Video: INFJ Door Slam

[Tennessee Jed]

I watched the video and skimmed the thread. I think what's missing from these "INFJ doorslam threads" is an example of the *correct* way to cut people out of your life. In other words, a non-doorslam way of "taking out the garbage."

For example:

When I make friends in general, they're never totally *in* my life or totally *out* of my life. Rather, I just see them more often or less often depending on whether I find them good company or not. If they're a pain in the butt to be around, I may only run into them at parties. Or I may go through periods where I see a lot of them and then periods where I see less of them, depending on my mood and other considerations. But in any case, through it all, I'll always be friendly.

And in fact, they'll never really know for certain how I feel about them. If I don't like them, they won't know that for sure. All they'll know is that I'm very hard to contact or never have any free time for them. By contrast, if I like them, then they'll find that I'm very easy to contact and spend time with. And, of course, if I find that I don't want anything to do with them at all, I essentially become impossible to contact.

But either way, when I *do* run into them, it's always "hail fellow, well met." A handshake, a hug, a kiss on the cheek, and apologies for not getting back to them. I don't look down my nose or make a scene or refuse to deal with them if there's some business that needs taking care of. I'm always courteous and friendly. If I don't like them, I just become very difficult to contact and can't seem to find any free time for them. And eventually they get the hint.

And it works the same way in return. Sometimes people who used to be very accessible to me become increasingly inaccessible. I can't seem to get any "face time" with them for the things we used to enjoy together. It stings a bit, but after they haven't returned my call for the third or fourth time I just shrug my shoulders and figure it's up to them to get back to me whenever they feel the need for company. Meantime, no harm done. Who knows, maybe they have some heavy stuff going on in their lives and need a break from social things. So I just let it go.

Seems to me that this is the "civilized way" of handling these things. Of course, sometimes a big, nasty break is impossible to avoid. A big argument, an insult, a dishonorable action, etc. But ideally you avoid that stuff by seeing it coming (by noticing that the person tends to be kind of volatile or has a shaky reputation or whatever) and you put them at a greater "friendship distance" until such time as they prove their worth.

Also, here's a quote from a clinical psychiatrist on how to break up with friends. Taken from "F*ck Feelings: One shrink's practical advice for managing all life's impossible problems," by Michael I. Bennet, MD and Sarah Bennet. (I was talking about this book in [MENTION=8244]Eilonwy[/MENTION]'s blog, if you want more info on it.)

The quote is from a larger section on how to handle enemies in your life, Chapter 5.

Did You Know... That There's a (Relatively) Nice Way to Cut Someone Out of Your Life?

While being shunned or spurned by someone you care about is always painful, there are ways to push someone out of your life that aren't dramatic or traumatic. It's like the difference between having an appendectomy in a hospital, and having someone cut your gut open with the neck of a malt liquor bottle in the garden shed; you can get the same result with a fraction of the suffering.

Besides, dramatic shunnings are usually mean and ill-intentioned; it's much easier to push someone out of your life, and find nice ways of doing it, if your reasons are well thought out and benign.

For example, you may decide a friend is too high maintenance, or discover that, as much as you like her, you can't trust her. Assuming you're wise enough to realize that she's not going to change and that talking about the issue will do nothing but cause hurt, your only option is to back away while doing your best to be respectful.

So instead of planning a grand confrontation (or letting yourself get so irritated you have one by accident), do a slow fade and gradually make yourself less available, claiming it's due to pressing business, not a personal beef. Don't assume it's good to have a talk unless it's unavoidable; your goal is to painlessly downgrade your friendship without calling attention or causing hurt.

If confronted, be truthful but not emotional. You can tell her she's right, you've put other priorities higher, and as much as you wish you could give your relationship the same time as you used to, you can't, not because you're angry or hurt but because it's unavoidable.

Keep to yourself the fact that, in this case, events are also driven by a decision for which you take responsibility, because sharing your response will open up an impossible discussion and cause unnecessary hurt. Just because you've made a conscious decision doesn't mean that any one person is to blame; you're ending things because you believe it's best for you both. Eventually your former friend will call and email less, and while she may harbor some resentment, you have no reason to fear running into her, or she you.

