[INFJ] When an INFJ doorslams you / cuts you out of their life / breaks off contact

[March]

Double post. Sorry.

(Well, at least I doubled my total posts on this board.)

 

[Starry]

I couldn't understand the bolded part?...

Whoops, I thought you had indicated you were an Engineer… and in my experience Engineers are often haha.

In anycase, you can still falsify or build on his comment through counter arguments/experiences (on INFJs or doorslam)...

Ok.

Treat people right, they stick around; treat people like crap, they leave. That's the universal rule...

When INFPs take classes in finger-painting and party-planning, they earn high marks. When INFPs take classes in logic and critical-thinking, they fail miserably. That's the universal rule...

I drew that on windows paint

Amateur.

[MENTION=13502]March[/MENTION]... your post was amazing.

 

[Fidelia]

Good thoughts, March! I appreciate (and agree with) the analysis that's gone into that post. Welcome here!

 

[Werebudgie]

BREAKING POINT: A straw floats down from the heavens and breaks the back of the INFJ's relationship camel. INFJ says to hirself: "Screw this, I don't see the point in trying anymore. I'm no longer your [insert role here]." Spouse, employee, friend. They quickly redefine their role from 100% available to 0,01% available.

I think this is a crucial point. Seems to me that Fe-aux orients INFJs to our role in connections with others.

AFTERMATH: INFJ probably wants to have the least amount of contact possible. They'd like to have friends collect their records and then change their number, as the song goes. This is a coping strategy to prevent falling back into the comfortable groove of functioning as Other's [role-partner]. Being someone's friend or employee for a long time creates a gravity well, and INFJs probably need to keep away further than other types, because the grooves get worn deeper.

I never thought of it this way before, but it makes a LOT of sense to me given my own experiences.

In my case, doorslamming happens after I try and try and try, and give chance after chance after chance. There comes a point when I experience deep aversion to being around the other person or the group (group because I once doorslammed a group I was deeply invested in). Where once the person/group had postive feel/energy for me, it shifts into a negative feel/energy. I recoil internally, it feels like I just can't stand it.

But this feeling of aversion can be overridden by what may be the groove/familiarity of the relationship. What I know for sure is this: If I have not cut off all contact, I am not only open to things changing so I can stay in the relationship, but I actively I expend energy trying to invite and promote the changes needed for that to happen. I can't help it.

And I can't shut down to the other person/people with the contact still occurring, not in situations where I care. The more I care, the harder it is.

This may explain the all or nothing feel of INFJ doorslams:

What makes INFJ relationship-ending a doorslam, IME, is the breaking point. Going from all-in to 'I'm taking my ball and going home'. I know some people who can break up with people and immediately become best friends with their exes, hanging out all the time. I've known a married couple that divorced and stayed roommates for a decade. So they go from 100% available to 60% available without any distress. Other people may 'check out' of a relationship before actually leaving, dwindling from 100% available at the high point of the relationship to 30% available by the end, to 5% available after the end. INFJs are probably most likely to have this whiplash effect - they're full throttle ahead while they still believe in things getting better. And when that belief runs out they're full throttle focused on something else. No pause, no in-between.

For me it's less about belief and more about visceral feel of the situation, but otherwise I think the point holds well in my case. Though I will say that in at least one case, as part of trying to make it work, I sought out a different role that I could do 100% but that was less invested overall. I wasn't allowed to do that by the other person, so I had to do the doorslam.

[*]Doorslamming is bad because it cuts INFJs off from alternative views on their character (so that's bad for the INFJ because it limits their growth potential). I've doorslammed a few people but I've never employed it to that end. For one, it doesn't work like that for me - even years after I've last seen the person, their judgements of me still sometimes keep me awake at night. Also, even if you get rid of one person who might not like you, there's still plenty of others in life that are more than happy to criticise!

I can't speak for other INFJs on this, but I am exquisitely and sometimes self-destructively open to critical views of myself from others. Again, it's the Fe-aux. I mean, I take external views of me deeply, deeply into myself at levels that may be difficult for some other people to imagine (especially any judging-dominants).

If I get to a point when I am de-constructing those external views, I have already been through the experience of assuming that the critical views are deeply true, using them, sometimes even violently, against my inner self, and getting to a point when it feels toxic and destructive to continue to do so. At that point, Ti comes in in service to Ni and takes apart the external material in a very detailed and data-specific rigorous way. But if I am doing that, I have either taken the specific critical views into myself extremely deeply and lived with them for a while, or had enough experience with those views in the past to have gone through the process already and have some Ti analysis available already (and even in that latter case, I am still open to the external material at first because it may be different enough from the past data to be true).

