[INFP] Disliking people on instinct?

[SillySapienne]

WHAT THE HELL?!?!?!?!

Snap out of it, my NFP brethren!!!!

Being rejected by superficial nimrods is, like, the pinnacle of all compliments!!!

Confidence, open-mindedness and sincerity are key when dealing with other people, including superficial people as well.

Lol, I love when I'm in the company of some name-dropping, insipid, pooper-scooper who so valiantly attempts to gain my approval along with a couple expected "Ooohs", and "aaahhs", by me, which they sadly don't receive.

I am an Angeleno, born and raised, and you can't let these shallow toolboxes get to you, they're hilariously pathetic at best, and wretchedly pretentious at worst.

Please, never, EVER, attempt to, or desire to gain these people's approval or acceptance, please, I beg of you!!!

 

[Frank]

Gah, technically you are correct, I must concede, but, meh, I still don't like it.

Yes, technically we are all selfish, and altruism itself is still very much so rooted in selfish desires, and even though one's acts may be selfless, they do in fact work to fulfill selfish desires.

But I commend, admire and love those who adopt or exhibit more cooperative, kind modes of behavior. Nobody likes a selfish prick, and lord knows the world is chalk full of them!

I guess we got a little off topic there. You enfps are a fiery lot! You and my girlfriend, a fellow enfp, would get along great.

In regards to your last statement, to be human is to be a selfish prick. Some are just more overt about it.

 

[CrystalViolet]

Hmmm....believe or not, when meeting people for the first time, and talking with them (IRL), I'm not often that far off in character assessment. I give most people a chance though, they just aren't necessarily admitted into the "inner" circle.
It's really hard to explain to people who don't understand....I always thought I'd make a really good criminal profiler though, and I just know the people I will get long with and people I won't. It's not about being open minded or any of that stuff, or it being based on looks and my prejudices. I just know.
I don't feel like I've missed out, my friends are wide and varied, and come from all walks of life. It's not about my authenticity etc...It just is.
I have friends who think I'm mildly psychic for this reason alone...I can't explain how I do it. I'm not going to second guess my intuition now, I've learnt too many lessons on that score.

 

[Valhallahereicome]

The desires are what I am referring too. Not the half-assed or misinformed way people go about fulfilling them. Too better frame your question.

In my opinion the person who pursues money and comfort is no more selfish than a person who devotes their life to volunteering in a poor, impoverished nation. They are both, first and foremost, fulfilling an inner need.

Hmm... Interesting idea. You're equalizing everyone using the "there are no real altruists" argument. But what if we don't use selfishness as the sole criterion for determining the worthiness of a need or desire? Then we're back to seeing varying levels of value in what people choose for their goals.

For example, say we value interactions where people help others over interactions where people don't help others. Then, we can say that an inner need to help other people is worthier than a need that doesn't involve helping them. The person who needs to help people to be happy will act much more according to our values over his lifetime than the person who is mostly interested in a nice car, a big house, and a hot girlfriend.

(Sorry for the computer-like sentences, I'm trying to make my point really clear because this is a murky subject for me to address.)

Of course, the value of helping people is subjective. But so is the value of selflessness. In fact, any value is going to be subjective, but a person who holds it will naturally judge others according to that value. CaptainChick - it seems to me - values good actions toward other human beings above material benefits, and so in her worldview people who are interested in performing good deeds are worthier than people who are interested in more material things.

Now, the obvious argument here is that everyone has a different worldview, and thus a person who values material goods above helping people has the right to judge me because I'd prefer a volunteer experience helping the sick over going on a bomb trip to Europe and spending lots of cash. And this is true - he does have the right to judge me according to his values.

However, in my worldview truth and goodness are more important than superficiality and being on top, and therefore I will judge people according to those values. It's pointless to expect me to be objective, because, well, these are my values and they frame how I see the world. My values are central to me and they're more important than objectivity.

(Ok, in the last paragraph I'm kind of playing devil's advocate. My values aren't so strong that I don't see any merit to objectivity. And I don't really want to judge people. I'm mostly trying to argue with you. )

 

[sleuthiness]

WHAT THE HELL?!?!?!?!