If you keep the separation impersonal, you're rejecting the friendship, not the friend. As far as cutting someone out of your life goes, it's the safest, most sterile technique, and it leaves the smallest scar.

Okay, two final points:

1) The above quote describes a "slow fade" and then a little white lie if confronted about it. Some folks (especially young idealists and overly T types) will complain about the perfidy of white lies and say that there should be an airing of grievances to give the other party a chance to respond and rebut. But I'm older, and like I say, this is the "civilized way." You don't always have to do a big airing of grievances, especially when you've already taken your measure of the other person and know there's no longer any chance of a further friendship/relationship. At that point, as the quote from the shrink indicates, the emphasis is simply on "letting them down easy."

2) None of this is to put down INFJs. I've had some INFJs in my life, and I know that friendship can be kind of like an on/off switch for them. Also, Inferior Se can really cause them to lose their shit when they suddenly realize that "Hey, this friendship really isn't working out at all!!!!!!" All personality types have their weaknesses and petty dysfunctions. That's just life.

Mainly, I just thought I would put up an opposing scenario: A non-doorslam scenario for contrast. And maybe INFJs (and/or other personality types) can react to it and say whether it's something that they could see themselves doing, or whether it's totally foreign to their makeup, etc.

 

[Z Buck McFate]

Mainly, I just thought I would put up an opposing scenario: A non-doorslam scenario for contrast. And maybe INFJs (and/or other personality types) can react to it and say whether it's something that they could see themselves doing, or whether it's totally foreign to their makeup, etc.

YUI, I'm a little confused about your post, my initial reaction was to wonder what you think a "doorslam" is. You pretty much described what I consider a "doorslam": the decision to limit accessibility to me without being especially willing to engage in authentic dialogue about it (white lies), without making a scene, just backing away and disappearing as quietly and with as little incident as possible.

If it's someone I've been especially close to, then it's different. But the distancing without making a scene (in fact, a distinct unwillingness to make a potentially dramatic scene)- I thought that was the very definition of doorslam. Am I missing something? What is the 'unhealthy' doorslam to you?

[And as an aside, I actually don't advocate the 'white lie' method- I just also think that some people aren't worth the effort of figuring out a better alternative. If a person can't see how draining they are and I don't think interaction with them is healthy for me- in a perfect world, I'd have the compassion and patience and energy to honestly explain why. But this isn't a perfect world, I'm not made of infinite internal resources and we all can only do the best we can with what we know. ]

eta, on the 'white lie' front. I recently read Sam Harris's Lying, and I liked the way he said this (bolding is mine):

What could be wrong with truly "white" lies? First, they are still lies. And in telling them, we incur all the problems of being less than straightforward in our dealings with other people. Sincerity, authenticity, integrity, mutual understanding- these and other sources of moral wealth are destroyed the moment we deliberately misrepresent our beliefs, whether or not our lies are ever discovered.

And although we imagine that we tell certain lies out of compassion for others, it is rarely difficult to spot the damage we do in the process. By lying, we deny our friends access to reality- and their resulting ignorance often harms them in ways we did not anticipate. Our friends may act on our falsehoods, or fail to solve problems that could have been solved only on the basis of good information. Rather often, to lie is to infringe on the freedom of those we care about.
​

I think we deny people helpful information when we lie in the kinds of situations mentioned above. Granted, there are some people I feel relatively certain wouldn't possibly benefit from my opinion, and I'm not willing to put up with any drama that might happen as a consequence of offering it. But I do think that it happens too frequently in life, in general, that opinions which might ultimately be helpful to a person to hear are kept quiet in order to keep the immediate peace.

 

[Tennessee Jed]

YUI, I'm a little confused about your post, my initial reaction was to wonder what you think a "doorslam" is. You pretty much described what I consider a "doorslam": the decision to limit accessibility to me without being especially willing to engage in authentic dialogue about it (white lies), without making a scene, just backing away and disappearing as quietly and with as little incident as possible.

