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

[March]

its the range of behaviors which would make someone into one in the first place. you aren't an asshole for some intrinsic attribute of how you were born, your an asshole for how you behave.

I know you edited this later, but the gist is still the same, right?

Answer me straight, please: Is 'contemptible' an implication of asshole that you use deliberately? And is 'contemptible' something temporary or something big in your world - once you have contempt for someone, is it easy to come back from that? (Would it make sense in your world to say 'I thought March was contemptible yesterday, but now we're buddies again'?)

----------

Chasm still there. I still don't get why it's important to you that people accept that they have a certain 'characteristic.' I'm still assuming that we're dealing with a situation with someone you tolerate, and want to keep having a relationship with if only they'd cut out those few bad behaviours. (That you're not interested in this topic for your job as a parole officer, basically.)

In fact, I'd suggest that - on the whole, and especially with people prone to useless self-punishment and catastrophising - it makes more sense to reinforce the positive characteristics of a person and to emphasise that you realise that the misbehaviour is incidental, hopefully in the past, and not defining of their self. Give people something to live up to, not live down to.

Isn't that the whole point of 'Les Miserables'? That the inflexibility in branding Jean Valjean a thief because he was starving and stole bread is unjust, not because he didn't actually steal it (he did) but because there was an overarching mitigating factor (he was starving) and if not for that circumstance, he wouldn't have stolen anything? The intent was to feed himself. If he could've without breaking the law, he would've.

If my husband cheats on me, I'm not going to pressure him to accept that he's a cheater. I'm going to pressure him to accept that he's NOT a cheater, that he's better than his bad behaviour, and that taking responsibility for what he did will help reinforce that he's NOT a cheater. (If I thought it's something he'll do again/doesn't care about preventing/couldn't stop himself from doing - i.e. if I start thinking he IS a cheater, it's a characteristic of him, I'd just leave.)

I don't like how we segue into crimes and big things, though.

Are you interested in a general way of calling INFJs out on problematic behaviour? Or just criminal/really bad behaviour? ('Cause I don't think any calling out will work there.) Do you want people to admit that they're problem-bottle-upperers, fair-weather friends, painters-of-things-better-than-they-really-are, insensitive, sloppy researchers, unavailabe, bad parents? Things there's not a handy category/identity marker for? Of course big things are really bad, but let's assume that most INFJs are just boring saps plodding along in life, like most everybody else. A strategy for successful behaviour modification in an INFJ should be able to span the gamut, right?

calling you a thief isn't necessarily calling you a kleptomaniac, its saying that you are someone who steals - someone who does certain behaviors.

There's a difference between saying 'March is a thief/March is a person who steals things' and saying 'March stole this thing/A thief - I suspect March - carried off my new TV set.' First is generalized (implying maybe not that thieving is something inherent to me but definitely that you don't think much of any mitigating circumstances and would probably not be surprised at recidivism), second is specific to a certain situation (in the case of your missing TV set, I functioned in the role of 'thief'). Not every person who steals one thing will go on making a career out of it. Besides, people can be thieves, generalized (they regularly steal stuff) without being kleptomaniacs (stealing for thrill, not for profit).

Of course, the difference in meaning between 'March is a thief' and 'A thief - probably March - stole my thing' is syntactic, not semantic. But your examples generally take the generalized syntactic form - you want people to admit that they're someone who STEALS, not someone who STOLE. That implies future behaviour. And intent. I'm fine with pressuring someone to say 'I've BEEN a thief.' That implies possibility of change (but also multiple accounts of theft in the past). But not I AM.

I don't think we're going to find each other in this. I could probably pressure you to admit you're a liar, thief, cheater (at games, not in relationships - I don't know anyone who isn't tempted to sneak a peek at another person's hand during poker, especially if the opponent has sloppy card control). Most people have lied, stolen (small) stuff, and cheated (at least on games). But isn't it more important that you're an upstanding man, a brilliant inventor, great with kids, whatever you value most in yourself? Not to protect your ego, although that could be worthwhile in itself. (Depending on whether you already think you're the bees' knees and need to have your eyes opened to the value of other people or wheter you're already terminally insecure and need some ego reinforcement to be able to stop being distracted by your own abject inferiority and spend some of your energy on other people.) Not so you can say to yourself 'Meh, I'm already a brilliant inventor so whatever off-the-cuff idea I throw out there should be regarded as amazing.' But because 'being a brilliant inventor' as an archetype carries the expectation of certain good behaviours and doesn't leave room for certain bad behaviours.