Snap out of it, my NFP brethren!!!!

Being rejected by superficial nimrods is, like, the pinnacle of all compliments!!!

Confidence, open-mindedness and sincerity are key when dealing with other people, including superficial people as well.

Lol, I love when I'm in the company of some name-dropping, insipid, pooper-scooper who so valiantly attempts to gain my approval along with a couple expected "Ooohs", and "aaahhs", by me, which they sadly don't receive.

I am an Angeleno, born and raised, and you can't let these shallow toolboxes get to you, they're hilariously pathetic at best, and wretchedly pretentious at worst.

Please, never, EVER, attempt to, or desire to gain these people's approval or acceptance, please, I beg of you!!!

I %$%*(&)$* LOVE YOU!

 

[SillySapienne]

I %$%*(&)$* LOVE YOU!

Pfft, not nearly as much as I love your avatar!!!

 

[SillySapienne]

I'm a MALE, just because I like cats doesn't mean I'm a girl.

LOL!!!!

Reading this made my day!!!

 

[SillySapienne]

Hmm... Interesting idea. You're equalizing everyone using the "there are no real altruists" argument. But what if we don't use selfishness as the sole criterion for determining the worthiness of a need or desire? Then we're back to seeing varying levels of value in what people choose for their goals.

For example, say we value interactions where people help others over interactions where people don't help others. Then, we can say that an inner need to help other people is worthier than a need that doesn't involve helping them. The person who needs to help people to be happy will act much more according to our values over his lifetime than the person who is mostly interested in a nice car, a big house, and a hot girlfriend.

(Sorry for the computer-like sentences, I'm trying to make my point really clear because this is a murky subject for me to address.)

Of course, the value of helping people is subjective. But so is the value of selflessness. In fact, any value is going to be subjective, but a person who holds it will naturally judge others according to that value. CaptainChick - it seems to me - values good actions toward other human beings above material benefits, and so in her worldview people who are interested in performing good deeds are worthier than people who are interested in more material things.

Now, the obvious argument here is that everyone has a different worldview, and thus a person who values material goods above helping people has the right to judge me because I'd prefer a volunteer experience helping the sick over going on a bomb trip to Europe and spending lots of cash. And this is true - he does have the right to judge me according to his values.

However, in my worldview truth and goodness are more important than superficiality and being on top, and therefore I will judge people according to those values. It's pointless to expect me to be objective, because, well, these are my values and they frame how I see the world. My values are central to me and they're more important than objectivity.

(Ok, in the last paragraph I'm kind of playing devil's advocate. My values aren't so strong that I don't see any merit to objectivity. And I don't really want to judge people. I'm mostly trying to argue with you. )

To quote candylandjoe, "I %$%*(&)$* LOVE YOU!"

 

[Siegfried]

Valhallahereicome, not specifically talking about your example, generally. There is no objectivity that is is based on subjectivity to some degree. When I analyse my Fi's positives and negatives, contemplating for my own utilisation of it, not asking others to do so, I am unsure how it is with others. In terms of subjectivity of values, I try to analyse the methodologies of values and how it is actualised in finer aspects in reality, relatively with and without an advanced value system, to have an internal debate, these are hypothetical questions for me in my mind and on forums etc, this might be a facet of Fi that I haven't realised. I have much respect for those who hold to universal, humantarian values. There always is a value criteria for everything in reality. I internally analyse the other cognitive processes aswell.

In terms of selflessness, definition can vary greatly between people, depending on the internal and external criteria. For me highest capacity selflessness would be acts of kindness for solely well being of humanity with little to no expectation of gain, as I can see, there are varying degrees, it is impossible to negate the effect it has on oneself, since the human mind, body, soul is always affected by constant stimuili, and such endeavours will also act as a positive stimulus. If any reward there is it all, is that it makes you happy to see others happy.

