S
Society
Guest
Then I've lost you again. Initially, you said your reason for needing people to be able to see themselves as the villains in a story was to make them realize what they're doing, stop doing it, and not do it again. That's 'manipulating people to act more trustworthy', right? (Edited) So is that no longer the goal? Regardless of what you think is the most effective way to reach that goal?
it is in the larger sense that that's what i have to take form the conversation at it's end of the day - yes.
but in terms of answering your own question of what would be required of INFJs to be trustworthy - no.
but isn't that sort of obvious?
- i'd be leaving to interact with population who's occasional INFJs haven't read this thread.
- alternatively: i'd come out of it having a better understanding of what is it that INFJs dont know which prevents them from setisfying rudimentary expectations of human trust.
- you'd be leaving to interact with people who's interaction of INFJs aren't informed by it....
- alternatively: and you can come out of it with a better understandings of how is it you think people should treat INFJs in conflicts and whats a cruel world t is that they don't.
it seems clear that the option where we each get the means that can influence our own behaviors.... at the very least it seems to result in slightly less annoying people.
actually i blame the years since i've seen it: i really don't remember him stealing bread before stealing the silverware - i'll take your word for it - but either way i don't see much of a difference between him stealing bread and him stealing silverware to sell for bread (as far as i noticed it wasn't trying to make a point about the dangers of an accessible black markets). that's being said:My example specifically referenced Jean stealing BREAD. He stole bread because he was hungry, then society cracked down on him and made sure he took on the villain role, and then he BECAME the villain, stealing silverware which isn't that good for your digestive system nor a great way to get stuff that IS good for the digestive system, so is not covered by the 'intent' clause. My point was that being reasonable in allowing Jean to make amends for the bread (of course still a tangible loss to the baker, but not comparable to silverware) would have allowed him to stay part of society. In which case the silverware would never have been stolen. None of which is trying to pretend that he didn't either steal the bread OR the silverware. (Except of course he didn't, 'cause he's fictional. But real-life equivalents exist.)
I blame tl;dr syndrome.
there is the question of responsibility, and there's the question of how to discourage people from repeating the behaviors:
understanding what is, and understanding and what is useful to express.
your point seems to be an attempts to dismiss the first by saying it doesn't fit the 2nd.which fits the general pattern:
"it wasn't really [insert transgression], i was just [insert motivation for wanting something which results in the transgression]!"
essentially as you say - the intent clause.
not to over extent the metaphor, i have had conversations that have suggested that to some extent INFJs view their decisions and motivations to be no different from a starving man's hunger - essentially that whatever it is they ended up doing was so clear to them as the only thing they could do - that they had to do - that if there was something wrong in what they did it means there is something wrong with who they are. i haven't gone so far as testing this though.