Knowing when to avoid someone: how do you decide?

[burningranger]

I feel compelled to add the caveat (nitpick) that "no expectations" is a form of expectation in itself, which can belie its own kind of neediness.

For me, I think it's a matter of how many expectations is the person being forthright about. It's not even possible to get close to someone - or even become a steady acquaintance with someone - without expectations. I suspect individuals tend to gravitate towards those whose expectations jive the most with their own without a tremendous amount of directly discussing them, because directly discussing expectations is exhausting and it's just a lot easier to get to know people who seem to know what to expect and who inherently meet our own expectations. But anyway, I have started to trust my gut when my gut feeling tells me there's something fishy going on with another person's expectations.

No expectations is only a form of neediness if it's somethign I expect of the other person. If I feel it must be a two way street. As in...if I expect the other person to be in that mindframe then yeah, I'm creating a need there. But if i'ts a choice on my end, then it's actually the getting rid of all neediness. You can only ever really work on yourself. I was just laying down the cosmic ground rules (the ones we ultimately are abiding by; not our social constructs) and describing love as the ideal in its the purest form - it's quite the opposite of neediness. So 'no expectations" can be it's own expectation for the person who embarks on that quest....but it won't be an expectation when that individual comes into relationship with another towards that other person

I agree with you though, the cool people are those whose expectations of you are more aligned with your own.

I think ultimately what I meant was to emphasize how all relationships are already laced with a fundamental flaw. Which is...love has nothing to do with relationships. Love is a giving, an exuding, a way of being really...it's not a needing. So when you enter a relationship in order to get in any way...you are fucked from the beggining. And until we find love for our own selves...all relationships will have some neediness to them.

The real important part is to understand there are two kinds of people. Those that DON'T want to control you and respect your individuality and freedom to pursue what makes you happy above all...and those that do want to control you in some way, because they want something from you. And sadly...most of the relationships we even feel a need to discuss are of the latter persuassion. Relationships are only ever a problem when both parties don't agree on the fundamental "expectation" of "I'm a free being" "You are a free being" and all the other sane lines of thinking that come with that.

 

[Z Buck McFate]

I realize I'm sort of devil's advocating the crap out of your posts - please don't take it personally . It's just a thing I do: building on what I hear. Discussions like this are a sort of brainstorming activity to put my intuitive impressions into words. And I like to put them in words so that I kind of have a script in place and I can effectively defend myself (in this case, when I avoid someone) when I need to.

No expectations is only a form of neediness if it's somethign I expect of the other person. If I feel it must be a two way street. As in...if I expect the other person to be in that mindframe then yeah, I'm creating a need there. But if i'ts a choice on my end, then it's actually the getting rid of all neediness. You can only ever really work on yourself. I was just laying down the cosmic ground rules (the ones we ultimately are abiding by; not our social constructs) and describing love as the ideal in its the purest form - it's quite the opposite of neediness. So 'no expectations" can be it's own expectation for the person who embarks on that quest....but it won't be an expectation when that individual comes into relationship with another towards that other person

I agree with you though, the cool people are those whose expectations of you are more aligned with your own.

Another tangent that occurred to me while reading the previous post is that if we work on having no expectations, then we can get really screwed. I say this from experience. I'm going to guess that you were talking about giving people the freedom to feel whatever they are feeling, without needing them to feel this or that to make us feel better - all within the context of unreasonable expectations. To that, I wholeheartedly agree.

I just want to add another caveat (I know, I'm the worst): we all have needs. It's not needy to have needs, it's just human. This is something I've had to work at inculcating into my existential praxis. Trying to approach interaction without expectations seemed to me like the best way to express love for someone - but then I couldn't figure out why I felt so depleted/depressed. My point here is that I've learned it just isn't reasonable to strive for coming from a place of no expectations because humans do have needs, and they need to take responsibility for making sure they're filled because no one else is going to. I think the most loving thing a person can do is to practice honestly figuring out what their needs are so that they can be very upfront about it.

I think the thing we are probably agreeing on is that giving someone the space to feel whatever they are feeling - without needing to control anything about their inner experience - is one of the most loving ways to interact. But I was in a long relationship with someone who made me feel needy for having any needs at all, and they completely exploited my "have no expectations" principle.

tl:dr
It's not healthy to strive for having no expectations oneself. All humans have needs, and ultimately it's more loving to be honest with ourselves about our own needs and to make sure they're met- because if someone depletes us/exploits our "no expectations" ideal, then we have nothing to give to the world. If we take care of ourselves though, then we'll always have internal resources to give.