 

[wildcat]

You really can't lump in triviality with skin color and class. People are generally averse to judgments made on the latter two because race and class are things that people can't help, and that have nothing to do with who they truly are. Triviality, or lack thereof, is an actual part of someone's character. Are you saying that we can't judge people based on the content of their character? How un-MLK-ish.

Also, where did I say that they don't have a right to be trivial? Exactly what does that mean to you? All I said was that I instinctively disliked them for this trait. I certainly am not planning to start a movement to rehabilitate trivial-seeming people, or kick them out of school, or whatever. If you mean that I am too intolerant of them inside my own mind - on the contrary, I actually want to understand where they're coming from and relate to them better. I would prefer NOT to dislike them.

Glad that others do relate.

Tibby - Good point about not trusting first impressions. I doubt that I come off all that great in the first few minutes that someone meets me. It's good to keep an open mind for at least the first few interactions.

BlackCat - Definitely relate on expecting too much out of people. But I'm not sure how you see meanspiritedness? What I meant was when girls bond over saying nasty things about someone who's not present. It's probably different for guys, though.

Haha, I can actually recall times in my past when I'm pretty sure people were judging me for seeming trivial. I know I come off as loud and silly and sometimes ditzy, and if you saw me at a party you would never know I had more than two thoughts rattling around inside my little brain. Yet another reason to hold off on the judgment.

Any advice on how to force yourself to keep judgment at bay?

Nothing has changed from the time of the old Cretans.
I do relate. Honestly.
I never said you did not write a good post.

I find trivial people boring, too.
Do I have the right to find them boring?
Yes!
It seems you are right, then.

There is no objective right.
Right is a double bind.
An odd number.

The old Cretans had a labyrinth.
There was only one way out.
It was the way in.

 

[ygolo]

The desires are what I am referring too. Not the half-assed or misinformed way people go about fulfilling them. Too better frame your question.

In my opinion the person who pursues money and comfort is no more selfish than a person who devotes their life to volunteering in a poor, impoverished nation. They are both, first and foremost, fulfilling an inner need.

I realize this is off topic, but I have this argument with many people. It's quite easy to confuse being self-motivated (motivated to fulfill some inner drive) and being selfish. Everyone is self-motivated. Conflating the two notions is often a way for the selfish to absolve themselves of criticism (not saying that's what you are doing). It also makes the logical error of equivocation (In this particular case, defining a word to be what you want and then arguing that the common notion has the properties of your custom definition).

But as I see it the common notion of selfish (that is the notion refered to by people ) Being "selfish" or "selfless" is:

1) A matter of degree--it is not an all or nothing thing, but has a graduated scale.
2) It is established by means of social norms--perhaps something that NT's have issue with. But ultimately, one has to weigh the benefits of a persons actions for those other than himself/herself, and ultimately "benefit" is subjective.
3) The core of the definition of selvless vs. selfish then, is simply how much actions purposefully benefit others. A simple definition that is in concert with the official definition of "selish":

1: concerned excessively or exclusively with oneself : seeking or concentrating on one's own advantage, pleasure, or well-being without regard for others

See the difference in bold between self-motivation and selfishness--the disregard for others.

Gah, technically you are correct, I must concede, but, meh, I still don't like it.

Yes, technically we are all selfish, and altruism itself is still very much so rooted in selfish desires, and even though one's acts may be selfless, they do in fact work to fulfill selfish desires.

But I commend, admire and love those who adopt or exhibit more cooperative, kind modes of behavior. Nobody likes a selfish prick, and lord knows the world is chalk full of them!

You're making this too complicated. If you account for others, even if it is your desire to do so, it is less selfish than to not.

 

[sculpting]

I'd also like to hear ideas on whether most people really are capable of a rich inner life. One friend, an INFP, agreed; a couple others disagreed. If you disagree, do you think that introspection is something people can lack at birth or is it something that they stifle over time?



Haha, interesting. I was talking with a friend the other day, a relative newcomer to L.A., and I asked him if people were really more shallow here than other places. He said no - people are the same everywhere. I tend to agree with him on principle, but I guess it's possible that different types of cities attract different types of people.

