[NF] INFPs, what do INFJs do that drives you nuts?

[Z Buck McFate]

[Posting before having caught up.]

Now, as to why asking someone else to cop to <whatever> is a source of communications break down, the problem is that it only works if that someone else understands what they did wrong and why it was wrong. Asking someone to cop to what you think they did wrong is unproductive. For one thing, you might be entirely wrong about what they did wrong. I understand that there might be a valuable lesson that you are trying to convey to that other person, but in all likelihood, unless it's a really obvious moral point, the lesson that you learned and think applies to the other person may not actually apply. It's up to the other person to figure out what the problem is.

That's the only way it works. And yeah, sometimes it takes a really long time for the other person to figure it out - sometimes even never. But when they figure it out, rest assured they'll learn something just as you did from doing the same. It just may not be what you originally thought.


And what kind of relief, do you imagine, is provided by saying she should cop to having a personal agenda?

I could be wrong, but I think (for Tilty too) it’s really more about understanding exactly why nerves got poked than it is about getting OA to ‘admit’ anything. When Js feel charged (I’ve noticed this is true regardless of T/F) we get clumsy with language. I really think this (hashing through the carnage) is about creating an understanding/script to have ready ‘for next time’ in order to resolve things faster. And we’re bouncing it off each other for the reality check aspect of it. The thing about “you might be entirely wrong about what they did wrong”- I know personally that’s actually something which completely stymies me in the moment, I always already know that I might be entirely wrong about what *I think* the other person did ‘wrong’. I know it so much that it’s practically paralyzing. The more foreign a conflict is, the less I am able to pinpoint what the problem is- I feel incredibly lucky if I can even get it in the ballpark.

And actually, it’s kinda funny, this part quoted above actually helps clear up some of the confusion about this thread (and the doorslam thread) because it clears up why this kind of thing sets off so many silent alarms in the first place.

Per usual- great post, uumlau.

 

[Tiltyred]

And the answer we're getting boils down to "Just ignore it. Who knows what they're talking about."

That works.

But I do also like the suggestion to make it a blog post. (Just so that doesn't get lost.)

 

[Society]

You misunderstand me. Let's say that person A has determined that person B has done something wrong.

So A's thought consists of three pieces:

1. B is doing X.
2. X is wrong.
3. B is doing something wrong.

It is wholly possible for statement 1 or 2 or 3 to be true or false in any combination. The particular case I'm thinking about is #3, that it is correct that B is doing something wrong, and B probably needs to apologize for it, but A's analysis (in 1 and 2) is entirely false. Perhaps A is missing information, say as in a silly example, that B is preparing chicken parmesan, not spaghetti, and 1 and 2 are explaining how the spaghetti is being prepared wrong by B. It's entirely possible for A to be correct in the context of spaghetti, but not chicken parmesan. It's also entirely possible for B to be wrong in the context of chicken parmesan (didn't cook the chicken enough, oops!), and that's going to be what B has to apologize for when you get salmonella poisoning, not for making the spaghetti wrong (it tasted quite good, actually).

again, you and the metaphor seem to be missing what i am saying:
in what context is person B doing X to person A is wrong? in the realm and experience of person A, where A has being wronged. whether doing X to A is wrong is derived from A's experience of X.

to apply to the metaphor (and stretch beyond it's usefulness): B's intention of making chicken Parmesan rather then spaghetti bolognese are irrelevant if the reason A objected to spaghetti bolognese are that A is allergic to oregano.

 

[Rasofy]

"The first time someone calls you a horse you punch him on the nose, the second time someone calls you a horse you call him a jerk but the third time someone calls you a horse, well then perhaps it's time to go shopping for a saddle."

 

[uumlau]

again, you and the metaphor seem to be missing what i am saying:
in what context is person B doing X to person A is wrong? in the realm and experience of person A, where A has being wronged. whether doing X to A is wrong is derived from A's experience of X.

to apply to the metaphor (and stretch beyond meaning meaningfulness):
B's intention of making chicken Parmesan rather then spaghetti bolognese are irrelevant if the reason A objected to spaghetti bolognese are that A is allergic to oregano.

