[MBTI General] INFJ Compatibility - Why the INFJ/ENTP dynamic is hands down the best.

[1487610420]

Learning to be strong and capable kind of ends up sucking for everyone when I do it. The blast never seems to really come my way. Instead it's deflected to those around me.

Like you said: a) make choices & deal with consequences, live & learn, and b)unlikely that everyone else will be at the same place that will allow them to take away the same insights; and ultimately that's irrelevant, because a) is a personal path and as such so is accommodating others at the cost of inner discovery.

 

[Eilonwy]

Like you said: a) make choices & deal with consequences, live & learn, and b)unlikely that everyone else will be at the same place that will allow them to take away the same insights; and ultimately that's irrelevant, because a) is a personal path and as such so is accommodating others at the cost of inner discovery.

Thanks. I still have a lot to learn.

 

[Society]

[MENTION=13502]March[/MENTION] -
given that you've color coded it yourself and can probably see that you needed to add the suggestion of malicious intent onto my words...
have you considered whats the reason for that?
and while you are it - that other INFJs facing a reality in which they have caused harm - might do the exact same thing?
that's why i asked you how do you communicate to an INFJ when they've screwed you over without them jumping to intent - the mental leap to what might something imply isn't controllable externally.

as far as asshole goes, 'anything and anyone who's actions cause me to feel pain' is a pretty much how it is used - i mean do you honestly think there are people who sit and plot motivated for the sole purpose of causing you pain? i wish i was asking sarcastically but a few INFJs have outright expressed this belief, if so then the answer is.. no - simply put, while it might be very important for you, your internal emotional state is unlikely to be a central motivation for anyone you aren't closed too. for the most part people hurt others because they don't care, because didn't think of what it does, both (didn't care enough to think about it), or because their ends justified the means. of the remaining cases, if someone truly desires to cause you pain for its own goal, that usually entails personal anger or hate - a sense that you've wronged them or someone close (justified or not). beyond that... i suppose there's true sadism, though that is rather rare, and "asshole" is not sufficient to describe it.

so to answer the question i left you hanging with last time:
you can take it for granted that whenever anyone accuses you of being an asshole, its almost always going to be because of a behavior, and an underlining hope that you'll stop - that is, they are in fact assuming that you are not inherently an asshole but rather that it's a malleable state which you are expected to have have some degree of control over. so yes, it is a behavioral accusation. in fact almost every description of an agent is a description of i's behavior and interactions with other agents. even right now, the post you quoted above is describing a mental behavior.

but - given the above - if you refuse to see yourself from perspective in which your behavior makes you into asshole, your values no longer mean to others that you'll avoid going against your values in your treatment of others, they merely appear to do so on the surface while they in actuality hold the promise that you will hold their experience of your behavior to be distorted once you do - and in doing so, you aren't promising to try to avoid hurting people, you are demanding that they'll pretend to not be hurt by you. those sort of values might be worth something to make yourself feel better, but they aren't worth anything to anyone else.

 

[Society]

[MENTION=6275]the state i am in[/MENTION] - remember how above i "forced onto you" the terms in which telling things to be more emotionally appealing then they actually are is another way to describe lying?

here's the thing - whether i am there to say it or not - regardless if the idea that it is lying has any way to reach your consciousness as your expressing your "inner truth" - the people on the receiving end are still being lied too.

no amount of semantic play is going to change that, avoiding anyone who would say it wont change that, trying to make sure its all told on your own exclusive terms and demanding that nobody else talks wont change that. that isn't a pleasant story, its not one that feels good form your perspective, but it is the sequence of events outside of you - the one that everyone else gets to experience, because it's real - instead of having to be maintained by dodging information that doesn't fit it or demanding that nobody will describe it in anyway but your own -it is actually supported by observation and consistent with different points of view.
much like as we've brought up in the past - the coincidence of where you hear information and your emotions towards the source can not magically turn the piece of information into fiction or fact -like wise i do not need to be there to call it lying - nothing i do has the magical power to turn it into lying or vise versa - the act of avoiding any perspective from which it is lying doesn't have the magical power to turn it into you being honest. your demand that people will only see your story your way by your own terms is as far from a real honest interactions you can get - it is quite bluntly an attempt to make honest interaction against the rules of your relationships - everyone else gets to interact with who you actually are - and you expecting that they'll ignore him in favor of a fictional character in your head better suited to encompass your biases. and if pointing at people a gun demanding that they'll call your soul pretty or you'll mentally kill their perspective isn't bullying, then no form of emotional abuse is.

but let's untangle this - my premise isn't complicated:

• your stance is that you have the right and freedom to describe who you are are regardless of anyone else's experience of you.
• i am pointing out the other side of the same coin: the who which you claim you are is not a reliable indicator of anyone else's experience of you.

why is that so hard to believe that if you'll say "fuck off" to the universe and everyone in it, the universe and everyone in it then has to deal with a man telling it to fuck off?