 

[❀༺♥༻ℭ𝔞𝔢𝔩𝔦𝔞_𝔄𝔦𝔰𝔩𝔦𝔫𝔤༺♥༻❀༺]

There's definitely truth in the suggestion that people who make us uncomfortable have something to teach us about ourselves - often not directly (ie. not what they want to teach us/what they think we 'should' learn), but rather, indirectly: the fact their existence proves challenging to us personally is proof that there's an opportunity to grow in some way. But just as choosing to continue interacting with someone against our gut feeling can end in growth, it can also end badly for us.

How do you discern the difference between the two? Personal anecdotes welcome. [This is probably an issue that Fs/NFs experience more, feeling obligated to invest attention in people who don't seem to have much ROI (return of investment). Sometimes if a person is really needy and they simply don't have the internal resources to give back, there can be an inherent ROI in simply making another person feel wanted/appreciated in spite of how they can't directly return anything, and I think Fs might be particularly inclined to be charitable in this way (sometimes to our detriment- which is the reason for this thread). Input from Ts who don't relate to that is certainly welcome though, and can definitely help bring perspective. (Also, I'm not implying I think Ts never have this problem themselves).]

(I will post my own thoughts shortly, but I want to put them in a separate post).

This is completely true for me, even if my gut tells me I'm better off without someone, a small part of me feels obligated to spend time with a person id rather remove from my life, for their sake. Pretty much every post on this thread describes how I feel about this, but I'll still try to give some perspective. It's late and I'm typing this on my phone so please forgive any mistakes :')

I've come to learn that you might be right for some people, but that doesn't mean they're right for you. You might be helping them grow, but they're not taking the time to water you too. I love learning from people different from me, being able to discuss and appreciate the other's viewpoint. I like being able to see from new angles. Even if they're a little difficult or you approach things differently, it's a positive relationship because you develop your weaknesses.

But if a person is overtly needy/dependent on me with no consideration to how I feel, is manipulative/a guilt tripper, has zero ROI, and all around toxic then I realize that I should avoid them. Because they're not helping me grow, they're trying to take advantage of me. I have a tendency to blame myself even if its not really my fault, to help others to any extent I cam, bend over backwards for someone I truly care about. So when I see someone manipulating me, trying to make me feel bad for what I didnt do, projecting, exploiting that for their own gain, they're not someone I should ever spend time with. It's not wrong to consider your needs alongside someone else's, if they try to manipulate me into thinking that is wrong then theyre toxic to me. But, being myself, I have this need to make others feel special and loved. So I do feel guilty, and like I'm leaving a person in pain alone. Because some people truly need help to see their errors, but as long as I tried, I feel it's much easier to let go. I still struggle with this, but I have gotten better at it.

TL;DR Essentially, when the relationship becomes like The Giving Tree, me being the tree, I'm done lol. I want to love first and foremost, but I also want to be loved...

 

[burningranger]

I realize I'm sort of devil's advocating the crap out of your posts - please don't take it personally . It's just a thing I do: building on what I hear. Discussions like this are a sort of brainstorming activity to put my intuitive impressions into words. And I like to put them in words so that I kind of have a script in place and I can effectively defend myself (in this case, when I avoid someone) when I need to.




Another tangent that occurred to me while reading the previous post is that if we work on having no expectations, then we can get really screwed. I say this from experience. I'm going to guess that you were talking about giving people the freedom to feel whatever they are feeling, without needing them to feel this or that to make us feel better - all within the context of unreasonable expectations. To that, I wholeheartedly agree.

I just want to add another caveat (I know, I'm the worst): we all have needs. It's not needy to have needs, it's just human. This is something I've had to work at inculcating into my existential praxis. Trying to approach interaction without expectations seemed to me like the best way to express love for someone - but then I couldn't figure out why I felt so depleted/depressed. My point here is that I've learned it just isn't reasonable to strive for coming from a place of no expectations because humans do have needs, and they need to take responsibility for making sure they're filled because no one else is going to. I think the most loving thing a person can do is to practice honestly figuring out what their needs are so that they can be very upfront about it.

