[INFJ] Hate an INFJ? Tell us why!

[Zarathustra]

I'm not saying I'm never guilty of passive-aggressiveness. I just said I don't like it... from what I understand, it is healthy to recognize one's own faults, yes?

Agreed.

But honestly, I didn't think my post was passive aggressive. I thought it was a pretty obvious and direct response to you. I wasn't trying to get the last word in... in fact it was my first word! Just throwing in my 2 cents. What to you reads as passive aggressive?

I don't feel you were trying to get the last word in -- that observation was not directed at your particular behavior, but at the behavior of passive-aggressiveness in general.

What I bold below reads as passive-aggressive (to me).

I'm not a fan of passive-agressiveness either, but I really don't think it's any worse than plain ol' aggressiveness. Any kind of negatively aggressive behavior is distasteful, and to vilify passive-agressiveness in an outright aggressive manner is... well, it's funny. I'm seriously chuckling right now. Just seems like a very artificial distinction to me.

 

[Aquarelle]

Hmmm... I guess I don't see how that's passive-aggressive... I said "to vilify blah blah blah" instead of "the fact that you vilify blah blah blah" simply because the latter seems an awkward grammatical construction. And also because lots of peeps do it, so it make more sense to make it a general statement, not referring to you only.

 

[Zarathustra]

I put an arrow towards your post which means I meant you. Not that complex.

Yeah, but you still used generalized language when referring to me, which adds that slight hint of passive-aggressive behavior that seems to be so deeply ingrained in your soul.

I just wrote how important it was to me to have things settled and having things settled according to my perspective is not what's important to me.

That's called your blind spot.

Again, it doesn't seem you're interested in learning about a type you don't understand you just want to complain and make incorrect assumptions.

Actually, I might just understand your type better than you do yourself.

Based on the comments people have made (mostly by INFJs), what I'm saying seems to be quite accurate.

Maybe you need to get a little bit better at accepting constructive criticism.

 

[Jaguar]

(once again, passive-aggressiveness on display)

passive-aggressive. —adj. of or relating to a personality that harbours aggressive emotions while behaving in a calm or detached manner

So you have a problem with someone behaving in a calm or detached manner?
Would you prefer screaming and hitting people with blunt objects?

 

[Zarathustra]

Hmmm... I guess I don't see how that's passive-aggressive... I said "to vilify blah blah blah" instead of "the fact that you vilify blah blah blah" simply because the latter seems an awkward grammatical construction. And also because lots of peeps do it, so it make more sense to make it a general statement, not referring to you only.

Look, just so you know, I'm not arguing with you, as, unlike *cue passive aggressive grammatical construction* someone else in this thread, I think you actually seem reasonable and capable of discussing this issue maturely.

That being said, and as I hinted above, grammatical construction is inherent to a passive-aggressive style of communication.

Along with tone and delivery, I'd say grammatical construction is part of what defines passive-aggressive behavior -- it's how we recognize it in the first place.

So, when you say there's something grammatically awkward about the construction "the fact that you vilify blah blah blah", I can't help but laugh, cuz I don't see a single thing awkward about that construction.

I would postulate that this more direct mode of communication just makes your uncomfortable, particularly in the context of an argument or discussion, and, as such, you feel the construction is "awkward".

I dunno, just my two cents.

 

[Zarathustra]

passive-aggressive. —adj. of or relating to a personality that harbours aggressive emotions while behaving in a calm or detached manner

So you have a problem with someone behaving in a calm or detached manner?
Would you prefer screaming or hitting people with blunt objects?

I'd prefer for them to be honest -- not feeling aggression but trying to act as if they don't.

If they weren't actually feeling aggression, then I would have no problem with them behaving in a calm or detached manner.

I'd add that there's something missing in that definition, that other more precise definitions would capture.

Specifically, I think you can be calm and detached but also very direct and honest in your argumentation and communication style.

There's something more about passive-aggressiveness than what that definition implies.

There's this just fundamental dishonesty that tinges every bit of it.

 

[DJAchtundvierzig]

passive-aggressive. —adj. of or relating to a personality that harbours aggressive emotions while behaving in a calm or detached manner

So you have a problem with someone behaving in a calm or detached manner?
Would you prefer screaming or hitting people with blunt objects?

You took the words right out of my mouth.

And Z, don't be a hater.

 

[Zarathustra]

And Z, don't be a hater.

Passive-aggressive.

 

[DJAchtundvierzig]

Passive-aggressive.

Hahaha, wow...

 

[chelsea]

Yeah, but you still used generalized language when referring to me, which adds that slight hint of passive-aggressive behavior that seems to be so deeply ingrained in your soul.

I meant you and anyone like you who is unable to see anything from a perspective not their own.

That's called your blind spot.

No, it's true but it doesn't fit with your assumptions so you discard it as untrue.

Actually, I might just understand your type better than you do yourself.

Based on the comments people have made (mostly by INFJs), what I'm saying seems to be quite accurate.

Maybe you need to get a little bit better at accepting constructive criticism.

You think you understand it, but you don't.

The way you've posted in here you should go back to your original post to realize that the things you mention actually apply very well to you.

Just a bit of constructive criticism for you.

By the way, much constructive criticism was offered in this thread by others and I was, in response, very accepting of it. What you've provided here is not constructive criticism. I stand by what I said before, it's obvious you've had bad experiences and are projecting.