 

[1487610420]

[MENTION=6275]
but let's untangle this - my premise isn't complicated:

• your stance is that you have the right and freedom to describe who you are are regardless of anyone else's experience of you.
• i am simply pointing out the other coin: the who which you claim you are is not a reliable indicator of anyone else's experience of you.

why is that so hard to believe that if you'll say "fuck off" to the universe and everyone in it, the universe and everyone in it then has to deal with a man telling it to fuck off?

Using what Eilonwy wrote as an example, it's possible, however, the mental rewiring that can lead to such awareness can't be forced. As depicted by this thread/the forum/the internet/the entire human history/Nature/The Universe seeks balance, and instilling energy only creates polarity.

Like trying to stop a pendulum, either surgically apply a force that counters it's momentum, or leave it alone until it stops; otherwise, you'll just help perpetuate it's movement.

 

[cafe]

This is a loaded question fallacy kind of thing. If you defend yourself in any way, it is automatically due to self-delusion for the purpose of protecting your ego. The only way to win is to not play.

 

[digesthisickness]

This is a loaded question fallacy kind of thing. If you defend yourself in any way, it is automatically due to self-delusion for the purpose of protecting your ego. The only way to win is to not play.

Or just answer everything with, "WRONG!" with a dollop of "Why?" every now and then to make it look like you care, and to also cause them to say something to which you can then reply, "WRONG!"

 

[1487610420]

Or just answer everything with, "WRONG!" with a dollop of "Why?" every now and then to make it look like you care, and to also cause them to say something to which you can then reply, "WRONG!"

Shh, ur spilling away ze secrets

 

[cafe]

Or just answer everything with, "WRONG!" with a dollop of "Why?" every now and then to make it look like you care, and to also cause them to say something to which you can then reply, "WRONG!"

That sounds a lot like work. And work is not the worst thing ever, but this is like mopping the bathroom floor while the toilet is still backing up.

 

[Eilonwy]

It's not ENTP, but for what it's worth, my ESTP bro-in-law and I have been getting along much better since I've been trying to figure all of this out. My AZ nephew, who I suspect might be INTP, who has always considered me his favorite aunt, still noticed an improvement in how we got along when he visited recently. So, you guys might get the shit part of me figuring this out, but the people in my real life are reaping some benefits. So, worth it. At least to them and to me.

 

[entropie]

Whats an AZ nephew ?

 

[Eilonwy]

Whats an AZ nephew ?

Shorthand for my nephew from Arizona, since I have 5 nephews and I have to differentiate between them online somehow.

 

[entropie]

ah ok

 

[Werebudgie]

This is a loaded question fallacy kind of thing. If you defend yourself in any way, it is automatically due to self-delusion for the purpose of protecting your ego. The only way to win is to not play.

IMO there can be a lot of value in not defending oneself when faced with this kind of situation. It saves energy and also reduces the possibility of getting cast as a character in people's psychologically unhealthy scripts (eg Mane and his issues with his INFJ ex). Interaction under those circumstances can be a huge waste of time, in my view.

 

[entropie]

Or sparring

 

[the state i am in]

[MENTION=6275]the state i am in[/MENTION] - remember how above i "forced onto you" the terms in which telling things to be more emotionally appealing then they actually are is another way to describe lying?

here's the thing - whether i am there to say it or not - regardless if the idea that it is lying has any way to reach your consciousness as your expressing your "inner truth" - the people on the receiving end are still being lied too.