I have no problem with anything you said up to this point. But then you go into the whole "white lie" discussion, and that basically constitutes where we part company. Because if you (or anyone else) refuses to participate in the ritual of the little social white lies that comprise the lubricant of polite society, then ultimately you get to a point where you're left with two options: an airing of grievances or a shunning. The airing of grievances usually results in hurt feelings and a shutdown in relations; the shunning usually results in the INFJ having to avoid that person at the cost of shutting off social avenues and contacts. Either way, the result is a grinding of the gears of polite society.

Of course, one can criticize the idea of little white lies and instead make an argument for brutal honesty at all costs. And if we lived in a Spartan or Stoic society, then brutal honesty would indeed be the "civilized way" of doing things, along with killing the weak and ill so as not to burden society.

But we don't live in a Spartan or Stoic society, and our society has developed a consensus over time: Little social white lies comprise the lubricant of polite society. Refuse to participate if you want, but in that event you'll always find polite society difficult to maneuver. You're like the guy who wears torn, dirty clothes to parties and social occasions because he insists that his appearance shouldn't matter; what *should* matter is his shining personality. Trouble is, society disagrees.

 

[Fidelia]

I'm with z buck on that one. I feel that it is actually more respectful to let someone know the truth in a matter of fact way than it is to let them go on with misinformation IF they have asked. I want that for myself and as hard as it is in the moment, the truth's spectre is much scarier on both the giving and receiving end than the truth itself. Mostly I've found that people either don't get it anyway and would have made a scene no matter what oe else they have found it helpful to know.

 

[Tennessee Jed]

I'm with z buck on that one. I feel that it is actually more respectful to let someone know the truth in a matter of fact way than it is to let them go on with misinformation IF they have asked. I want that for myself and as hard as it is in the moment, the truth's spectre is much scarier on both the giving and receiving end than the truth itself. Mostly I've found that people either don't get it anyway and would have made a scene no matter what oe else they have found it helpful to know.

And this is why you INFJs bear the stigma of "the INFJ doorslam." You guys insist that it's all harmless and in the best interests of personal growth; some recipients, however, find them pretty painful.

Oh well, I guess you've answered my question:

[...] And maybe INFJs (and/or other personality types) can react to it and say whether it's something that they could see themselves doing, or whether it's totally foreign to their makeup, etc.

The answer is: It would seem that you INFJs just can't bring yourself to use the common social tool (little white lies) that would enable you to avoid doorslamming people.

And with my question answered, I think I'll drop the subject. I'm not looking for a debate here. I was just curious, given a contrasting scenario, why you INFJs would prefer to doorslam people. Question answered.

 

[Z Buck McFate]

I have no problem with anything you said up to this point. But then you go into the whole "white lie" discussion, and that basically constitutes where we part company.

Yeah, it's a case of personal taste, to be sure. Agree to disagree.

Because if you (or anyone else) refuses to participate in the ritual of the little social white lies that comprise the lubricant of polite society, then ultimately you get to a point where you're left with two options: an airing of grievances or a shunning. The airing of grievances usually results in hurt feelings and a shutdown in relations; the shunning usually results in the INFJ having to avoid that person at the cost of shutting off social avenues and contacts. Either way, the result is a grinding of the gears of polite society.

Yeah, there are consequences- and as I said, sometimes I don't think the person/situation is especially worth the consequences. But I personally (again, personal tastes) get so little ROI from interaction that- while sufficiently socially lubricated- require pretenses which feel unnatural to me that I'll choose those consequences.

Of course, one can criticize the idea of little white lies and instead make an argument for brutal honesty at all costs. And if we lived in a Spartan or Stoic society, then brutal honesty would indeed be the "civilized way" of doing things, along with killing the weak and ill so as not to burden society.

There's a difference between being honest and being unkind. It actually is possible to value kindness and honesty. In fact, we're kinda talking past each other here, because my point was that ultimately it's kinder to be honest (I guess, you know, unless we're in a particularly contemptous mood.... I saw that as a given).

But we don't live in a Spartan or Stoic society, and our society has developed a consensus over time: Little social white lies comprise the lubricant of polite society. Refuse to participate if you want, but in that event you'll always find polite society difficult to maneuver. You're like the guy who wears torn, dirty clothes to parties and social occasions because he insists that his appearance shouldn't matter; what *should* matter is his shining personality. Trouble is, society disagrees.