It might not be a bad idea for you to develop a little Fe that you seem to despise so much. Might help you to understand how you come across to others...

 

[Zarathustra]

Hahaha, wow...

 

[Aquarelle]

Look, just so you know, I'm not arguing with you, as, unlike *cue passive aggressive grammatical construction* someone else in this thread, I think you actually seem reasonable and capable of discussing this issue maturely.

That being said, and as I hinted above, grammatical construction is inherent to a passive-aggressive style of communication.

Along with tone and delivery, I'd say grammatical construction is part of what defines passive-aggressive behavior -- it's how we recognize it in the first place.

So, when you say there's something grammatically awkward about the construction "the fact that you vilify blah blah blah", I can't help but laugh, cuz I don't see a single thing awkward about that construction.

I would postulate that this more direct mode of communication just makes your uncomfortable, particularly in the context of an argument or discussion, and, as such, you feel the construction is "awkward".

I dunno, just my two cents.

Naw, I feel the construction is awkward just because it's too wordy. And as I said, although I felt it clearly referred to you, it also describes a generality. We INFJs, in addition to being narcissistic, passive-aggressive and possessed of a victim mentality (as someone else, not on this board, once informed me!), value precision of language when expressing our feelings. But I guess I could sort of see how you would take it that way, given that we don't know each other. Also, the absence of body language and tone of voice over the internet removes valuable 2 components of oral communication, which in person can alleviate ambiguity.

And just so you know, I don't feel attacked. We're just discussing.

 

[Zarathustra]

I meant you and anyone like you who is unable to see anything from a perspective not their own.

:zzz::zzz::zzz:

No, it's true but it doesn't fit with your assumptions so you discard it as untrue.

The ironic thing is that by continuing this discussion as long as you have, you are proving my point, and disproving yours.

See, at least I'm honest about wanting my perspective to dominate.

You, on the other hand, aren't even honest to yourself about it.

You think you understand it, but you don't.

The way you've posted in here you should go back to your original post to realize that the things you mention actually apply very well to you.

Just a bit of constructive criticism for you.

By the way, much constructive criticism was offered in this thread by others and I was, in response, very accepting of it.

It might not be a bad idea for you to develop a little Fe that you seem to despise so much. Might help you to understand how you come across to others...

:zzz::zzz::zzz:

 

[Zarathustra]

Naw, I feel the construction is awkward just because it's too wordy. And as I said, although I felt it clearly referred to you, it also describes a generality. We INFJs, in addition to being narcissistic, passive-aggressive and possessed of a victim mentality (as someone else, not on this board, once informed me!), value precision of language when expressing our feelings. But I guess I could sort of see how you would take it that way, given that we don't know each other. Also, the absence of body language and tone of voice over the internet removes valuable 2 components of oral communication, which in person can alleviate ambiguity.

Agreed on numerous counts. And notes taken.

And just so you know, I don't feel attacked. We're just discussing.

Good. I'm glad to hear that. I understand that I can seem abrasive, but it's not necessarily supposed to be taken that way.



*cue passive-aggressive behavior*

It's nice to be able to discuss these matters with a mature INFJ.

 

[DJAchtundvierzig]

Yes, this is passive agressive, but oh well.

http://www.typologycentral.com/forums/nt-rationale/34627-hate-intj-tell-us-why.html#post1301530

 

[chelsea]

:zzz::zzz::zzz:



The ironic thing is that by continuing this discussion as long as you have, you are proving my point, and disproving yours.

See, at least I'm honest about wanting my perspective to dominate.

You, on the other hand, aren't even honest to yourself about it.



:zzz::zzz::zzz:

This shows how you really don't understand the type. I'd explain it if you were interested in anyone's perspective but your own. Instead though, you get :zzz: apparently when you have to entertain the idea that you're wrong

 

[Zarathustra]

This shows how you really don't understand the type. I'd explain it if you were interested in anyone's perspective but your own. Instead though, you get :zzz: apparently when you have to entertain the idea that you're wrong

Your lack of understanding how it does apply shows how you clearly don't understand yourself (or INFJs, or human beings).

And no, I get :zzz: when arguing with immature people who lack self-awareness and clearly know less than me.

Also, see all over this forum where I clearly like to get other people's perspectives on matters.

The difference here is that your perspective is more or less meaningless.

 

[garbage]

How is wanting one's perspective to dominate different than not wanting to be wrong? Or, at least, doesn't the former lead to the latter?

No, seriously. I'm really just asking the question.

 

[chelsea]

No, I get :zzz: when arguing with immature people who lack self-awareness and clearly know less than me.

Unfortunately you resort to attacking when someone disagrees with you. I loathe to call people immature because it's the last resort in an argument when one (you included, don't want to be passive aggressive) can't think of anything else to say and are backed into a corner.

I am self-aware, but of course it is a learning process. Since you don't know me, nor I you, you may not want to make judgments like that...

This has gotten off topic though and I suppose if you'd like to attack me further feel free to pm and not take up space here.

 

[Zarathustra]

How is wanting one's perspective to dominate different than not wanting to be wrong?

Shouldn't we all not want to be wrong?

Isn't that more or less the same as trying to attain such accuracy in our perspective that it would rightfully be called "the truth"?