no amount of semantic play is going to change that, avoiding anyone who would say it wont change that, trying to make sure its all told on your own exclusive terms and demanding that nobody else talks wont change that. that isn't a pleasant story, its not one that feels good form your perspective, but it is the sequence of events outside of you - the one that everyone else gets to experience, because it's real - instead of having to be maintained by dodging information that doesn't fit it or demanding that nobody will describe it in anyway but your own -it is actually supported by observation and consistent with different points of view.
much like as we've brought up in the past - the coincidence of where you hear information and your emotions towards the source can not magically turn the piece of information into fiction or fact -like wise i do not need to be there to call it lying - nothing i do has the magical power to turn it into lying or vise versa - the act of avoiding any perspective from which it is lying doesn't have the magical power to turn it into you being honest. your demand that people will only see your story your way by your own terms is as far from a real honest interactions you can get - it is quite bluntly an attempt to make honest interaction against the rules of your relationships - everyone else gets to interact with who you actually are - and you expecting that they'll ignore him in favor of a fictional character in your head better suited to encompass your biases. and if pointing at people a gun demanding that they'll call your soul pretty or you'll mentally kill their perspective isn't bullying, then no form of emotional abuse is.

honest interaction is great. if you see honest interaction as being an impersonal, not looking inward but only focusing on what is outward interaction, then i do not see that as honest. i see that as conditions for dishonesty and no one really being home to commit to an authentic expression. likewise, i'm not saying the outward focus isn't important either. a consubstantial perspective is very helpful. un self-aware T, however, is an ugly thing. to not recognize the difference between consideration and care between those who are really close to your center and those who aren't is just an emotionally unintelligible, fantasy reality. you can still be ethical and live by your own set of rules that you commit to doing your best to work with, but where value comes in, you have to give up some of yourself to listen. i tried to do so before, with the limited information i have of your situation. you responded by focusing on something i said and trying to call what i saw as "emotional respect" "lying." this doesn't really make sense to me. i was trying to point out that T truth sometimes fails to see that the truth isn't just an objective thing but is part of how we are all connected to each other. emotional respect, the art of relationship, is about giving, not causing. the cause-effect game is to control, not to give. relationship is a process of sharing. otherwise we're just a rube-goldberg machine spiraling into whatever the emptiness at the end of the narrative looks like. through relationship, you become part of the same thing. it's a better way to blend the realities that each of us create, rather than trying to war on each other. if you can't invite each other in, and listen with enough curiosity and real interest and compassion, what are you doing but applying your judgments onto theirs? you have to want to share, or you won't.

i don't demand that nobody else talks. i like listening. i do ask that they take responsibility for their own emotions and don't fall into relationship-strangling communication practices (like saying someone else "caused" you to feel something). relationship, emotion, isn't a world of cause and effect. those laws don't work in this domain. we aren't just our bodies and behaviors anymore. emotional communication requires looking inward to own one's emotional interpretations and to take honest account of what is arising within your own world as you find a center amidst your dynamic world spanning further and further outward. otherwise, what you bring to others and spray all over can be incredibly destructive. i know what both sides of this equation feel like. that's really all i've got, apart from requests to listen or reports of experience that also serve as resources for me to do my best in experiencing the whole of the interaction, what's more than just me and what i can observe. the process, the way of doing it, is really important to protect positive qualities of relationship, to create a good space for sincere communication. a legalistic approach has its merits, but if balance between objectively formal and embodied methods (T and F) are important, or a desirable goal, then such is the challenge we face. i guess we can also ask ourselves "how human do we want to try to be? how much work are we willing to do to protect our sense of humanness?" F is important to me. to say that there is always more potential definition to my story and to my sense of who i am that i could realize, well, sure. of course i agree with this. when it's most relevant to explore is when something i intrinsically care about happens that requests me to do so. this sense of care requires me to consistently do the work to be aware of where my center is so that i can relate to others and to MYSELF most authentically, as i try to facilitate a positive quality of relationship among all those others WITHIN me. that's more important to me than trying to tell every story possible that could come up for every action i do for every person involved in every degree of directness in every mood or context that it could be happening in. i'd rather bring my best and try to be present so that i can respond to what happens. that seems to work better. i'd rather do what i can to cultivate a sense of openness so i can hear what they have to say and work with it as skillfully as i can, even if sometimes nothing good is ready to happen.

if you disagree that people don't do have a much better chance of doing and being their best when they actually care about each other and themselves as they truly are, i don't know what to say to that. it is my viewpoint that sometimes really consciously focusing on these qualities of relationship to establish solid common ground here is really crucial in order to work through difficult moments. moreover, if you don't think that our sense of intention, our purpose, is a big part of who we are, as is our awareness of what has happened for us and what we have learned through our experience that we are willing to commit to doing work to try to do better with in future situations, well, again, i don't know what to say. purpose houses some of our crucial values. welcome to Fe. it's rooted in the art of sharing, even if ultimately it requires grounded awareness (Ti) to do so with full responsibility to oneself and to others. it guides us with, when we are deeply in contact with it, a clear, balanced sense of our deep unchangingness. a sense, a glimpse, of who we might become (together).