Your point is, I believe, that B is doing something to offend A, and that is manifestly and concretely wrong, and one's inability to acknowledge that wrong is a great personal fault. I don't disagree with that very strongly (it's a very good principle with only a few minor caveats that would distract discussion).

Where I disagree is that A then proceeds to dispense advice to B, based on the perceived wrong. The advice, on the margins I spoke of in my post above, is very often wrong, and often based on ignorance, and very possibly distracting B from the double-checking the chicken's temperature before serving it, thus indirectly causing even more consternation.

I'm also arguing this from the perspective of the person giving the advice. It is often more correct and appropriate to bite one's tongue and refrain from giving such advice, especially if the target of the advice is apparently oblivious. Even if the advice is 100% correct, it may well be 100% incorrect to give it.

My usual pattern in such difficult cases is to bite my tongue, let the person make the mistake and learn, and pick up the pieces afterward, unless the mistake could do significant harm to others. As far as the topic of this thread, none of the INFP or INFJ "wrongs" mentioned in this thread fit into that latter category of significant harm: they fit into the category of personal annoyances, in my estimation.

When I personally dole out advice, it is usually for the purpose of expanding understanding (e.g., "here's something I see that you may not; you might want to factor it into your decisions"), not for telling them that they're wrong and they need to fess up. There is very little to be gained, and much to be lost by doing so.

 

[Z Buck McFate]

I'm being totally serious, here. That's my advice to the INFJ side. There's nothing to fix, at least not in the direct INFJ way.

And the answer we're getting boils down to "Just ignore it. Who knows what they're talking about."

That works.

Okay, so I've got a question about this. This is pretty much the attitude I took after initially reading her posts. But it wasn't going away, in fact she almost seems to slowly be getting more bitter and more bitter and (however inadvertently) she has slowly roped 'us' into it by dropping asides here and there about how we weren't 'copping up'. So....just keep ignoring it? Maybe set the firm boundary that if she is going to imply something aloud about the INFJs here- she needs to be willing to be questioned about it (just because that's the way shared reality works)?

Using the spaghetti metaphor…..I absolutely agree that it’s best to get out of the kitchen and let someone do their thing. I've spent half my life wishing people would gtfo of the kitchen and let me do my thing. But suppose (as is the case here) there’s reason to believe someone is going to rope you into a mess that only looks like it’s getting worse unattended. Like, suppose there are passive aggressive comments drifting in from the kitchen like "And the INFJs out there aren't doing their part..." .....and those comments are getting a little bit louder and more frequent as time goes on. I have no problem with other people making messes- so long as those messes don’t interfere with my day.

Maybe it just would have been best if we’d have the foresight to very clearly say “You know, if you’re going to be making comments about the INFJs here, just know it’s going to be questioned.”?

But I do also like the suggestion to make it a blog post. (Just so that doesn't get lost.)

Yeah it’s great- but something tells me that’s expecting them to do it *our* way.

 

[Eilonwy]

[MENTION=7842]Z Buck McFate[/MENTION], the thing about passive aggressive comments being thrown out there, etc. reminds me of the thing with my sis-in-law, where she told people that I was abusing my mom and people believed her. If I tried to defend myself, people thought I was just trying to cover up the abuse. Or they didn't want to hear my side--they thought I should just let it go. I've struggled with this for years now. Although OA's accusations aren't quite in the same league as my sis-in-law's, I think the situations can be compared.

What have I learned? Sometimes you just have to put up with it, knowing that you can't control what's being said or believed about you. Then, you live your life and treat people in such a way that they will, hopefully, see that you are not what you have been accused of being.

That doesn't mean that every similar situation has to "just be put up with". I surely tried to tell people that what sis-in-law said wasn't true about me. Some people did believe me, some didn't, some didn't care either way. It means that if you've tried and failed over and over and over, it might be time to consider walking away from it and staying away from it, no matter what is said. And I'm not saying that it won't still sting. I can't completely walk away from sis-in-law, so the things she says will sometimes still rile me up, but then it's best that I vent to my friends and then let it go. It's not fair, but that's what it is. You've seen me struggle with these things in my old blog. I still struggle with them.