 

[Eilonwy]

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.

Mane is correct, I noticed a pattern and it was consistent enough that I got curious to figure out what was behind it. So, it was important that the complaints were made and made often enough, consistently enough, and by enough different people that a pattern stuck out. A lone voice may or may not have gotten my attention. Obviously, several voices can get the attention, but not be listened to--dismissed due to whatever "makes sense", be it type, or trustability, or, well you've seen most of the arguments. There has to be a willingness to believe in what others are telling me**.

As for instilling energy only creating polarity, I absolutely need outside input in order to make any realistic changes to my mental framework*. How open I am to that input depends on a lot of factors--my level of interest, how much mental energy I have to spare, how much I want to make changes to my thinking, how much I understand the input, how I end up interpreting the input, etc. For example, I don't have a lot of mental energy to spare atm, so your post sat in my head overnight until a semi-coherent answer worked its way out. Mane beat me to it, though.


I have to spend time and mental energy translating other types' posts, and even INFJ posts depending on their style. Some types are easier for me than others, so far. Each type is different, so I find I have to keep a lot of "rules" in mind when reading different posts, and those "rules" haven't yet been fully incorporated into my thinking, so I still misinterpret a lot. Or I use the "rule" from one type with another type and completely fuck things up.

And it's not that I can actually see everything from your pov. I can see my own behavior from your pov, when it's pointed out to me, but I'm still working on understanding the differences in the way we think. Little bits and pieces have gotten through, but I may never be able to completely get it at more than a superficial level. Even the functions we share are expressed differently. So, even though it seems we connect through them, and should understand each other easily through them, we don't. My Ti is modified by my other functions in such a way that it is no longer all that similar to your Ti, modified by your other functions. And I'm finding that it's easier to understand and accommodate for the differences brought about by the functions we don't share, because those differences are a lot clearer. With Ti and Fe, I tend to fall back on my own understanding/use of them, and that creates problems.


*ETA: Whether realistic changes are made also depends on whether there is conflicting input being received (one source saying this and another source saying that, or conflicting input from one source--not to blame the source, it just makes it as likely that I'll choose unrealistic as realistic in those cases), what framework is already in place, and the amount and reliability of the information I've been collecting (meaning that I never really have the whole picture, so I'm always working off of incomplete information and making guesses as to what's missing, affecting how accurate and realistic my conclusions are).

**ETA2: And maybe being just enough of a risk-taker and a loner to break away from the social rules in my head that urge me to conform. I suspect that, as Je, I see many more consequences than Pe does. You guys learn through experiencing the consequences as they happen, where I imagine a ton of "what might happen" and plan to avoid the worst of it. But all of that "what might happen" is still possible for me and so I try to minimize my own risk--in other words, not taking too many chances--not living and learning in the same way you do. But I have lived and learned, and what I learned is that the consequences have been livable for the most part, and most of what I imagined never happens. (ETA3: Crap. That last sentence made me realize just how selfish I am in my thinking. I do consider the consequences to others, but that sentence points out that my priority is me. That has to change.)

Sorry for the train-of-thought stuff.

 

[the state i am in]

@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

the bait i referred to is not all-inclusive. it's not "anything written which conflicts with your ego." it was referring to what you specifically have written that i found baiting. the experience of being baited for me also occurs when others describe with overgeneralizations or in non-neutral terms (pejorative judgments couched in neutral "observations" that could be written in totally different ways that would not purport a sense of rightness).