but let's untangle this - my premise isn't complicated:

• your stance is that you have the right and freedom to describe who you are are regardless of anyone else's experience of you.
• i am pointing out the other side of the same coin: the who which you claim you are is not a reliable indicator of anyone else's experience of you.

no. that is not my stance. my stance isn't about rights. it's about sharing. if you don't realize that who people are is something precious they share with you, that they give to you, and you only see them in terms of their rights, how can you ever love them? the feedback they give you isn't science. it's making a space for you to exist within themselves, and really allowing that space to be different from them, and have that be okay. i'm stressing that qualities of relationship are what we are as much as we are objectively defined facts. to see this requires a softening of one's focus. to see that in some sense, you're the same thing. this may sound stupid to you, but i believe that this is how qualities of relationship become who we are, and how we find fulfillment. this is why i want to protect it. not because i am afraid to truly see myself as i am (even tho, at times, sure, i am afraid of this. and sometimes i shy away or procrastinate it, whereas other times i feel courageous, supported, and i face it to fucking MOVE FORWARD. i hope to continue to become more realistic about HOW i best do this, which is a somewhat new and very important question for me).

why is that so hard to believe that if you'll say "fuck off" to the universe and everyone in it, the universe and everyone in it then has to deal with a man telling it to fuck off?

this just doesn't feel relevant to me. the best moments for me are when i feel like i can be humble before someone else who will still love me as i am. it feels best when i can accept the necessary humility to truly realize what i am, and how much further i hope to go. like a tremendous burden i can let go of, that has been weighing me down for my whole life. i think this is what religious people call "grace." it's a different kind of challenge. instead of "causing" you to change by showing you that you are "wrong," it evokes a tremendous desire to change because you want to honor the gift you were given, that you don't want to waste it or take advantage of something so precious. a sense of something that will grow within you, that is your deepest legacy, a love that is conceived within you, that will offer you an energy to remake who you are and feel responsible for so much more than who you thought you were. it is especially difficult to maintain the emotional momentum when one feels threatened or resentful, because those just eat away our entire sense of faith (the wholeness we receive through grace). for me, a couple of significant breakups, my dad passing away, these were real enough to help wake me up to this.

throughout your response, i think that you're missing my point. i keep trying to say, you get to choose. with or against. one is about controlling each other. one is about working together. when T objectifies PEOPLE, it's relationship fail. if you keep the objectification process neutral rather than pejorative, and you focus on expressing what arose within you rather than WHAT THINGS WERE, especially when the relationship and the individuals constituting it are under stress, it just goes better. you're not affadaviting and warrant-ing them, knocking on the door to their reality, and saying that they must stand up to your prosecution.

if what you are saying is that communication requires both sides to work effectively, that you need to compete against each other to define the truth as well, it's also fair to say that without trust and a willingness to believe in the relationship and share responsibilities in a transparent, respectful way, you're just being propagandized by someone who self-appoints as the storyteller. as an F type, i give a great deal of respect to emotionally intelligent, self-aware T. my most significant relationships have both been with emotionally intelligent, T women. i have so much respect for the way they take responsibility for what they have done, for the raw WORK they do to commit to themselves and others and try to bring about the best outcome in each situation. i ask for their feedback, and i appreciate how they can contribute not only to clearer seeing but a more organized process to come to conclusions. i greatly appreciate their help, focus, checkpoints, key principles, and next steps. i have no desire to disparage T. on the contrary, i admire it. to reduce all of life to technical intelligence, however, drains all the warmth, color, beauty, flesh, and way we come together and become part of each other. it undermines the way that in so doing, we share ourselves, rather than simply being taken over by whatever the truth of technical perfection is supposed to be according to ______.

to respond to what the story of their experience is, and to truly ask them to commit to owning that and the needs underlying how they interpret and emotionally relate to it, is to say that the feedback of those who commit to constructive relationship with you is more important and more central to how you will learn about yourself. they are closer to your inner circle. they try to aid and support your learning, because they give a shit about you. at the same time, it's totally fair to say that everyone's perspective of everything you do has some degree of relevance. but it's just that, the reality of being a person, of having a center of gravity, is that who you are is most significantly defined by those who truly commit to knowing you as you are. and if you don't think that that commitment is to large degree to understand you on your own terms and empathize with what you experience, then i don't really know what else to say. because that's the greatest gift you can be given. that's how you love someone. that's why love is more significant than law in determining who we really are, even if law can shape our experience (and the external conditions of that) just as much.