[*]Doorslamming is bad because it keeps people walking on eggshells. (Bad for Other.) I don't see how this works - I've never heard of INFJs using the potential of doorslamming as a threat. "Do the dishes NOW or I'll doorslam you!"

I agree with this in my case. By the time I talk about stepping away (what I call doorslamming) from a specific relationship, I'm 100% committed to doing it. In fact, I'm already doing it if I'm articulating this. That's actually a HUGE deal for me. There's no point in speaking something that isn't immediately backed up by my action of stepping away. This is for my own protection. It comes back to the need for no contact after I do this.

That said, I often give lots of warning that something's wrong and not okay in the relationship before I take the doorslam step. But I do that from a "how can we fix this?" perspective. By the time I verbalize anything about stepping away/doorslamming, it's already happening. No way it could be used as a threat. I did have one friend who believed it was a threat. I told her I was done, wanted no contact, and she responded with an angry, "You're giving me an ultimatum?" and I had to say - "No, I'm saying I want no more contact and am done - NOW." (I stopped communicating with her then.)

That said, I think others knowing about the INFJ doorslamming possibility can function as a threat even if we don't use it that way. In my case, I feel like I do so SO much to try to make it work before the doorslam step emerges, that the best way for others to deal with the doorslam option is to attend to what is not well in the relationship for us both and decide what if anything can be done about it from their end.

[*]Doorslamming is bad because there are ways to leave a relationship that give less of a whiplash effect (Bad for Other.) Maybe. Not sure if INFJs can do that. In a relationship, I invest in that role completely. If I ever decide I can't invest in that role completely, there's no point in hanging around. I don't compartmentalize well.

Yes yes yes - very true for me too. Role investment - very useful concept yet again, for me at least. And that word, compartmentalize - I've actually been thinking about that lately in a relationship where the other person can compartmentalize really really well. I simply cannot do it well. And in this context, I have tried. Tried really hard. I can't do it. It feels like suffocation at some level, like pretending, and at a deeper level I will just say it viscerally, almost physically, hurts too much for me to do it.

[MENTION=15291]Mane[/MENTION], this one's for you. I've noticed your 'INFJs need to accept other, critical, perspectives' gets my hackles up BIG time. So I figured I'd ask you for what that means, specifically.

What I hear when I read that the way you word it is 'INFJs do hurtful stuff occasionally. If so, Others have the right to tell them that they're assholes/arrogant bastards/hateful bitches/unloving self-centered critters and INFJs have to take that on board as the truth.'

If that's also what you mean, I don't actually think that's a healthy thing for INFJs. Anecdote: All the time I still lived at home, my mother told me I was arrogant and unloving. I tried to resist that perspective with all my might, because that perspective blocks me from taking on other roles in life. Being arrogant and unloving is incompatible with being a friend, a good classmate, a fun acquaintance, a loving partner, a caring mother, etc. (Of course I never completely managed to resist her perspective - she's my mother, after all, so she must both be right and have my best interests at heart. Right?) And that did completely block me from trying to get into mutually fulfilling relationships for a while - I figured that since I was unloving and arrogant, the best I could hope for was being tolerated.

So maybe that's just the wording, but I don't think it's healthy for INFJs to take on judgements into their self-identity like that. Much better to have a self-concept that says 'I'm a loving person, and loving people don't have to be perfect but they do need to fix things when they break them and learn from the situation in which the things got broken.'

I'm not so attuned to my self-identity as the issue - I think this is a difference in enneagram. March, I notice you're a 4; I'm a 6.

But in a more general sense (external views/interpretations of what I do or why, for example), I think this is an important point, in my case at least. It comes back to how deeply I take in external judgements/interpretations of me as a default response due to Fe-aux.

The older I get, the more I realize that it truly isn't healthy for me to deeply and reflexively take in that external material, as I have for so long. And in fact, my health depends in part on my willingness to trust my own Ni-Se perceptions rather than constantly seeing myself as the other through external eyes.

Maybe that's different for other types. Maybe I can say 'You're a real asshole, you know that' in a serious conversation to another type without having them re-evaluate everything they've done through the lens of 'maybe I am an asshole and maybe that's all I am.' That doesn't mean INFJs can't be criticized, just that it's counterproductive for them to have to accept other people's perspectives on what their character and intent was.

Is the neutral version something you can get behind? Criticize the behaviour, not the intent? Or is it necessary for INFJs to be capable of learning in your view that they're able to self-identify with another person's conclusions about their character?