The thing here is: if I show up in torn, dirty clothes and get butthurt that others pass judgment because "what 'should' matter is my shining personality"- then yeah, absolutely, that would be very self-absorbed and self-defeating of me. The world doesn't revolve around any single person. But if I wear torn, dirty clothes because I want to, and I fully accept the consequences- if it's still worth it to me (because I don't need society to approve of my clothes to feel okay with who I am, and I have enough friends who are okay with who I am)- then is it so wrong?

And anyway, you didn't answer my question - (assuming you're still around to answer, you might be gone for a week or so at this point.....I was too busy today to reply quickly) what you described actually does sound like the typical doorslam to me. If that's the 'healthy' way to doorslam in your opinion, then what's the unhealthy way?

eta-Okay, just read the response to fid and I think I can gather what your answer would be. (I'm not looking for debate either, I didn't mean to take that tone. I was just curious.)

 

[Fidelia]

I don't generally offer the reason unless someone asks, but if they ask, I assume they want to know. To me, lying at that point is sort of condescending and if the person is running into the same trouble repeatedly and honestly wants to understand the problem, I'll let them know. At that point I've weighed out the possibility that they will be upset and am okay with it if that happens. I believe it would be presumptuous to volunteer the truth if they didn't ask, but if they ask,ill tell them how it looks from my perspective.

 

[iwakar]

And this is why you INFJs bear the stigma of "the INFJ doorslam."

This isn't a righteous pub address; it's a sweeping generalization prejudice. Who hurt you?

You guys insist that it's all harmless and in the best interests of personal growth; some recipients, however, find them pretty painful.

Do we now? And is painful at odds with harmless? One can be tremendously harmed by never having been subject to any pain. That's a foolish and dangerous association.

The answer is: It would seem that you INFJs just can't bring yourself to use the common social tool (little white lies) that would enable you to avoid doorslamming people.

Do deign us with your light personal preference couched as objective superiority.

And with my question answered, I think I'll drop the subject. I'm not looking for a debate here. I was just curious, given a contrasting scenario, why you INFJs would prefer to doorslam people. Question answered.

How convenient. Are you, in fact, deciding that the interaction is over without considering our feelings? What's that called again? Oh yes, a human right.

 

[Tennessee Jed]

This isn't a righteous pub address; it's a sweeping generalization prejudice. Who hurt you?



Do we now? And is painful at odds with harmless? One can be tremendously harmed by never having been subject to any pain. That's a foolish and dangerous association.



Do deign us with your light personal preference couched as objective superiority.



How convenient. Are you, in fact, deciding that the interaction is over without considering our feelings? What's that called again? Oh yes, a human right.

Tsk tsk. Someone sounds a little stung.

C'mon, one has to admit: There's a casual "it's kind to be cruel" sound to INFJ reponses that simply dismiss outright the possibility of smoothing the waters with a little white lie and "letting others down easy." I don't know how to put a nice face on that. I simply don't believe that "brutal honesty" or abrupt shunning is the way to handle people when they're feeling vulnerable (as they would be at such times). Give them time, and they'll figure it out for themselves.

But I'm not judging. I would expect the very same "it's kind to be cruel" response and reasoning from many Thinkers and wouldn't consider it weird at all coming from them. I wouldn't even consider it weird to hear that same reasoning from INFPs, because we're flakes and enjoy playing devil's advocate and taking a contrarian position on practically any subject. I just find it a little weird to hear that reasoning coming from INFJs. INFJs are supposed to be the "diplomats" of the MBTI. I expect that's why people may feel blindsided when hit with an "INFJ doorslam."

But it is what it is. This is a thread is about INFJ doorslams--the good, the bad, and the ugly. So I'm just sayin': Okay, fine, *this* is what seems to be at the core of the famed "INFJ doorslam": an aversion to little white lies. And having discovered that, I'm backing out of the discussion; I've got my answer. That's all I wanted, and I'm done with it. Or to put it another way, I don't feel the need to do the Fe thing and hash and rehash that answer ad nauseum to make it sound more palatable, as INFJs like to do. You INFJs like going on at length about yourselves; but I'm getting too old (at age 60) to sit at a keyboard for hours at a time typing long responses. So I'm content to write it all off as a manifestation of Inferior Se under stress, as I described it earlier along, and leave it at that. "Cut to the chase," and all that.