 

[the state i am in]

So many types here kept putting forth the same complaints about INFJs. At first I couldn't see it, but after a lot of self-examination, I could see that the complaints were valid from points of view other than my own. I've posted about a lot of the more embarrassing stuff in my blog, as well as here and there around the forum--not being in complete control of my emotions; my early family issues being a driving force behind what I think and how I behave; how I can think that feeling bad will atone for behaving badly; issues with responsibility, powerlessness, unrealistic thinking, and extreme or catastrophic thinking.

i get the first bolded one. i think it's a sense that i must accept that i am wrong and show that i realize and accept it. as if letting the record state it, if accepting that fate, is enough. it's taken me a long time to realize that when this isn't tied to a sense of how what has happened actually affects others and myself, it's not really constructive. it's through this reflection, this process of learning a lesson, that we do better because of what we cared about enough in the past to hold on to and remind ourselves that we want to continue to work towards a change.

the second bolded i also get. i think i get caught up too much in the idea of things rather than demanding that i find my footing and do the work to FOCUS. when i do this, i have a much greater chance of seeing how to move forward, and i can direct my attention much more constructively to what i can actually do right now. i think, being an enneagram head type and especially an e5, offers a lot of challenge here to continually get in touch with the part of me that believes in its capacity to do work.

So, now I'll add another one to the list. There are always several layers of meanings to my thinking. All sorts of possibilities existing at the same time. I might whittle them down in order to present one to the world, but the others are still available in my head and completely valid. And that's where some of the problem comes in. Those other possibilities are still completely valid within my own framework. They fit all the information I've gathered. They were a part of my thinking all along the way, so I didn't just make them up in the moment in order to present a more palatable version of things. But, unfortunately, I think that's what happens when I'm confronted with information about myself that's embarrassing or otherwise not acceptable to my ego. I sift through all the layers and meanings and find the one that will help keep my ego intact. It's still completely valid from my pov. And it probably is completely valid in other ways, too. Except that it's not taking into consideration that whatever information is being presented to me that I find unpalatable is also completely valid. It may not be from my pov, but it is valid nonetheless. (And let's not get into the nitpicking about serial killers and what not. I'm talking about ordinary people who aren't trying to take advantage of anyone, they're trying to bring up an issue that they want to solve so that the relationship can move forward.)

In the big picture of things, in my head, both pov's can be true, though, in some situations that can be difficult to resolve within my own thinking. What I've had to learn is to not present the other valid possibilities as an excuse. What I hope other types will consider is that there's more going on in my head than what you see coming out of me. But what I have to do is take responsibility for that stuff that comes out of me and how it's impacted other people. Because I did unleash it into the world and it did have an impact, whether it was one I intended it to have or not. And I've known that for a long time now, I just wasn't aware of how I might use the way my mind works to weasel out of being responsible.

all i've got to relate to here is just that if i don't actually see myself clearly, then the open-endedness of my thinking can easily become a detriment. my skill--holding so many possibilities open at once--becomes a weakness because i'm not really committed to any particular sense of reality. in these moments, if i can first check in with myself and really ground my sense of what is happening for me now and where i am coming from, i have the context i need to start working my way outward from where i'm really at. one thing that is especially crucial at getting to know my emotional context more deeply is to use my unconscious emotional projections, orientations, postures, etc, as sites of inquiry through which i can more deeply discern my NEEDS. needs, to me, means that when i find my vulnerabilities and see the competitive, challenging relationships between them, i'm inspired to care about myself. i feel empathy, and that has a tremendously clarifying affect because it frees so many resources, restores my sense of my own internal dynamics which, in turn, allows me to recognize those in others as well.