I think maybe it was costrin? who posted a list of the funtcions and he said Se was the function that least processes information before feeding it to Ji. I have been watching many of the ESTPs that I work with. They live in the present moment and seem to exhibit no internal processing of much of what they do/think. I will try and talk with them and be left confused as to how they could not see the big pattern given how glaring it is. I then step them through the pieces and they will understand but it so very odd. I do not think they have the internal lives that Ns have any I think we NFs may be the exceptions, not the rule with our excess of internal life.

I would like to hear an SJ/SP's thoughts on what they consider a rich inner life.

Oh, hate is a strong word, I agree. dislike is really the correct term

 

[Halla74]

I like your perspective on things. It's refreshing and different!

Hey thanks! I appreciate that! Cheers to you!

 

[Halla74]

Hoo boy! Obviously I didn't come across to you very well, Alex. That's all right, hopefully you're not judging me based on *ahem* your first impression, which I take it is one of constant gloom and doom.

No, I'm pretty smiley and happy myself, and I am sometimes curious as to whether I come off as being superficial as well. Don't think so - I tend to be too sarcastic and blunt, but then again who knows. Like I said, I'm TRYING not to judge, because I know that the surface tells only part of the story. It just seems to be ingrained in me to take people at face value. That's something I'm trying to overcome and I was actually asking for advice on how to do so.

The "chill out a bit" and attitude adjustment stuff wasn't exactly helpful, because clearly I already know I need to do that, but thanks anyway for your lovely comments. Maybe you should consider taking your own advice at times.

Heeeey there! I can come off a bit intense at times, please don't take any of my comments personally or in an offensive manner, I am just very direct and blunt but in all honesty well intended.

Regarding the bolded above, I have a simple question specific to people having two sides to them. How many sides do you have to you? Do you present yourself with full on openness and total vulnerability to strangers and family alike?

I myself am very open, but even I am aware that due to the nature of how life works and how variable people are, it is of benefit to have a side of you that deals with people that have not proven themselves to be part of your "cirlce of turst." [I love the movie, "Meet the Parents" Ha!!!]

And despite sounding like a crab, I did offer you advice in my initial response, did you read that part? Seriously, do you think that might be something of benefit for you to try?

Finally, please don't misconstrue me using language such as "chill out" or "attitude adjustment" as derogatory, I am a playful smart ass, and not an ogre. And you're right, I probably need to chill out too a little bit! Ha! Ok, following my own advice now, going outside to take nap in sun...

Cheers to you, good luck in your quest to better understand people!

 

[BerberElla]

I have always found that my initial response to a person I have disliked, has been well founded.

I allowed other people to convince me at times that it was unfair to judge someone off of first impressions, and so I over ruled my instinct and gave those people a chance, only to be hurt quite badly later on in the exact same way my gut was warning me about.

Now I listen to my instinct, and if my instincts have a strong reaction to someone I go with that.

 

[Costrin]

I think maybe it was costrin? who posted a list of the funtcions and he said Se was the function that least processes information before feeding it to Ji. I have been watching many of the ESTPs that I work with. They live in the present moment and seem to exhibit no internal processing of much of what they do/think. I will try and talk with them and be left confused as to how they could not see the big pattern given how glaring it is. I then step them through the pieces and they will understand but it so very odd. I do not think they have the internal lives that Ns have any I think we NFs may be the exceptions, not the rule with our excess of internal life.

I would like to hear an SJ/SP's thoughts on what they consider a rich inner life.

Yes I did write that, does this mean I'm becoming famous? Yes Se does do the least amount of interpretation, but of course there is value in this "untainted" information, and yet disadvantages, as they don't see what we may think is obvious.

Hmm... Interesting idea. You're equalizing everyone using the "there are no real altruists" argument. But what if we don't use selfishness as the sole criterion for determining the worthiness of a need or desire? Then we're back to seeing varying levels of value in what people choose for their goals.

[...]

Of course, the value of helping people is subjective. But so is the value of selflessness. In fact, any value is going to be subjective, but a person who holds it will naturally judge others according to that value. CaptainChick - it seems to me - values good actions toward other human beings above material benefits, and so in her worldview people who are interested in performing good deeds are worthier than people who are interested in more material things.