i don't like that you feel the need to equate the conflict with my ego either. in any situation, if you do something someone else doesn't like and then you simply blame their ego for disliking it, rather than actually hearing what they've tried to say, it's counterproductive. it's just a trap. we can start out not trying to prove you wrong, but if you want to put others on the defensive, then it just becomes more likely that they will not be able to afford you their best listening. i have tried to offer understanding and empathy in various interactions, but it seems like you don't actually want it to lead back to what's true for you. it seems instead you want it to stay outside of you and want the opportunity to ultimately blame everyone else. if they are not wrong, then why do you feel bad? if they are not wrong, are you? this is the trap that i am trying to show isn't the only way, but i can't do much more. otherwise, we're arguing about what is ultimately true, because we won't disclose where we're actually at and what we need. furthermore, i'm not in conflict with you. i understand we don't have a relationship beyond some philosophizing and a willingness, in the past, to challenge each other's perspectives (which i generally enjoy and appreciate from entps). here, i am trying to demonstrate and offer what i see as a relational perspective, and trying to outline my perspective, after much learning, for how F works. that's it. i'm offering a willingness to delve into specifics, or not. but i'm trying to express a context that would show not why what you're doing is wrong, but why it seems counterproductive to all involved. this is why F is important. this is what F illuminates.

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.

i don't understand how you see me avoiding accountability. nor do i see how you feel equipped to describe my "general social strategy." if instead of general social strategy, you mean "specific interaction style on a highly specialized, somewhat technical message-board involving one of my favorite topics with others who are kind of weird and more like me than most other social spaces," than sure. and i am an e5. i can be excessively analytical, because i do like to be comprehensive and subtle in shaping the context. if you only see the negative in that, if you assume a negative intention, that's okay. if everything i do is because, ultimately, i am bad and you have already decided that, that is okay too. it's your choice. it just to me, seems to be counterproductive for everyone involved, including you.

what you see as my "need to impose forced ignorance," i see as a need to realize that thinking you can fixate on knowing what something is so fully that it often takes you away from listening to yourself, which is necessary if you want to relate to someone else, rather than try to control them. head types like e5, e6, e7 often have trouble letting go of control. we even want to control the boundaries of what is possible (or, if not the possibilities themselves, the articulation of them). this, to me, is something we very much share. i am certainly trying to change the context of our conversation. it is difficult when i feel like i am being accused of things that seem to have no basis, even if only because i am struggling to see what you actually see, why and how you see it the way you do. i mean, you could accuse me of being opaque, meandering, over-the-top or a bit heavy-handed, and that would at least make sense. saying i'm lying or advocating lying, i don't really get that. i've been saying there's more to the world than a Ti perspective, and to find it, you might need to let go a little bit and allow yourself to not only see yourself and others in right/wrong terms. good/bad, the wisdom of it, is in the way it asks you to wake up to yourself, to see yourself with more than just your eyes, to realize that you are the shaper of your own experience when you understand the art of letting go and truly being open to what arises without clinging to one's illusory sense of being in total control.

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.

they do if we fixate on one side. and if we don't really have a positive relationship between both aspects of our being. if there's really no willingness to have a sincere, authentic give-and-take. again, you feel like i am making a demand. i'm offering my perspective. you don't have to listen to or see it. you can just deny its relevance wholesale, or be honest and say you're not willing to go there right now because you have other things you need to deal with, find more compelling, etc. the posts that you keep issuing, however, seem to crave attention or want some help with something, which i get. i've had a LOT of infj-entp experience, and it's been truly edifying for me and also been incredibly fulfilling. but i understand that that doesn't mean anything to you. i just wanted to acknowledge that is what i am trying to offer, specifically the marriage of Ti and Fe, P and J, etc.

 

[Werebudgie]

@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

Very nice display of how you operate, Mane.

eta: I would have guessed (incorrectly) that Ti-aux would tend to yield more logic than you display in this response.

 

[Society]

Answer me straight, please: Is 'contemptible' an implication of asshole that you use deliberately? And is 'contemptible' something temporary or something big in your world - once you have contempt for someone, is it easy to come back from that? (Would it make sense in your world to say 'I thought March was contemptible yesterday, but now we're buddies again'?)

yes it would, but not to get sucked any further into the the self-sustained semantic circles: i do not expect people to literally say "yes i'm an asshole" or add sailor cursing to their CV, i expect them to be able to see themselves in negative lights when they cause others harm, which is what i meant in expecting them to be able to acknowledge when they are being assholes.