ETA: Since it occurred to me that everyone will assign their own intent to this post, I thought I'd state what mine actually is. I'm posting this for no other reason than in the hopes that what I've learned will prove to be of benefit to those who are here to learn. I can see a bunch of other possibilities for why I'm posting this, and they all have their consequences attached to them, which is why, no matter my actual intent, this post will probably cost me. Those possibilities and their consequences are what made me NOT want to post this. And I'm reluctant to have to face those consequences when they are a result of possibilities that weren't my original intent. But learning something and keeping it to myself when it could benefit others seemed to have a worse consequence attached to it, imo.

ETA2: I'm being told that everyone's dominant function protects their ego in a similar way, so what about me makes it different and exclusive to my type? I don't know, but I'm thinking it has to do with risk avoidance, which I would say is stronger in Je than in Pe (I notice a particularly strong urge to avoid risk, especially social risk, in me). Plus, I've mentioned a strong urge for flight over fight before. Since I only have bits and pieces, I'm going back to my blog to work it out, rather than doing so in this thread.

i don't know what you mean here, but it seems positive to me, rather than something that should cost you something. reflecting on relationships feels really valuable, and the work you do with the good of the relationship, the real giving and receiving, can motivate you to do better in the future. i think it's a great thing to share with others, even if sometimes the timing or context isn't exactly right for everyone.

 

[Society]

@the state i am in - entertain me with how you reconile the notion you've expressed in the past about how anything written which conflicts with your ego is "baited" yet now you expect others to "take responsibility over how they feel"? which is in itself beautiful btw. really is - now i can punch people and they are responsible for their pain, kill others and be its their loves one's own damn responsibility for the loss they experience. it doesn't matter, IT ISNT ABOUT THE CAUSE AND AFFECT, because clearly that completely contradicts the view of relationship as also being about sharing and giving. its ONLY about what aspects of myself i choose to share

as far as my choice to focus on specific elements, i was reiterating what you said while accounting for it's implication -your general social strategy is to break down actions to as many elements to distill it of accountability to any potential ramifications - spreading it too thin for anyone to know what it is (and by anyone i mean namely yourself) - and it works because most people simply don't try to read your posts, or at best capture glimpses of what they identify with. i have no problem addressing the content of your posts - but i am not going to address it from your required point of filtering, i have little to neither any respect for your need to avoid accountability nor empathy towards your need to impose forced ignorance.

the irony is that not only do the two systems not contradict, but you are using the claim that it isn't cause and effect to avoid "truly listening" or "sharing in " other's precious internal experiences - your demand for empathy on the basis of ignorance is your own excuse for your lack of empathy.

@Werebudgie - so why are you wasting everyone else's time? clearly you have a lot of issues with your INFP partner, everything you say about Ne vs. Ni and Fe vs. Fi can be a lot more easily attributed to your unhealthy scripts and save time on any need to examine your reasoning on it's own merit

Using what Eilonwy wrote as an example, it's possible, however, the mental rewiring that can lead to such awareness can't be forced.

didn't she also say it emerged from her reaction to going over the repeating patterns & themes between people's complaints? ofcourse it wasn't that the realization was forced onto her, but the conflicts around it seemed to have being a necessity.

 

[March]

Ah, so this is interesting.

It IS all a communication gap. But one so alien I think it would be hard to bridge, even if both parties were trying really hard.

Because this:

you can take it for granted that whenever anyone accuses you of being an asshole, its almost always going to be because of a behavior, and an underlining hope that you'll stop - that is, they are in fact assuming that you are not inherently an asshole but rather that it's a malleable state which you are expected to have have some degree of control over. so yes, it is a behavioral accusation. in fact almost every description of an agent is a description of i's behavior and interactions with other agents.

is so ludicrously wrong to me that I can't even. Of course I'll grant that YOU, personally, use whichever words you use with the sole purpose to express emotional anguish, pinpoint a behaviour and ask me to stop it and without making any judgements on intent whatsoever. But I don't accept that 'I can take it for granted' that 'anyone' works that way.

'Cause I, personally, subscribe to the 'words mean things' school of arguing, and I'm surrounded by people who are the same.

We can express our anguish at a certain behaviour without imputing intent. So when we do imply something about your intent (that you did what you did because you didn't care about us, rather than you did what you did because caring didn't work out the way you planned), that's deliberate. Because yeah, sometimes intent is a part of the process of determining what we're going to do now. I forgive people over and over again because they didn't know or didn't manage, but once it's established that they don't care, my boundaries become a lot less flexible.