ETA: Sorry for all the additions. I know it messes up the flow of things. But what I also learned from the sis-in-law experience is that most people really don't give a crap if my feelings were hurt or my reputation sullied. They weren't directly involved--none of it matters to them. They would prefer that I just shut up and go away or talk about something that they are interested in instead. What is a big deal to me, is nothing to them. Again, not fair, but after trying and trying, the best choice for me was to let it go.

 

[Z Buck McFate]

Yes. I've just given up hoping that someone might also think it's wishing them to do it effectively and god forbid appropriately.
(Sorry. I know "appropriately" is something of a trigger.)

I don't know, maybe it's because I have a domineering Fe dom mother- I don't even have an urge for others to 'do it effectively' where the outcome has no bearing on me. I really can't stand people getting in my face and telling me to do something differently unless there's some very real consequences for them in me not doing so- so I'm already rather adamant about being this way myself. It even got my dander up a little bit (lol) reading that initial 'spaghetti' post because....who cares if they're not willing to call it spaghetti? The only time it bothers me is when not doing so leaves consequences for me to deal with.

Well, they do and they don't. If someone annoys you once or twice, fine. If someone annoys you continually, the annoyance escalates and you have to say something. If you have said several times, "Gosh, that's annoying. Could you do that someplace else?" and the response you get is "Live with it. I can annoy you if I feel like it," then that is infuriating. If the response you get is, "You're annoyed because you're in deep-seated denial and you have problems you don't even realize you have," then it leads to soul-searching and time spent carefully examining this idea, and doing a moral inventory, and reality checking with others to see if you can find evidence on either side to help you get a handle on the idea, etc. etc. -- in short, massive effort. In INFJ world, if a problem is big enough to merit even comment, it's big. If a problem is big enough for a diatribe and for not backing down, it's massive. So I think this is beyond "annoyance" and has progressed into grievance.

Bingo! That's it! It's progressed from little asides to something more mindfucking (and potentially really toxic). So the urge to get to the center of what's causing it has spiked.

 

[AphroditeGoneAwry]

Yes. I've just given up hoping that someone might also think it's wishing them to do it effectively and god forbid appropriately.
(Sorry. I know "appropriately" is something of a trigger.)

[MENTION=9310]uumlau[/MENTION]
You said, "As far as the topic of this thread, none of the INFP or INFJ "wrongs" mentioned in this thread fit into that latter category of significant harm: they fit into the category of personal annoyances, in my estimation."

Well, they do and they don't. If someone annoys you once or twice, fine. If someone annoys you continually, the annoyance escalates and you have to say something. If you have said several times, "Gosh, that's annoying. Could you do that someplace else?" and the response you get is "Live with it. I can annoy you if I feel like it," then that is infuriating.

It is momentarily, but then I guess my 9 takes over and I realize, "Yeah, you can, so have at it," and just go about my way, or try to engage again later.

If the response you get is, "You're annoyed because you're in deep-seated denial and you have problems you don't even realize you have," then it leads to soul-searching and time spent carefully examining this idea, and doing a moral inventory, and reality checking with others to see if you can find evidence on either side to help you get a handle on the idea, etc. etc. -- in short, massive effort. In INFJ world, if a problem is big enough to merit even comment, it's big. If a problem is big enough for a diatribe and for not backing down, it's massive. So I think this is beyond "annoyance" and has progressed into grievance.

Hmm, this isn't me. I won't go through all that when others analyze me. This sounds Fi. For me, I'd just try to listen and contemplate if they have a point that is valid and try to accommodate it or address it. I don't turn it all inward and engage the Ni/Ti churnings for that. It's more likely to ping right off me.

In short, I'm not likely to do all that unless I am internally off balance. Not if someone tells me they think I'm off balance. Does this make sense? I'm too stable for others to affect me that much.