Tl;dr version: Once we've clarified where we all stand on the subject of "little white lies," it really doesn't need a lot of further discussion. It's not brain surgery. I can connect the dots and understand your position while disagreeing with it. And after that, I'm done with it.

Again, I'm not looking for a debate. I'm happy to let you INFJ guys and gals have the final word on the subject.

 

[Z Buck McFate]

I don't generally offer the reason unless someone asks, but if they ask, I assume they want to know. To me, lying at that point is sort of condescending and if the person is running into the same trouble repeatedly and honestly wants to understand the problem, I'll let them know. At that point I've weighed out the possibility that they will be upset and am okay with it if that happens. I believe it would be presumptuous to volunteer the truth if they didn't ask, but if they ask,ill tell them how it looks from my perspective.

One of the issues I run into during interaction with someone who is draining or with whom interaction feels very one-sided is that I'm rarely able to articulate the problem for a long time. I won't know exactly what the problem is, I'll only know that interaction with someone feels unbearable- that there's something about it that isn't right for me. Whenever this feeling has gotten unbearably strong for me, it always makes sense (and I'll be able to explain it) in retrospect- but explaining it in real time is practically impossible. And at this point in my life, the reason is usually actually far more valid than I realize in the moment. In the moment it feels like an irrational aversion- but in restrospect I'm almost always left feeling like "Holy shit, it's no wonder I couldn't handle interacting with that person." It's just regrettable that I'm not able to clearly explain why earlier on, but this forum has provided the exponentially validating experience of finding out this is relatively common amongst INFJs.

And anyway though, generally, people who authentically want to hear what the problem is are almost never the kind who get doorslammed anyway. It's typically only the people who want to inform the INFJ why the INFJ is having trouble with them- relentlessly, like the 'truth' about reality flows in only one direction, from that person to the INFJ. They don't actually hear anything. (Like right now, they'd be more intent on explaining they do hear something, and maybe also explaining why it 'seems' like they don't actually hear anything- instead of asking why it feels like they don't actually hear anything.)

I'm not sure how I feel about giving unsolicited opinions. I do think that people who tend to dole out unsolicited opinions probably need to check themselves- especially if it's done regularly with people who aren't even close to them- because basically it can be a trait of manipulative people (regardless of whether it's their intention to be manipulative, or whether they even know they're being manipulative). And/or it can be overbearing/controlling. Mostly it's a problem when people who readily dish it out (1) feel a strong attachment to it getting embraced/can't handle others not listening but also (2) can't take it themselves/systematically reject input they get themselves- people who do that don't seem to realize how unbalanced they are in that regard. But when it comes to people we're close to, I don't know. I personally wish I got more feedback from the people I'm close to (if I'm close to them, then I clearly hold their judgment in higher regard)- if/when they see something isn't working for me. It would make me feel needy to explicitly solicit that kind of feedback.

 

[uumlau]

I'd say that it isn't an "aversion to little white lies". I see plenty of white lies on the part of INFJs. The "doorslam" appears to me to be the result of the little white lies not working.

 

[Nico_D]

Too big of a deal made about INFJ doorslam like it is unhealthy, abnormal and weird behavior. Well sure it could look that way if compared to the basic behavioral patterns: let people treat you any way they want, say nothing, do nothing, pretend like they don't exist but don't show or tell them you are hurt by their action or inaction.

Cause the thing is, THAT sounds to me like truly absurd. Many therapists are saying that many relationship come to an (natural) end eventually, some for reason, some just end. And that people shouldn't hang on doomed or miserable relationships just because they are believing it will fix itself.

I see INFJ "doorslam" as sensible thing to do. And I believe that for INFJ's it is never "one strike and out" kind of thing. I've watched some people behave bad for years - even warned them couple of times - before quitting the friendship when nothing is changing and sillyness doesn't end.

 

[iwakar]

Too big of a deal made about INFJ doorslam like it is unhealthy, abnormal and weird behavior.

