's about the very simple economics of my social energy. They do not get to decide whether my decisions about how I spend my social energy are appropriate or inappropriate based on the effects my decisions have on them.

 

[Esoteric Wench]

Thus is the very essence of the difference between an xNFP and an xNFJ.

Is one perspective "better" than the other? No. But each perspective has strengths and weaknesses.

I can't argue that you don't have the fundamental right to choose who you associate with. This is very healthy and adaptive.

But I also see that there is a greater moral question here. That is all tied up in the heart of P-ness versus J-ness. Ps would rather err on the side of not lopping off their options. J's would rather err on the side of clearly defining and controlling their options.

I feel like what I've come to learn from all this is that it's not my place to say one way is better than the other. Just that one orientation is more adaptive than the other depending on the specifics of the situation at hand.

I would never argue that you don't have the right to decide how to spend your social energy. However, this does not change the fact that sometimes protecting one's choice is done at the expense of the best interest of others.

So what is one to do with this conundrum? Well, if I had the answer to these ontological questions, I wouldn't be sitting here talking to the likes of you.

 

[Ivy]

FYI I'm probably an INFP, but I've doorslammed a number of times and I identify with the INFJs' answers in this thread. Honestly I see the doorslam as an introvert thing, not necessarily an INFJ thing, though the INFJs tend to do it with flair.

OF COURSE protecting one's choice is sometimes done at the expense of the best interests of others. That's unfortunate, but I don't see how anyone of any MBTI persuasion could think it's my problem. I'm not in charge of tending to everyone's best interests. It took me a really long time to get to the point where I wasn't trying to tend to everyone's best interests. That is called codependency and it is unhealthy. As a really smart person said to me today: "'No' is a complete sentence and doesn't need to be followed by any other words."

 

[cafe]

Now I have a question: Why did you ask?

I ask for the reasons Ivy explained much better than I could have. I get the feeling that you want to be the arbitrator of what is a valid reason in the lives of people who are not you. It's unfair and it sucks, but for good or for ill, you can't (as my husband says it) sue for marriage. As long as you have that attitude, it's going to send up some autonomy violation vibes, if that makes sense.

 

[Esoteric Wench]

I ask for the reasons Ivy explained much better than I could have. I get the feeling that you want to be the arbitrator of what is a valid reason in the lives of people who are not you. It's unfair and it sucks, but for good or for ill, you can't (as my husband says it) sue for marriage. As long as you have that attitude, it's going to send up some autonomy violation vibes, if that makes sense.

I'm going to attribute this to an Fe / Fi miscommunication. I would never presume to be the arbiter in such matters. However, I do firmly feel that there is a greater principal here. Yes, violation of personal autonomy is not something I strive for. Nonetheless, personal autonomy can sometimes be protected at the expense of the greater good.

Which is right? Which is better? Who knows. Or more correctly, I feel like I know very well. Right and better is best defined by one's personal goals and the specifics of the situation at hand. Sometimes it is better if personal autonomy supersedes the greater good. Other times, it's the other way around.

I would say that one of the big misinterpretations that Fe users have of Fi users is that Fe users attribute the Fi user's motives as being about personally defending the moral question at hand. I would argue that my personal wants and biases are not at issue here. We're discussing an important moral issue that transcends our pedestrian and ephemeral personal interactions. These greater principals are about universal ethics. And, that to chalk them up to my, your, or anyone's biases is to degrade the transcendent truths at hand.