Why would our language even have words like 'asshole' if all they meant was 'I didn't like that very much and I want you to stop the behaviour right now and also make a mental note to not do it again'? I thought I was reading too much into what you were saying (usually where I go wrong), but it seems like I wasn't reading enough into what you're saying. Either way, it seems reasonable to suggest that taking you at face value is, indeed, not the way to go. Agreed?

I accepted that this is a natural way of communicating in kids and teenagers, who think "I hate you, Mom!" is the height of sophistication in expressing their inner state, but I actually thought most people got over that at some point. But apparently there are adults who are otherwise very intelligent who do that, so I'm going to have to recalibrate my view of the world.

Part of me wonders what the appeal is of saying 'asshole' instead of 'ouch.' Why NOT just say what you mean? Is it just hard to be exact in word choice when you're feeling hurt, because of lack of resources? Does it feel better to not have to think about what you're saying? Does it feel good and appropriately punchy to use words with a harsh meaning like that, even if you're not actually using them to convey that harsh meaning? It's interesting.

Also, you mentioned needing people to be able to switch around their perspectives so that they 'become' the asshole - that's basically you demanding people use Miller's law on you? (To understand what someone is saying, assume that it's true and try to imagine what it's true OF?) Is that a 'test', a hoop you need people to be willing to jump through to prove they're invested in you (the way I intuitively feel appreciated if people pay attention to subtle body language signals and feeling appreciated by people who don't takes much more energy) or a deliberated philosophical stance? Because maybe you're more optimistic than I am, but in the situation of having to guess between 'they call me names because they realized they don't like me as much as they thought they did' and 'they call me names because I'm very important to them and they need me' I'm generally going to go with door #1, if only because of statistics.

If I were to find myself trying to maintain a relationship of any kind with someone who had your style of arguing, it would take me a gazillion brain cycles to remind myself 'he doesn't mean what he's saying, he's just using these words to express dislike of the situation.' Of course I'd try to adapt, 'cause I'd realize that it's necessary for the relationship to work, but I'd hope that my partner would also realize that my first interpretation of something they say is based on the dictionary definition of words, with all their implications and corollaries, and that they'd want to try to choose words with a dictionary definition that more accurately reflected the situation.

And that there's nothing wrong or selfish in either way of being. You might think my way of doing this says something bad about my character (that last paragraph of yours saying my values must be worthless if this is how I act - thanks so much) and I might think your way of doing this says something bad about your character (because really, how could you think that 'you asshole' has enough information in it to solve a problem?) but as systems on the whole I don't see a problem with either.

even right now, the post you quoted above is describing a mental behavior.

Hmm, that quote above made me feel a little hopeful. This quote makes me feel more skeptical - you're now saying that you get to complain about the way people think (mental behaviours).

So IS it all outcome-related for you? 'Cause maybe this is that communication gap again, but it sounds to me like you want to get your paws on the process as well.

Eilonwy said, earlier:

how I can think that feeling bad will atone for behaving badly

as a description of a flaw of hers. I have that same flaw - part of me is susceptible to the idea that if only I prove that I'm willing to suffer as much as or more than what I've put YOU through, you'll forgive me. Which is, of course, not true - people have the right to never forgive me, no matter how I suffer. And people have the right to ask me to make amends even if I've already spent a lot of energy on suffering. But that also means that it's not necessary for me to feel bad to make amends. In fact, it's probably better if I don't feel too bad (excepting murder and deliberate cruelty and stuff like that) about causing pain, because feeling bad is an energy drain that makes me less resourceful and enduring and loving, leaving me less capable of making amends. Medium feeling-badness seems sufficient.

But all that 'asshole' talk and needing INFJs to 'accept' that they're (okay, at least momentarily) bad, bad people, leads me to think that you think that feeling bad is a necessary step in acknowledging and fixing a problem.

Or am I just misunderstanding you again?

Say I run over your dog, would it be okay for me to apologize and make amends in whatever way you asked, grieve your dog and my mistake and the pain I caused you in my own way without thinking less of myself as a person?

given that you've color coded it yourself and can probably see that you needed to add the suggestion of malicious intent onto my words...
have you considered whats the reason for that? and while you are it - that other INFJs facing a reality in which they have caused harm - might do the exact same thing?

Of course. The reason being 'words mean things' and certain words carry certain implications. Your description left those implications under water - I merely pulled them out for everyone to see, and for you to determine whether those implications were part of the intended message or stowaways you weren't aware of.

Apparently it's the latter. Good to know.