All true. Values are all inherently subjective. Each person and each society has different views on what is right and wrong. Coming to an agreement on these things is probably next to impossible. However, just realizing that they are in fact subjective and open to negotiation is the first step.

 

[sculpting]

see I knew what was good for me!!!!

 

[Frank]

Hmm... Interesting idea. You're equalizing everyone using the "there are no real altruists" argument. But what if we don't use selfishness as the sole criterion for determining the worthiness of a need or desire? Then we're back to seeing varying levels of value in what people choose for their goals.

For example, say we value interactions where people help others over interactions where people don't help others. Then, we can say that an inner need to help other people is worthier than a need that doesn't involve helping them. The person who needs to help people to be happy will act much more according to our values over his lifetime than the person who is mostly interested in a nice car, a big house, and a hot girlfriend.

(Sorry for the computer-like sentences, I'm trying to make my point really clear because this is a murky subject for me to address.)

Of course, the value of helping people is subjective. But so is the value of selflessness. In fact, any value is going to be subjective, but a person who holds it will naturally judge others according to that value. CaptainChick - it seems to me - values good actions toward other human beings above material benefits, and so in her worldview people who are interested in performing good deeds are worthier than people who are interested in more material things.

Now, the obvious argument here is that everyone has a different worldview, and thus a person who values material goods above helping people has the right to judge me because I'd prefer a volunteer experience helping the sick over going on a bomb trip to Europe and spending lots of cash. And this is true - he does have the right to judge me according to his values.

However, in my worldview truth and goodness are more important than superficiality and being on top, and therefore I will judge people according to those values. It's pointless to expect me to be objective, because, well, these are my values and they frame how I see the world. My values are central to me and they're more important than objectivity.
(Ok, in the last paragraph I'm kind of playing devil's advocate. My values aren't so strong that I don't see any merit to objectivity. And I don't really want to judge people. I'm mostly trying to argue with you. )

The bolded portion was my point exactly. Actually I could argue both sides of this issue with equal conviction. It is highly subjective and could be viewed from many perspectives.

The main point i was getting at in regards to your op was basically that because people are "shiny" and "happy" and have what you consider trivial conversations does not make them any less authentic than you or as you said fake. In keeping with the devils advocate theme one could argue that in fact they are more authentic than yourself as they are just being and you are searching to become something you don't feel you currently are.

 

[Wild horses]

I must admit, this very rarely happens to me,,, however, during the rare times that it does I actively try and like the person as I somehow think it's unfair to dislike them without good reason, however, my instincts are usually proved correct much to my misfortune

 

[Valhallahereicome]

The bolded portion was my point exactly. Actually I could argue both sides of this issue with equal conviction. It is highly subjective and could be viewed from many perspectives.

The main point i was getting at in regards to your op was basically that because people are "shiny" and "happy" and have what you consider trivial conversations does not make them any less authentic than you or as you said fake. In keeping with the devils advocate theme one could argue that in fact they are more authentic than yourself as they are just being and you are searching to become something you don't feel you currently are.

Yeah it's definitely subjective, I don't see any right answer.

As far as authenticity goes, though, people who keep their true thoughts and feelings inside during a conversation are being less authentic and real than people who express themselves fully. You're saying that people who have these "trivial" conversations are just being themselves; I would disagree. It seems that a lot of the time people are following a social script that reveals very little of their genuine selves. If that wasn't the case, then yes, they would be authentic.

I'd reverse what you said in the last sentence. People going through an interaction following a socially-accepted "script" are searching to act as something they are not. People who let their real selves come to the surface are being authentic. I think you're misinterpreting the "search for authenticity" thing as searching for something outside of the person. The term "search" is misleading. It's more "stripping away" - of all the false layers that do not constitute one's real identity. Actually, even better would be "fighting off" all the outwardly imposed conventions that prevent one from expressing one's true self. "Inauthentic" means letting the conventions dominate your true self so that people interact with those instead of the real you.