Again, this may be inflected by enneagram. I tend to not get too upset about criticisms of my character or intent. For me, difficulty comes with either:

1. misinterpretation of or misuse of my words to mean something other than what I use them for

and/or

2. descriptions of my actions that claim objective truth of observation ("You are doing X and if you don't see it my way, you need to see it may way because I see it more clearly than you do) rather than owning the person's interpretation that yields the assessment ("It feels/seems to me that you are doing X")

---------------

Final note: I've been thinking about the doorslam thing lately, and been following this discussion for a while. I was moved to register for the site by your post, March.

 

[Southern Kross]

This is fascinating to me. I can’t relate to it at all in regard to beliefs, opinions, etc- because I feel like *if* my beliefs or opinions are valuable, then they can’t disappear. It’s sorta like “if 2 + 2 really does equal 4, then it will still equal 4 tomorrow, so I don’t have to put effort into remembering it.’

Well that's partly the benefit of Ni: it closes itself off to intruding perceptions. Ne basically requires that I let the invaders in and see if I can get along with them.

It doesn't necessarily change my views but it's still a seed that's been planted in my head, which can feel like virus, infecting my line of thinking. I may intuit that what it purports is 'wrong' (eg. not defensible, not moral, not consistent, or not accurate depiction of reality etc) but now I have to sit down and try to figure out why it's wrong. All that Ni+Je certainty, cohesiveness and clarity is like a solid wall built inside my head I have to tear down brick by brick to get anywhere. I can't just leave the wall up and ignore it either, because it's presence can be like a slap in the face to my ideals.

However, sometimes it can blind me to the truth. I can feel myself being pushed around until I have no choice to concede. It's like what I was saying earlier about being asked a loaded question. I can sometimes fail to pick up (on a conscious level) that it is one, and I can be slowly cornered until I find myself agreeing, because it's the only logical option left. Unconsciously I can feel like there's something not right about it - that I don't agree with it, but I'm so befuddled by that point that I can't come to grips with what I think any more. It's like my Ne is cut off and I can't even see things clearly in my head any more. Hours, days and possibly weeks afterwards I figure out I've been had - then suddenly there is the awareness that my own perceptions have been violated. I look back and feel disgust: disgust for having been bullied and intellectually swindled like that and disgust with myself for not stopping it.

Note: this is just my particular reaction. Other NFPs might experience it differently.

*But* I can relate insofar as my experience of Ne. I really can’t handle being pummeled with Ne. I can’t share ideas or theories until they’re congealed, I can’t work them out aloud against Ne- because it’s like creating sand art near 3 open doors and 4 open windows on a windy day. Ne doms especially, but even some aux- the topic changes before I get half a chance to express the single tangent I’m trying to get out of my head. Imagine using a chalkboard to work some problem out- and there's someone standing nearby who can't stand to have anything on the chalkboard for more than 3 minutes, so they erase absolutely everything you've written exactly three minutes after you've written it with no ability to discern what's still relevant and what isn't....*Ne*; after a while, it gets to the point where I can't even think around the person and I NEED to block them out just to be able to think.** And I feel like nothing gets heard- all my words just keep providing springboards for new topics, but my meaning is systematically glossed over.

Yeah, I hear you. I think any introverted function will experience that feeling in response to an extroverted version of the same kind. Fi is like that with Fe; instead it can feel like Fe users are skipping ahead to conclusions when we haven't agreed on the premises.

The somewhat strange thing is that with certain Ne folks- who seem to be able to intuit what I’m getting at- it’s actually incredibly helpful because they can understand what I’m getting at and they can help me assemble it (semantically) faster. That’s rare, though.

Yes, that would be the ideal sort of interaction. Ne can respond to ideas like a surfer who just rides the first wave that comes along. And if it was the wrong wave, or not the most useful one, it can be hard to get things back on track. Sometimes we have to be more careful in choosing our waves, and sometimes we have to stop ourselves from taking certain waves, even if they look really good, because we're disrupting the flow of the conversation.

I wish I could get a better handle on how Fe does this (the thing described in the above quote- other Fi'ers have stated something similar). It’s loathsome to me, the thought that I might be making someone else feel like it’s not available to disagree.

Understand it in what way? What sort of information do you need? Do you mean what the Fe user is specifically doing to make people feel like that? Or what mindset you are in when it's happening?

I did mention more details about this in my last post, but perhaps I didn't explain it well or it wasn't helpful.

[And SK- I actually am reading that article you posted on Jena Malone and collecting my thoughts about it. (It’s long!) That was a good idea, to post a link to an objective account to see if opinions vary. The way that everyone brings their own baggage to this thread, filling in the blanks with their own experience, really does cause a lot of miscommunication.]