A few months ago I stopped talking to someone (also knowledgeable of typology) who no longer had a discernible role in my life because I didn't like their social media hysterics and grandstanding that had been progressively escalating in volume (i.e. anger and intolerance). I was later told by an invested party (also type-savvy) that it was unfair of me to "doorslam" this person. They are both xNTPs.

This is interesting to me because this instance demonstrates that this is about their prejudice regarding my type. --About their unconscious expectations toward me for being a female INFJ who is expected to extend myself and accommodate them/others moreso than other types.

Consider that there was no drama, no fanfare, no spectacle, and very, very little engagement or argument. I simply unfriended this person on Facebook when I realized they were too negative and dragging my feed down. That is all; that's it. I am still accessible in all other ways; my number and emails are unchanged, they can talk to me about this at any time. They can find me here even.

All I did, was walk away. I wonder... if this had been an INTJ "dismissal" or INTP "blow-off" or whatever other non-emotionally-charged type terminology, would the chastisement have even happened? Probably not. The expectations are different. This is precisely why I no longer announce my type on my sidebar to be visible at a glance. I will not feed your (the collective you) lazy suppositions.

 

[Norrsken]

I've done plenty of mini-door slams, where it seems like I'm gone for good, until the other person apologizes or tries to mend things with me. Then again, I wasn't in a very healthy state of mind and abused my door slamming privileges. Now I do this with people whom I know without any doubt that they are causing immense harm towards me and have no plan in changing or becoming better people, not just for me, but for themselves.

 

[cascadeco]

I think INFJ's do incorporate little white lies, like Highlander said, it's just that they use it towards the very end, prior to the actual doorslam.

I think the issue is that prior to all of that, INFJ's have been accommodating, and not saying much of anything re any problems they are having. Like [MENTION=7842]Z Buck McFate[/MENTION] wrote, it sounds like they may not know for a long time, hence them not saying anything.

So when the INFJ starts with the little white lies, or tries to ease back and change the nature of the relationship (ie see the person less, talk to them less, etc), the other person is completely confused / may not believe them -- because for months or years prior, they haven't gotten anything like that. So the other person subconsciously wants the infj to go back to how they always had been prior, or they are angry because they might see what was prior as a big facade.

Whereas with INFP's, they may have been more direct /communicative from the get-go on their preferences (or not... could vary by INFP), or they just are more flaky as YUI said, so it's not some drastic 180 when the INFP backs off.

So the moral of the story is, INFJ's, stop being so accommodating in the beginning!! lolz

 

[uumlau]

So the moral of the story is, INFJ's, stop being so accommodating in the beginning!! lolz

 

[Fidelia]

I think part of the problem is that in the same way as I don't identify with my emotions and often am initially not sure exactly how I feel, it takes awhile for me to identify patterns of behaviour. Even then, it takes awhile to be very sure of the why behind it and depending on the why I'll sometimes think I can deal with it. At some point though overaccommodating will sneak up on me and I simply can't do it anymore. I often am surprised by my own reaction because while I know I'm dissatisfied, I often underestimate how much so until there's a straw that breaks the camel's back incident. I'm better at recognizing this earlier now than I once was, even though I've never been in the habit of door slamming.

 

[Fidelia]

I think unhealthy doorslamming as a general means of exiting unsatisfactory connections without talking it out is typical of the way immature infjs would deal with unpleasantness but the reason behind it is an issue for all infjs: energy conservation. As a type, I think we are poor at thinking on our feet and mostly despite an initial gut feeling take a long time to really decide about people. Because conflicting behaviour and information all require analysis and because Ni offers a lot of possibilities, after awhile, infjs are more likely to try to prevent that kind of relationship before it starts or get out somehow if there are no signs of the problems abating. It just uses up too much bandwidth that's needed for daily functioning and the infjs I know tend to not have that kind of emotional energy to spare even when they are healthy, let alone if they aren't or are immature and don't have enough input from other functions to help inform them.

In addition, the infjs openness and unlikelihood to make snap judgements aloud draws a lot of needy or domineering or troubled people. They often don't feel as close to people as others feel to them or alternatively, if people do make it into their inner circle and then wreak havoc, they are loathe to really believe it until the relationship has been ruined almost beyond repair.