 

[Tiltyred]

Yeah ok.

 

[Society]

Your point is, I believe, that B is doing something to offend A, and that is manifestly and concretely wrong, and one's inability to acknowledge that wrong is a great personal fault. I don't disagree with that very strongly (it's a very good principle with only a few minor caveats that would distract discussion).

poor wording on my part - i meant to say that whether doing X to A has wronged A is derived from A's experience of X. that doesn't in itself mean that X was wrong within the larger context, B's reasons for doing X are certainly part of it as well; i'm not stating that the consequences of the means never justify the end - for example if you hurt someone in self defense you are wronging the offender but probably haven't done something wrong - but rather, the context has to include both B's reason for X and A's experience of X in order to determine whether it was justified - whether X was wrong.

as derivative from that, your advice is invalid: the information of A's experience of X is critical for B to understand that it did anything wrong in the first place. A has to give B that information.

once you have a full picture of the shared platform of interaction - B's reasons for X and A's experience of X, only then it can be said that B might have to "understand on their own" why they did X, what elapses of judgement they might have had, because there can certainly be information about it that only they would have.

but ofcourse, that's assuming that what appears to be the full picture is the full picture, and given natural human limitations, it rarely is, which is why a back and forth exchange of information is valuable.

but let's say that you do have the full picture. even then the statement of "find out on their own" it isn't quite true, since in the end of the day we aren't all special snowflakes, and because it is in the end of the day a rational problem happening to two subjects within a shared reality within the larger subject field in which everyone has gained some expertise in - the art of being human - and as such, any extra perspective and experience can help B gain insight into the elapses in judgement. while it's true that A might be biased in that regard, it is also the most likely to have invested interest, and as such, still useful.

on a side note - another derivative is that to maintain that, A has to be open for that information, and it would be impossible for A to judge their actions truthfully without it.

 

[uumlau]

Okay, so I've got a question about this. This is pretty much the attitude I took after initially reading her posts. But it wasn't going away, in fact she almost seems to slowly be getting more bitter and more bitter and (however inadvertently) she has slowly roped 'us' into it by dropping asides here and there about how we weren't 'copping up'. So....just keep ignoring it? Maybe set the firm boundary that if she is going to imply something aloud about the INFJs here- she needs to be willing to be questioned about it (just because that's the way shared reality works)?

Without pointing fingers or naming names, consider all the "whiny INTPs" complaining about INTJs. I pay attention when they say something of substance, and often reply, but when the topic of discussion goes back to how arrogant INTJs are (or whatever other fault), I drop the discussion. It's not a complete doorslam, but I refuse to rehash old debates that others want to chew and rechew like bubble gum left on the bedpost overnight.

Some people have issues they need to work out, and I give them the chance at open discussion and work things out. And, surprisingly often, they actually do work out and we learn from each other. If the discussion ends up not going in productive directions, though, I've no qualms about dropping it, and have absolutely no drive to have "the last word" or whatever.

 

[uumlau]

uumlau
You said, "As far as the topic of this thread, none of the INFP or INFJ "wrongs" mentioned in this thread fit into that latter category of significant harm: they fit into the category of personal annoyances, in my estimation."

Well, they do and they don't. If someone annoys you once or twice, fine. If someone annoys you continually, the annoyance escalates and you have to say something. If you have said several times, "Gosh, that's annoying. Could you do that someplace else?" and the response you get is "Live with it. I can annoy you if I feel like it," then that is infuriating. If the response you get is, "You're annoyed because you're in deep-seated denial and you have problems you don't even realize you have," then it leads to soul-searching and time spent carefully examining this idea, and doing a moral inventory, and reality checking with others to see if you can find evidence on either side to help you get a handle on the idea, etc. etc. -- in short, massive effort. In INFJ world, if a problem is big enough to merit even comment, it's big. If a problem is big enough for a diatribe and for not backing down, it's massive. So I think this is beyond "annoyance" and has progressed into grievance.