I'm glad someone is reading it.

Yeah, sorry it's so long, but I think the length actually helps because it fills in a lot of details that subtly contribute to the doorslamming. And yes, that's partly why I posted it because personal baggage can taint a lot of the information. It's good to have two sides of the story explained by an outsider.

 

[Winds of Thor]

There's no obligation that says people have to provide a full accounting before they're allowed to bail on a relationship. You're creating an obligation out of thin air.

Usually the opposite is true. People keep trying to provide a last big accounting and get in the last word, and it just keeps turning into one more argument. Most people stay in a relationship way too long, just arguing all the time. When things turn south, the healthy thing is to pull the plug on the relationship: Sooner or later, one party or the other has to just shut the hell up and leave.

ENTPs like to insist that no one can leave until everything has been talked out, because that's how ENTPs win: They just bullshit until the other party gives in from exhaustion.

Here's a rule for you: If you don't want someone to bail on you, then don't treat them like crap.

Notifying another person of a relationship is not necessary. It's shitty.

There is a reason it's called a relationship.
Relation-ship. Relation (2+ people) -ship (state of being).

Departure without understanding is a cold and actually a shitty way to choose to end a relationship.
Adding to that confusion as to being left without understanding why.

And no, I won't be emotionally manipulated and convinced by character misnomers, non-sequitors, or any other sort of whatever to pass my way.

 

[Winds of Thor]

At this point in what I'm calling my introspection, I do see the swirling around issues. I see it to different degrees in the different people posting in this thread. I think it comes from the way we're wired to learn (unfortunately), because I see the same honing in process when I'm trying to grasp a concept. I think there is a way past the sticking point. For me, that meant analyzing myself instead of "the problem". I ended up being hyper-aware of how I was reacting to real and imagined situations, then picking apart what was actually driving my thoughts and emotions. Sometimes what I was doing had to be pointed out to me, then, instead of looking for a justification, I would stop and analyze what I had just done. The emotional work can be disrupting in real life, and can be unpleasant, so I think that is why there is such a reluctance to even go there. But I found it all worth it.

I think you're a really smart person. I feel a balance from seeing and reading your words.

Lots of admiration coming your way-

 

[Tiltyred]

yes: people who break their commitments & discard relationships to maintain their self-delusions can't be trusted to follow their commitments maintain their relationships and be honest with themselves.

My mother doorslammed my father after 27 years of marriage. She left a note on the dining room table and she got in her car and drove across the country. Once the divorce was legal, she married another man, and they have been married now for 30 years, happily.

 

[Eilonwy]

Sorry it's taken me so long to reply. Lots to keep up with.

[Again, with disclaimer I haven't read all posts.]

This thing about doorslamming because an INFJ doesn’t like hearing something unflattering- it seems like peculiar turn to take in this discussion. But then maybe that’s why Eilonwy made this comment about the language INFJs were using: “Words like survival, self-preservation, shame, harm, damage, dominate, and power-play. Strong words. Catastrophic words.” It stunned me a bit at first because it seemed mocking, which is really out of character for E. But if that’s what “doorslam” has been in her mind since the topic started back up- not someone getting away from an unhealthy relationship, but someone unconsciously gravitating away from information that isn’t flattering- then it makes a little more sense.

But the bolded wasn't really a peculiar turn to take in the discussion because it was basically what the discussion was supposed to be about originally, but that got lost or misinterpreted for various reasons.

Here's Mane's definition of a doorslam:

the act of cutting off ties in reactions to perspectives of yourself which conflict with your ego.

And I wasn't mocking anyone. Yes, my definition of what a doorslam was had changed since rereading this thread, so the strong words being used really stuck out. It seemed we weren't talking about the same things.

I do agree that this happens, and I have had it happen to me- an INFJ friend interpreted things as said as being negative feedback about her, and instead of being willing to talk about it she simply stopped contacting me. She changed her phone number every couple of years because she did this regularly to so many people- it was even a joke the first few years about how I ‘made the cut’ of people who got the new number. As I've said before (in this very thread)- it’s one thing to back away because a relationship is unhealthy/unbalanced and conflict can’t be worked out, and it’s another thing to back away because someone doesn’t have the image we like to thing others have of us. The latter is an unconscious defense mechanism; in the previous/linked post I used “coping mechanism”, but “defense mechanism” works better because it really isn’t a conscious action. Defense mechanisms are when people gravitate towards a belief that feels better because their needs aren’t being met, the way that plants gravitate towards growing in the direction of sunlight.