I think the thing we are probably agreeing on is that giving someone the space to feel whatever they are feeling - without needing to control anything about their inner experience - is one of the most loving ways to interact. But I was in a long relationship with someone who made me feel needy for having any needs at all, and they completely exploited my "have no expectations" principle.

tl:dr
It's not healthy to strive for having no expectations oneself. All humans have needs, and ultimately it's more loving to be honest with ourselves about our own needs and to make sure they're met- because if someone depletes us/exploits our "no expectations" ideal, then we have nothing to give to the world. If we take care of ourselves though, then we'll always have internal resources to give.

I don't agree. Working on having no expectations is perhaps the healthiest attitude towards life in general, not just relationships. No expectations IS in big part how you meet your needs. Expectations are rooted in lack....on our woundedself. They are based on fear, really. On the possibility of NOT having the need met. They are really based on reactivity and victimhood. Which is not to say that is wrong...but if you are going to talk about love then you are talking about an ideal. It's NOT what most of our relationships are really providing. You and I might have a need to play devil's advocate and battle this out till the end of ages.....but that's because we are retarded little children perceiving a need where there isn't one. I don't NEED to have the last word So you may say (using our example), oh but it's realistic to have civil discussion on a message board that is logically coherent, and we each take turns etc bla bla bla.........Yes, but it's stupid to think they will ever meet your need to be right about something!!!

You (the proverbial you) are not supposed to be carrying wounds all around the place. Heal them wounds yo! Again the error that it's relationships with others that meet our needs! (tsk tsk). Yes it's unrealistic and mental to not think you have needs....but there's one person you are forgetting in the equation ---- yourself! No one can properly meet your emotional needs. This is the great facade of the human journey haven't you realized that yet??!

Yes, it's human to have needs, it's also retarded. You don't want to have needs...you want to replace all needs with fullfilment. Period. Don't fight me on this one. Surrender! Enough with defending our cleverly constructed human guidellines for relationships....I don't know of a single one I'd aspire for that isn't between two humans who are already sovereign individuals and wouldn't cry like little bitches about life without the relationship!

You made me google shenpa yesterday ( shit I think it was you!). It's all shenpa man!! If there is no shenpa there can be love....if there's shenpa there can't. Period. Which is not to say we can't have the second best thing after real love in our relationships....that's fine. But let's not pretend these relationships are going to remain healthy throughout the years without the individuals in it being committed to their own happiness....ie getting rid of them shenpa triggies

TLDR of my contribution to this thread : mother fucker love yourself. Everything else is gravvy. Also, I'm right your wrong, no matter how respectful I am about it. I always have the last word. I could have written a better post, but it was too much of a hassle so I just went with the general feeling I was trying to convey. Fuck you for disagreeing with my wisely constructed model of reality and damnit why do these posers always come with a comeback FU!

 

[Z Buck McFate]

Sorry for the confusion, I think you made better points about my work than I could have, what I was talking about was essentially the contact between persons who have internal resources and those who do not, how the person with the internal resources prevents them becoming depleted. My post was confused and confusing, sorry.

It is the role of the professional to assist in developing those resources and the unconscious or automatic thinking is a big part of it, although I was talking too about the "help for the helper" if that makes sense, I should say that these are ideas which are "standardised" if that makes sense, like its not a tailored idea arising from an awareness of MBTI type.

Yes this does make sense, and it seems like self-help books on this subject are geared towards that too. Since they're almost always written by mental health professionals, I tend to assume they're written because this or that particular mental heath professional wanted to share what they've learned from their practice.

It's interesting to compare what I get from current self-help books on the subject vs. reading Fromm or Carl Rogers. I'm not sure I'd really get the most out of either if I didn't tend to read both.

These are questions with some complexity to it, I have read some interesting disagreements between Freud and Erich Fromm about this, Freud considered that everyone had only so much by way of internal resources, therefore you could not be expected to give to others, or too many others, and he thought the maxims about "love others as you love yourself" were simply impossible and harmful to anyone who seriously attempted to live that way.

Fromm on the other hand said that beginning with the fact that it is "as you love yourself" you would have to love yourself first and therefore would have the necessary resources and would not be depleted by any contact with someone who could not reciprocate or who was actively draining of others.