This is the internet. It's fairly easy to ignore annoying posts. Now, if someone is explicitly following you around the forum and harassing you, that is worthy of "grievance". In that case, however, then just report the post(s) and the mods will take action - grievance solved.

Otherwise, I'd say the "grievance" is more like this:

 

[uumlau]

poor wording on my part - i meant to say that whether doing X to A has wronged A is derived from A's experience of X. that doesn't in itself mean that X was wrong within the larger context, B's reasons for doing X are certainly part of it as well; i'm not stating that the consequences of the means never justify the end - for example if you hurt someone in self defense you are wronging the offender but probably haven't done something wrong - but rather, the context has to include both B's reason for X and A's experience of X in order to determine whether it was justified - whether X was wrong.

as derivative from that, your advice is invalid: the information of A's experience of X is critical for B to understand that it did anything wrong in the first place. A has to give B that information.

This is valid, but you're still missing my point. What you're talking about is what I would call a "boundary". Informing others of boundaries is quite different from "advice."

Boundary - The things "up with which I will not put"
Advice - Telling others how to fix their problems.

Boundary is almost always safe to express without repercussions.
Advice tends to invite resentment.

 

[Starry]

Without pointing fingers or naming names, consider all the "whiny INTPs" complaining about INTJs. I pay attention when they say something of substance, and often reply, but when the topic of discussion goes back to how arrogant INTJs are (or whatever other fault), I drop the discussion. It's not a complete doorslam, but I refuse to rehash old debates that others want to chew and rechew like bubble gum left on the bedpost overnight.

What if someone kept saying something 'wrong' or wrong about Astrophysics? Or Calculus?
See what you are saying (just forget it/ignore it) is...again...exactly what I had in my mind to say and perhaps did say to a close INFJ friend. But then it certainly depends on what is of interest to you personally. I have seen many 'debates' that INTJs appeared unable to 'let go' of.

 

[Tiltyred]

I feel you just don't get it, cogent, sane and right on as you usually are.
But I don't discount the fact that you may be right and I will act accordingly.
Or maybe it's that your 9 is uncomfortable and just wants it to be over, could that perhaps be influencing? If I may, to some extent you are ... giving advice ... if we want to stay and rechew the old gum, still hoping against hope for some flavor, is it wrong?

 

[Society]

This is valid, but you're still missing my point. What you're talking about is what I would call a "boundary". Informing others of boundaries is quite different from "advice."

Boundary - The things "up with which I will not put"
Advice - Telling others how to fix their problems.

Boundary is almost always safe to express without repercussions.
Advice tends to invite resentment.

hmm? no.

the first part i talked about can have a boundary concluded from, a.k.a. if you have being informed about how someone has being hurt by your actions you can learn to avoid such actions, but isn't in itself a boundary - rather merely a description of causality within that context.

the second part however, is in fact advice. to rephrase: person B has being informed and acknowledged their elapses of judgement, now person B has an internal problem to solve, yet despite being internal, it is a problem that only one person is trying to solve. there are obvious advantages in someone else providing aid - another perspective, another set of experience, picking up on different patterns, breaking the information down differently, knowing extra facts, etc', and ofcourse, not having person B's bias. the matter in question is part of the process of something we are all learning how to do - learning to be human and live in a human society - so the potential for external advice to be useful is quite great. while person A is biased from the conflict, person A also has accumulated experience in that art, and can thus also contribute, and is the most likely to invest effort in it, given that person A is obviously influenced by it and thus has an invested interest in solving the problem.

now, i am assuming we are talking about actual attempts at advice, rather then masquerading ad hominem to discredit the other side of the dispute styled as "you know what's wrong with you?" 'advice'. i'm not saying here it's the later, if i would have to wager i'd guess it is for some but not for others, but i do acknowledge that possibility. i also realize that even if it isn't the case, it can appear to be the case.

 

[uumlau]

What if someone kept saying something 'wrong' or wrong about Astrophysics? Or Calculus?