that's being said - i should be clear: those who can't, are full fledged assholes - not by my casual definition, but by by yours.
mentally blocking and other's people's experiences because "you are a person who genuinely cares about other people's well being and experiences" is insane - that solpisist range of behaviors not only doesn't fit caring behavior, it outright conflicts with them. what it does fit with, and the package it seems to come in the most frequently, is the attempt to maintain the mental image of yourself as a caring person. choosing to maintain the belief that you'd never hurt anyone by telling yourself everyone who you claims otherwise is merely doing so to hurt you is a perfectly sensible way to keep your self image of someone who wouldn't hurt others, but a completely insane behavior if your goal would be to actually avoid hurting others. i do not accept solipsistic to actually be caring individuals for the same reason i wouldn't accept someone stabbing others out of their giving spirit or shitting in my food to improve my meal - the behavior bluntly conflicts with the claimed motive. for those - they absolutely are assholes. and after two years of hearing more and more stories about INFJs, interacting with the INFJs here (not what they say but what they demonstrate), as well observing their own reports and interactions with others, i must admit the benefit of my doubt is a shadow of what it was then.

Most people have lied, stolen (small) stuff, and cheated (at least on games).

do you really not see a difference between "i fucked up and stole" and "but i wanted it so i stole it?" or - for the more relavant version "it didn't count because my intent was not for you to not have it by for me to have it so it's not real stealing" - which one would you trust with your bag?

Very nice display of how you operate, Mane.

i know rite? i mean when you dismiss arguments because their sources have personal entanglements with the variable, that's just you being reasonable. but when others do it to you? the madness!

saying i'm lying or advocating lying, i don't really get that.

you described:
1. forming a hypothesis which makes you feel better
2. avoid testing if its real & condone the act of doing so
2. name the hypothesis "the truth" to convey that its real

you've essentially replaced the word lying with a step by step instruction manual on how to lie. if that's "Fe wisdom", we have a problem.

 

[PeaceBaby]

[video]http://www.ted.com/talks/dan_ariely_on_our_buggy_moral_code[/video]

 

[Qre:us]

Jeebus. This is still alive?

And it's not even about the INTJ/ENFP dynamics?

I'm going to chalk it up to being in the NF section, rather than the NT section.

 

[1487610420]

Jeebus. This is still alive?

And it's not even about the INTJ/ENFP dynamics?

I'm going to chalk it up to being in the NF section, rather than the NT section.

 

[Werebudgie]

i know rite? i mean when you dismiss arguments because their sources have personal entanglements with the variable, that's just you being reasonable. but when others do it to you? the madness!

To be clear, I don't actually think your capacity for logic is flawed - what you're doing here is a display of a tactic. Hopefully those who are engaging you already know the situation.

 

[Werebudgie]

Jeebus. This is still alive?

And it's not even about the INTJ/ENFP dynamics?

I'm going to chalk it up to being in the NF section, rather than the NT section.

Though I haven't been in the NT section, I still think this is quite likely true. The capacity for clusterf*ck in the NF section of this site knows few/no bounds, particularly (though not exclusively as far as I know) when people can discuss INFJs.

 

[Society]

To be clear, I don't actually think your capacity for logic is flawed - what you're doing here is a display of a tactic. Hopefully those who are engaging you already know the situation.

yep - it seems like that because for you:

*werebudgie dimmisses person A's reasoning because personal A is personally involved with the subject matter*​

really has nothing in common with:

*person A dismisses werebudgie's reasoning because werebudgie is personally involved with the subject matter*​

...the very idea the two scenario's might have something in common is so inconceivable that they must be some sort of super imposed sick frame or underlining tactics.

 

[Eilonwy]

So, the unintended consequences of me trying to better understand publicly, as opposed to just staying in my blog, is that it's once again become an INFJs attacking Mane free-for-all. I'm just as big a disappointment in that I might be more aware of my own thought processes and more aware of how that impacts others, but I haven't been able to change them to any great degree, so what I say and what I demonstrate still don't match and I still end up hurting people who have been nothing but kind to me. This was the cost for posting that I was talking about. Flak and fallout. No direct consequence to me, but consequences to anyone else who has spoken out. It's most likely unintentional and unconscious, but it's a good way to shut down any dissenting voices. It's why so many who disagree with the most vocal INFJs give up and shut up.

I'm not sure what I'm going to do yet--give up like the rest, or continue and deal with the fact that by doing so I get by without consequence while others don't.

 

[Werebudgie]

I'm really hoping this particular tactic is getting more and more obvious to those who are engaging with Mane at this point in this thread.