This is something that I think about a lot, I mean seriously a lot, and I cant say that I'm totally convinced of either Freud or Fromm's positions, I did think that Fromm's suggestion that Freud was unconsciously just channelling the economic maxims of his present day about exchange and investment of money but sometimes I think it was just Fromm being a bit clever with Marx's idea of basis and superstructure and grafting that on to psychology (but then Fromm's whole characterology was a bit like that).

The bolded made me laugh - because what I've read of Freud (more than the average bear, but not extensively), I'd think it was a given that he can't imagine people having anything but a very finite amount of internal resources.

And yeah, it's interesting to think about. I've personally come to the belief that if a person works very hard on cultivating acceptance/compassion (starting with the self, which then will coincidentally expand to perceiving other's flaws in a forgiving/accepting light as well) *and* also cultivating the spine to know (1) when to ask for help, or even demand it and (2) when they don't have internal resources to spare (without judging themselves harshly for it, without feeling guilty, and/or without resenting others for needing more than they can give, etc - but simply just identifying when it's the case and asserting one's position) - then I imagine Fromm's ideal is possible. I just don't know if it's possible with the kind of busy daily life that a lot of people must adhere to in order to survive (jobs, family responsibilities and such).

eta: I do think one of the obstacles is that there aren't many examples around of this^ for people to draw from. Either irl or in fiction. The world needs more Father Zosimas (from Brothers Karamazov), and less really stupid TV shows that give super bad examples of how to manage emotions. Watching some superhero series where the 'hero' constantly takes on guilt for something beyond their control - as if that's a healthy, valiant and noble way to be - is not good for anyone really. But it's especially not good for the kids watching, moreso if their parents don't provide a better example. /eta

I do kind of struggle with Fromm's "being vs. having". I see *a lot* of truth in it, but I've doubted that "being" is possible without SOME kind of external support. I mean, that's kind of the definition of insanity - the ability to wholeheartedly believe something without any affirmation in the external world. But I figure I'm just being hyperbolic about it. Because regardless, I do see a lot of value in his "being vs. having" distinction.

 

[Morpeko]

There's definitely truth in the suggestion that people who make us uncomfortable have something to teach us about ourselves - often not directly (ie. not what they want to teach us/what they think we 'should' learn), but rather, indirectly: the fact their existence proves challenging to us personally is proof that there's an opportunity to grow in some way. But just as choosing to continue interacting with someone against our gut feeling can end in growth, it can also end badly for us.

How do you discern the difference between the two?

I just avoid everyone. This probably isn't good behavior.

Personally, I think that this is a type of scenario where listening to your gut feelings is very important. If you don't feel comfortable hanging around someone and you're aware of that fact, in my opinion you should stop. Even if you think they need your help, I think you should put yourself and your emotional health first. I might just be selfish, but these are my two cents.

 

[Coriolis]

There's definitely truth in the suggestion that people who make us uncomfortable have something to teach us about ourselves - often not directly (ie. not what they want to teach us/what they think we 'should' learn), but rather, indirectly: the fact their existence proves challenging to us personally is proof that there's an opportunity to grow in some way. But just as choosing to continue interacting with someone against our gut feeling can end in growth, it can also end badly for us.

I avoid people who are likely to demand more time and energy than I am prepared to give. As such, it is highly situational. I will avoid someone I need to confront about a problem, or someone who is a chatterbox or coming to me with trivial questions, or even a good friend I want to converse with, when I don't have the time or energy to devote to a proper interaction. Once I am less busy, more rested, have tended to more urgent things, I will find that person and confront them about the problem, or seek out my friend for a chat. The third group, well, I may give them some time if I really am idle. As for whom I might avoid in general, the yardstick for me whether any good comes to either of us through our interaction.

 

[Merced]

I think if you have to ask yourself if they need to be avoided, they should probably be avoided. There's too many things to do to allow someone to waste your time. If they don't make the cut, then they just don't make the cut. You can find better people to surround yourself with eventually and the immediate gratification of having someone there is all in all, not worth it.

If they aren't helping you move forward, then they're an obstacle whether or not they mean to be.

 

[Tilt]

This has always been a very straightforward intuitive process for me. I just know .

Same. I just temporarily ended a friendship, because I could immediately tell the girl he was dating is an extremely toxic individual...he knows but he's using it as a learning experience.