Either way, infjs often end up with a lot of human flotsam and jetsam in their lives that other people would dismiss earlier on. In the case of the people the infjs are not rejecting of but unattached to, they often underestimate how strong of a connection the other person believes there is because the infj has similar relationships with many and is relatively uninvested in them.

I think their penchant for human puzzles as well as the desire to be helpful often comes back to bite them. We need to be a little more intentional about seeking out friends that we truly enjoy and where the relationship is reciprocal.

 

[tinker683]

I'm an INFP and I doorslam. I do it as a last resort, when it is clear the other person and I cannot agree even after repeated negotiation, and I deem the relationship unsalvageable. I have the sense that my life is short, and I don't have time to spend it going round and round about the same stupid thing over and over again. That's a big reason. Another reason is betrayal. If you betray my trust or my confidences and I find out about it, it's very upsetting to me and I might doorslam because there's nothing to talk about. I have had my share of hurts and my capacity is only so big. I won't take second chances because I can only sustain so much damage. So if you have character defects that I can see are going to cause me damage such that I have to nearly be someone else to be around you in compensation for those character defects, it's not a true friendship anyway, and I'll door slam. I have been doorslammed and I realize it's disconcerting. I too have the impulse to continue reaching out and being all "but ... but ..." however in my old age I'll try once, and if my effort is rebuffed, I don't pester. You gotta respect the doorslam. They're just tired of fooling with you.

I am an ISFJ, and I doorslam for the same reasons

 

[Z Buck McFate]

I'd say that it isn't an "aversion to little white lies". I see plenty of white lies on the part of INFJs. The "doorslam" appears to me to be the result of the little white lies not working.

I wasn't going to pursue it, because it seemed to be rubbing YUI the wrong way, but I think this is what I was getting at. What he described actually does sound like phase one of doorslamming. I couldn't tell if he was suggesting we don't even go through that process of giving some answer that will 'save face' for the person on the other end ('letting them down easy, while also giving the impression we aren't interested in interaction with them'- which I actually think INFJs tend to do more than most people), or if he was saying we don't do it for long enough (that we should keep putting forth "white lies" until they get the hint- that's the part we might suck at, because as fid said, it's unbelievable how quickly a negative emotional charge can escalate- that emotional charge becomes unbearable, especially when we don't even know exactly why it's there).

My responses to him were based on the latter, with an assumption that he realized we do start with what he described. I would be hard pressed to believe YUI really thought he was presenting new information to us- it would be like telling a mechanic, "the BEST way to start a car is to put its key in the ignition and turn it"- but maybe he did. To INFJs, what he wrote seems like common sense- in fact, a big part of the 'doorslam' problem is that it is stunning to us when people don't pick up on those 'obvious' indications, when we find out it isn't common sense. Like deer in headlights, we don't know what to do when the 'slow fade' doesn't work.

I have a hard time understanding what constitutes "white lie" when the topic comes up. If I don't especially like someone, but I don't actively dislike them yet either- as I start feeling like there's not a whole lot of point in interacting with someone (which isn't to say there's something 'bad' about them, they're just clearly not for me), then I"ll issue the kinds of determents he describes. I won't do it to the extent he describes- I don't just get progressively 'less available' time-wise while staying very warm in tone, I will also get very slightly progressively less warm in tone. Once I'm feeling a strong negative emotional charge though, my ability to keep using mild deterents ("white lies") goes south. And it's not even entirely obstinate refusal (which is what I'm hearing him suggest, though I'm not sure I'm hearing him correctly)- if I'm feeling a strong negative emotional charge, then I know full well that it will bleed through. A 'save face' determent like "you know, I'm just not in the mood for a movie" is going to sound somewhat ridiculous if my body language/tone is screaming "you disgust me". That's when I go with the full on ignore tactic instead.

And as I always say when this topic comes up: this isn't to say it's a certainty that the person is "disgusting". This is just to say there's a feeling of disgust that won't go away, a very strong feeling, usually with no idea what's causing it- could be the person, could be my perception/my own past interfering with how I'm perceiving the person. All I'll know is that the feeling is overwhelming and exposure to the person makes it worse, that I need to reduce actual exposure to the person while I figure it out. (And I'll just admit that if the person isn't important to me, I usually don't bother trying to figure it out.)