Rather than trying to convince them that they're wrong (which is remarkably tough to do, if that someone is INTx), a more productive approach is to step in and say, "I believe it works like this: ..." given them an explanation, perhaps a few sources, and leave it at that. (Which is what I've been doing in this thread. Rather than saying "you're wrong", I try to present as clear a picture of what the truth is.

It doesn't matter how true something is, if someone still doesn't believe it to be true, trying to pound it into his/her head isn't going to work any better. If my point here seems beyond the pale to anyone, just go read the politics or religion forums for a while. Even better, try to convince anyone of anything over there.

See what you are saying (just forget it/ignore it) is...again...exactly what I had in my mind to say and perhaps did say to a close INFJ friend. But then it certainly depends on what is of interest to you personally.

"just forget it/ignore it" is simplified compared to what I'm saying. I'm not saying you don't try to communicate clearly. I'm saying you try to communicate clearly, and maybe you are heard and maybe you are not. If they seem impervious to your reasoning, THEN ignore it for a while. There may or may not be productive discussion to be had later. But don't get yourself worked up just because someone holds an opinion with which you strongly disagree.

 

[Starry]

"just forget it/ignore it" is simplified compared to what I'm saying. I'm not saying you don't try to communicate clearly. I'm saying you try to communicate clearly, and maybe you are heard and maybe you are not. If they seem impervious to your reasoning, THEN ignore it for a while. There may or may not be productive discussion to be had later. But don't get yourself worked up just because someone holds an opinion with which you strongly disagree.

You are a very evolved individual uumlau. This is apparent in each and every post you make on this forum - I've always recognized this in you. And what you say above is...I believe...the 'healthy' thing to do. But I do feel there is something about say...our types...both MBTI & enneagram that makes doing the above easier. Believe it or not I still haven't had enough coffee yet to explain what I am attempting to say...but yah. There does seem to be something that doesn't feel right about saying the above to an INFJ...something that feels like misunderstanding what they are experiencing/feeling.

edit...I should say...saying the above in this kind of circumstance.

 

[uumlau]

I feel you just don't get it, cogent, sane and right on as you usually are.
But I don't discount the fact that you may be right and I will act accordingly.
Or maybe it's that your 9 is uncomfortable and just wants it to be over, could that perhaps be influencing? If I may, to some extent you are ... giving advice ... if we want to stay and rechew the old gum, still hoping against hope for some flavor, is it wrong?

It's totally OK to go rechew that old gum. That is the choice of everyone in this thread (including me).

It's a little misguided, however, to start on the old gum again, and to THEN complain that it's still old gum. There was a chance it might be better, but we already know it's old gum.

[Dropping the gum analogy for now, cuz it won't carry forward with what I need to say.]

It's OK to get involved in something that you care about no matter how frustrating it is. It's because you care that you put up with the frustration. But it isn't helpful to complain about the frustration, especially if you really care about the topic, because then it's no longer about the topic, but about the frustration.

How does this play for me with me as an e9? An average 9 will avoid a problem just for the sake of the frustration of it. Sometimes this is the right thing to do, but it's only randomly right because the reasoning isn't strongly connected to reality. A high-level 9 will spend a lot of effort facing a problem calmly by ignoring the frustration itself. This is almost always a positive behavior, because it allows the 9 to maintain that sense of inner peace while also constructively solving problems as best as possible. At this level, it is always proper to ask whether additional effort is required, or is perhaps the problem unsolvable as is, given current constraints. Bringing in my Ni, it's also useful to ask whether the correct problem is being addressed: is the problem really a problem that needs fixing, or is the problem my compulsion to "fix" it?

Trust me, I'm always pinging myself with these questions, and yes, at times, I do the average 9 thing (which is why I know I'm a 9 with a 5 fix and not a 5 with a 9 fix - I do the average 9 stuff, not the average 5 stuff). That said, if I'm writing lots of posts in a thread full of drama, I'm most certainly not doing the average 9 bit. If I fall completely silent, I might be doing the average 9 thing (or I may just be busy with something else).