I'm pretty sure other INFJs follow the same process, yeah.

that's why i asked you how do you communicate to an INFJ when they've screwed you over without them jumping to intent - the mental leap to what might something imply isn't controllable externally.

Easy. Be very clear in how you communicate, and pick words that don't mean more than you're trying to say.

Action: "You did X"
Feeling: "I feel Y about that"
Need: "Because that didn't meet my need for Z"
Atonement: "I need you to A, B and C to make it up to me"

• If you imply through word choice that you think the hurt was caused through NOT considering your welfare or through actively ignoring your welfare, your INFJ will probably freak out and fix that first. Because the relationship seems to have sustained a hull breach.
• If you imply through word choice nothing at all about intent, your INFJ might come back to you with "You know I was just trying to do the right thing, right?" If you can, be generous in your answer that you realize overall intent is positive and the hurt was caused by weakness or momentary lapse in positive intent, not through negligence or destructive tendencies. The relationship isn't in great shape, but probably has enough buoyancy to limp into some harbour after weathering this storm.
• If you imply through word choice that you're pretty sure your INFJ meant well and just didn't foresee every outcome or just had a human moment where they couldn't keep all the balls in the air, they'll be happy to acknowledge that in the moment suprème, they gave in to an urge to just screw it all and screw the consequences, a momentary surge of jealousy, or whatever ugly thing led to the situation escalating like that. The relationship is sound, and INFJ can start making up for the uncomfortable ride by spending their energy on navigation, not manning the pumps.

as far as asshole goes, 'anything and anyone who's actions cause me to feel pain' is a pretty much how it is used - i mean do you honestly think there are people who sit and plot motivated for the sole purpose of causing you pain?

Restating my disagreement that this is 'how it's used.' By certain people, sure. By enough people that we can just toss out the definition and go with 'I'm hurt, stop what you're doing and help me' as a viable alternative? Nope.

No, I don't think people sit around to plot and cause me pain. I'm not that important. I do know, as in 'I've been in the situation', that some people do hurtful things because they feel hurt and want to lash out (no positive intention towards you, selfish positive intention to unload excess emotional energy and damn the consequences), because they didn't think of you at all (no positive intention towards you at all), or because they want to dominate the situation in the short term and are willing to sacrifice your goodwill to do so (maybe an overall positive intention to get it done, but not a positive intention towards you as a person). These things are perfectly commonplace and pedestrian, and don't require any sense of paranoia to see all over the place. Do you think these things don't happen? Or do you think those things aren't properly summarized as 'complete lack of positive intention towards the person you hurt'? And maybe it's an INFJ quirk, but 'not caring' or 'not having any positive intention towards someone' is definitely a negative thing in itself, not a neutral thing.

What's more, dealbreakers and straws that break the camel's back DO happen. Relationships DO break irrevocably, sometimes even if everyone involved had a positive intention. And I'm aware of that possibility, and sensitive for signs that point that way. And IME, no longer seeing the ways I care as valid is a warning sign.

INFJs are probably prone to considering the emotional state of a LOT more people, even people we're not close to. And we like to see that trait acknowledged, even if we screw up.

 

[Society]

is so ludicrously wrong to me that I can't even. Of course I'll grant that YOU, personally, use whichever words you use with the sole purpose to express emotional anguish, pinpoint a behaviour and ask me to stop it and without making any judgements on intent whatsoever. But I don't accept that 'I can take it for granted' that 'anyone' works that way.

you seem to have misunderstood me (or the dictionary) completely - the description of the behavior is the basis for the characteristic:
asshole is a bit vague because it its basically a pejorative comparing people to an unpleasant body part, but look at any other example to see this more clearly - calling you a thief isn't necessarily calling you a kleptomaniac, its saying that you are someone who steals - someone who does certain behaviors. calling you a cheater means someone who cheats, calling you a liar is someone who lies, calling you a painter means someone who paints, in fact right now i can call you a poster - am i making an accusation of who you are in some inherit way, or am i simply saying that you write online posts? none of those are inherently a claim of intent or some intrinsic attribute, its who you are as an agent - your behavior.

this isn't "not meaning my words", it IS what the words mean.

i am not saying "yea but saying asshole is not truly calling someone an asshole but just accusing them of the behavior" -

yes, by accusing X of being an asshole i am calling X an asshole
AND yes
its a range of behaviors which makes them into assholes

the two do not contradict.