(don't know if it would be - it's pretty clear to me, but I have the context pretty easily at hand. Just hoping).

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.

@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

Very nice display of how you operate, Mane.

eta: I would have guessed (incorrectly) that Ti-aux would tend to yield more logic than you display in this response.

i know rite? i mean when you dismiss arguments because their sources have personal entanglements with the variable, that's just you being reasonable. but when others do it to you? the madness!

To be clear, I don't actually think your capacity for logic is flawed - what you're doing here is a display of a tactic. Hopefully those who are engaging you already know the situation.

yep - it seems like that because for you:

*werebudgie dimmisses person A's reasoning because personal A is personally involved with the subject matter*​

really has nothing in common with:

*person A dismisses werebudgie's reasoning because werebudgie is personally involved with the subject matter*​

...the very idea the two scenario's might have something in common is so inconceivable that they must be some sort of super imposed sick frame or underlining tactics.

 

[March]

do you really not see a difference between "i fucked up and stole" and "but i wanted it so i stole it?" or - for the more relavant version "it didn't count because my intent was not for you to not have it by for me to have it so it's not real stealing" - which one would you trust with your bag?

I do. I'd trust the person who said "I fucked up and stole" (thereby confessing that they DID something) much more than the person who said "I wanted it so I stole it" (thereby confessing how much the action suits their personality - making it a characteristic rather than an action).

So that seems like the opposite from what you're advocating. I can't imagine how telling the person saying "I fucked up and stole" to take that on as a 'characteristic' would help to make them more trustworthy.

Your 'more relevant' case is nothing but a straw man, and a flimsy one at that. There's no such thing as "My intent was not for you not to have it but for me to have it" if it's about physical goods - every two-year-old knows that taking something from you means you no longer have it. Anyone who'd say "it didn't count because my intent was not for you to not have it by for me to have it so it's not real stealing" needs to get their head checked.

But there IS something like "I fucked up. I was so happy to see you that I wrapped my arms around you and whirled you in the air, and now your back hurts like a mofo." Note how this is not the same as "Sure, your back hurts but since I didn't mean to hurt your back it doesn't count." But my intent was positive: to welcome my friend and make him feel loved. There is something like "I fucked up. I needed to talk to you really badly and it couldn't wait, but I approached you in the wrong way, making you so angry that you walked onto the road and got hit by a car. I fucked up and feel partly responsible for the result." Note how this is not the same as "Meh, you got hit by a car but since I just wanted to talk to you it doesn't count." My intent was positive: to communicate about a potentially dangerous situation so we could all be more safe.

But I'm sure you realize that and apparently I just can't seem to make myself understood.

Anyways, sounds like an extended case of 'tomayto-tomahto' to me.

ETA: [MENTION=8244]Eilonwy[/MENTION], as one of the people in the 'attacking Mane free-for-all' I'd like to emphasize that I'm not trying to attack, I'm trying to discover and clarify. Unfortunately, it does seem that the way we go about wording things leads to pangs of annoyance from both sides. Pisses me off, it does. Or, in the vernacular of this thread: "I'm fucking things up - I keep trying to build a bridge but only seem to keep widening the ditch." First rule of holes applies?

 

[1487610420]

I wonder if any of the discussions which have unfolded in this thread can make an uncanny case study re OP.

 

[Eilonwy]

But I'm sure you realize that and apparently I just can't seem to make myself understood.

Respectfully, I'm pretty sure that you have been understood. Can you stop your automatic thought processes, strip out any emotions or judgements that you attach to Mane's posts, stop taking the posts personally, and see if you can understand in return?

ETA: Eilonwy, as one of the people in the 'attacking Mane free-for-all' I'd like to emphasize that I'm not trying to attack, I'm trying to discover and clarify. Unfortunately, it does seem that the way we go about wording things leads to pangs of annoyance from both sides. Pisses me off, it does. Or, in the vernacular of this thread: "I'm fucking things up - I keep trying to build a bridge but only seem to keep widening the ditch." First rule of holes applies?

But discover and clarify is turning into an avoidance of the message by becoming about semantics and unimportant details.

And it's also turned into the "group" against one. And if you look at that from another perspective, the one being labeled a bully has been surrounded by victims, thus switching it all around so that the victims are now being the bullies. Can you see how it could look that way, whether you believe that it is that way or not?