Whenever I don't follow that feeling, it always proves to be an emotional roller-coaster ride where someone tries screws me over or bullshits in the end. I swear that I probably only actively try to avoid about 5% of people.

 

[Starry]

There's definitely truth in the suggestion that people who make us uncomfortable have something to teach us about ourselves - often not directly (ie. not what they want to teach us/what they think we 'should' learn), but rather, indirectly: the fact their existence proves challenging to us personally is proof that there's an opportunity to grow in some way. But just as choosing to continue interacting with someone against our gut feeling can end in growth, it can also end badly for us.

How do you discern the difference between the two?

I am a huge fan of the *known threat*. I always send all kinds of gratitude out into the universe whenever a threat is revealed to me. And yes, with people, these alerts generally come by way of 'gut-feeling.' <-Which more often than not...has actually made it easier to interact with that person...not more challenging. In other words, gut feelings and subsequent insight into the person will quite often give you all you need to have safe, pain-free interactions with them having gained an understanding of their limitations and what you can and cannot handle. For some you can go the "small doses" route. For others it might be that they are manipulative and so you watch for that...or the person's a gossip so you keep a tight lip... All I can say is that I don't get hurt or particularity drained by known threats. I want to know when to avoid those I don't feel the need to avoid... has anyone explained how to do this yet in this thread?


"I'll see your devaluing phase...and raise you one discard."


As a child of a narcissistic parent...as a child of a narcissistic parent that has educated herself on narcissism and narcissistic abuse...it amazes me how some narcissists can still slip right on by and into my life undetected because they seem completely normal to me. Not all...there are a variety of different kinds of narcissists and most will immediately trip every single one of my bells and whistles and five alarm fire fire alarms... But I literally just had what almost felt like one of those hidden camera commercial moments where they suddenly reveal that I'm not drinking some fancy hotel's freshly brewed signature roast gourmet coffee but rather a new brand of instant... I finally saw my Mom's game in someone I thought was a true friend (narcissists need to devalue...and so what they will often do is use a real or contrived relationship challenge for that purpose. basically you're doing everything you can and driving yourself mad in the process trying to understand what it was you did to upset the other person because you believe you're dealing with someone that has the same capacity for love and compassion as you do...but every heartfelt apology and/or explanation will only widen the false rift because they will continue to fain misunderstanding and use your apologies and explanations against you... it is so manipulative and cruel.)


Fortunately, this is an extraordinarily rare thing to have happen to me at least...like it has been years since something similar has happened to me. But I mentioned it because you talked about people that make you uncomfortable...or that you get a bad gut feeling from and I thought... I should worry about the people that make me feel at home.

 

[rav3n]

Engagement is not a necessity for growth. Observation and analytics can be sufficient to flush out why they make us uncomfortable. Actually, most often I know why people make me uncomfortable, if I bother to analyse the first impression. Most often, they're full of it or are nuts.

 

[Frosty]

When the pain, and the prospect of it, is so certain as to overwhelm the possibility that further interaction might go well.

This rarely happens though.

 

[Yama]

If they're emotionally draining to be around and you just feel sucked of energy by them - buh bye. No time for people like that.

 

[Stigmata]

Upon meeting someone, it's as if my intuition conducts an investigation on someone's overall character and mannerisms that I'm completely unaware of, then suddenly decides to presents me with the findings -- Lots of times I pick up on things about people I'd never really donated any conscious thought towards observing.

Some people I've had to part ways from because, despite enjoying their company, recognizing they had toxic attributes (ones they might not have been consciously aware of) that could somehow infringe upon my ability to self-preservative.

 

[Tilt]

They aren't necessarily bad or toxic but it can be the issue of knowing that your problems aren't going to mix well with their problems. I see this a lot on the forum to be honest.

 

[Nomendei]

So first of all I "profile" them. I watch the way they speak, how they are dressed, what their believes are, their body language and so on. Once this is done, I imagine every way the interaction could go. Depending on my analysis I will adapt my actions.

 

[Morpeko]

I avoid everyone until they give me a reason not to do so.

A reason not to do so would be them repeatedly approaching me first, not irritating to me in any way (judged by what they say and their hygiene). Then I'll give them a chance and pay attention to their words and actions. If I like what they say and do, then I probably won't avoid them.