 

[the state i am in]

i know rite? i mean when you dismiss arguments because their sources have personal entanglements with the variable, that's just you being reasonable. but when others do it to you? the madness!

arguments require common ground, a sense of trust. if you make arguments in a way that erode trust, or you don't hear each other in a way that actually inspires your compassion, your sense of care, then all the attempts to prove your point are missing the point (unless you just want to be in control). with that said, the depth of hurt someone feels can mean that continuing an argument rather than taking care of that hurt is counterproductive. it is not always easy to realize what one is actually feeling and attend to that before trying to push your arguments. when this happens, it is easy to create a total mess of relationship destruction. i've seen both entps and infjs respond to what they think the other should be feeling, rather than what they are.

you described:
1. forming a hypothesis which makes you feel better
2. avoid testing if its real & condone the act of doing so
2. name the hypothesis "the truth" to convey that its real

you've essentially replaced the word lying with a step by step instruction manual on how to lie. if that's "Fe wisdom", we have a problem.

it's more like a paradigm, but the activity isn't science. it's living, which is about loving at least as much as it is about codifying the laws of knowledge. if you call loving "lying," and see all acts of trust, of sharing belief, of committing under uncertainty without being so fixated on seeing how it can break, then there's no where else to go. as someone who struggles with trust himself, needing to constantly test others and myself--to live based on doubt--has shown itself to be a shitty way to live. it seems better to do what you can to prepare to respond with your best, and to recognize your own needs clearly enough that you can find a situation that can prepare you to be at your best because it supports your growth towards that version of you (that is not real yet, but is certainly a worthy guide for the path you are on).

to most infjs, i think, identifying with the future is a natural orientation. that there are oversights from this, which we only see when we start to wake up to what has happened and realize ourselves, sit and wait and allow the past to catch up, is acceptable because it is the path we are on and we cannot change that. integrating these constructively, being patient with ourselves and seeing our actual path, of trusting our guidance along it during the uncertainties that arises from it, that's part of what it's like to be and be with us. our needs are greatly clustered around this. if those aren't accepted and worked with constructively, what can we do but recognize that we are not in the right relationship for us? i don't need to deny blindspots, but that doesn't mean that i can't accept them. accepting them gives me more space to accept others, rather than judging myself (which tends to beget the same approach to others). acceptance isn't blind. like focus, it's something we do work to support. in this case, allowing ourselves to soften our gaze and take in the whole of someone, others and ourselves.

 

[1487610420]

U srsly believe any1 actually can see what this thread shows?

 

[Eilonwy]

U srsly believe any1 actually can see what this thread shows?

That the OP is misguidedly optimistic (my "nice" way of saying wrong)? Unless the dynamic of ENTPs and INFJs going around and around is considered "best" by both types.

Now stop quoting yourself...and stating the obvious. People will start to wonder.

 

[Werebudgie]

To the original post topic: I think I said this somewhere else, but it may bear repeating again: while I don't have firsthand experience with ENTP and INFJ romantic relationship dynamics, I do have firsthand experience with an ENTP-INFJ friendship. We get along really well. We learn together on various topics (some pretty tricky), support each other through dialogue (often through very difficult times for each of us, etc.) While she and I clearly have differences in cognitive processes, I haven't seen these differences create stress or conflict between us.

It seems to me that there's something about some of the dynamics on this site that seem to draw out explicit or implicit clashes or other ick between participants that are - incorrectly, a lot of the time IMO - attributed to type and cognitive processes. At the same time, I've seen that there are also some amazing discussions and insights here when those problem dynamics, or whatevertheheck that is, aren't center stage.

I'm learning a lot on this site about the limitations and problems that can come with certain uses of the MBTI/cognitive process framework. While I don't know where I'll end up and thus reserve the right to disagree with myself later, I'm currently heading toward the perspective that the only contexts in which I see this framework as truly useful are:

1. As a tool for self-understanding related to information processing
2. As a tool for mutual understanding in relationships/connections in which there is genuine love and/or care, shared commitment to using the tool only for the goal of mutual understanding to support the health of that connection, and a related complete and utter lack of using the framework as a weapon or other resource for fighting within that process. Also about information processing.

eta: in case it's not obvious, that second one is not the situation in many of the interactions here