And the problem (as I said before) with pointing this out is that defense mechanisms can’t be taken away by pointing them out: they’re invisible. You have to find some way to fill the needs those defense mechanisms are compensating for if you want them to become visible. My whole point here is that coming into this thread to guide the INFJs who do this particular kind of doorslam into ‘the light’ is….I don’t know, it seems fruitless to me. Because the kinds of INFJs who show up here to honestly talk about it are the kind who do it more for the self-preservation (they feel an obligation to others, but will doorslam to get rid of unhealthy/unbalanced relationships) reasons- not the flightier reason of needing to have a certain self-image reinforced.

So could the bolded also be thought of as a blind spot? Because I got the impression that that was also what this thread was trying to address after rereading it: blind spots.

The idea that Mane is trying to guide the INFJs into 'the light' is a misinterpretation, also. He's said several times that all he's interested in is information that might apply to his own situation. He was asking for a discussion of a particular INFJ blind spot--doorslamming--which doesn't require that anyone be 'saved' or 'converted'. It also doesn't require that the people discussing it be the kind who have done it for self-preservation or for self-image reinforcement. Any INFJ can imagine being in a situation where they doorslam because their ego was bruised by an unflattering perspective, and then discuss why that might have happened, impersonally. It's possible to look at that type of situation from outside of our own perspective and see what kind of blind spot exists there. But that discussion doesn't seem to happen. One way or another, it gets steered back to being taken personally, or to talking about situations that don't apply, and then feelings get hurt and people feel the need to justify themselves.

It took a bit of soul-searching for me to really look at the reasons I might doorslam someone just because their perspective of my behavior didn't match up with my own. It did take some vulnerability, and effort, and bringing up of emotions so that I could accurately assess my own reactions. And I found some unflattering reasons for why I might not be amenable to hearing criticism. I also found that I gained enough new perspective to see how much I had previously misinterpreted the tone and the content of posts from other types. I haven't magically gotten rid of my blind spots, but I'm more aware of what they are and how they blind me. And that has actually been very freeing in a lot of ways. It takes me more time and effort to read posts, but there's a lot less white noise to deal with, and I'm starting to get a better understanding of other types' perspectives, as well as my own, which is part of why I'm on a typology forum in the first place.

I know I'm not communicating this very well. If I was, then there wouldn't be all of these misunderstandings. I think that all that people are asking for is a sincere discussion about the mentality behind the blind spot of doorslamming so that everyone will gain some understanding and awareness. That doesn't mean justifying the mentality, but deeply examining it. There have even been offers in this thread to discuss other types' blind spots, if those with issues start threads about those blind spots, so that it's not just about INFJs.

 

[Southern Kross]

"Framed" might be a better word than "skew" perhaps?

OK fair enough.

If you give me real life examples where and why you felt invalidated I can understand it better...If you don't, I end up having to give these examples so that you can verify if I understood it right or build on the example to clarify what you meant...otherwise your definitions (from my perspective) end up too ethereal for me to grasp...

It's difficult because like when a INFJ doorslams, there are many factors that can contribute. It can be like the death of a thousand cuts and then suddenly, it's just too much. The context may be necessary to fully appreciate the reaction. Do you get what I mean? I will try to give an example, though.

Here's an example from the forum and a previous, epic INFJ vs. INFP debate that raged on a while back. It was much like this thread: tense and angry in parts but also providing wonderful insights. Two posters offered criticisms of INFJ behaviour and the INFJ baulked at their style of address and thought it tainted their perspectives. Myself and other INFPs were trying to explain why those views were still of some value, despite the negative tone in which they were delivered. We also tried explain the mindset behind INFP thinking in hope of clarifying things. I felt the INFJs were stonewalling me; failing to appreciate and accept my attempts to remedy the communication difficulties. I suppose I felt like I was bending and accommodating as much as I could and the reaction was dismissal after dismissal (keep in mind this conversation had gone on for over 70 pages) - particularly what Z Buck was saying at one point. I had a bit of a meltdown

Read posts 694 (the bottom 7 paragraphs) - 696, my reaction on 723, and my explanation on post 769

I'm sorry this is a lot of information. I expect you will still require further explanation to understand why I felt invalidated. And I will offer it if you wish.

BTW [MENTION=7842]Z Buck McFate[/MENTION] I'm only using as an example of me feeling invalidated (and doorslammed). I'm really sorry to bring that up again. I have no intention of continuing that argument and bear no ill will to you. I have no desire to demonise and target you personally. If you feel I have, you have my sincere apologises.

So depends on the maturity of the individual...

Yes, or the circumstances, or the level of sensitivity the individual. Sometimes even mature people can deal with a situation very poorly.

Here : ↓

I may need more context to respond properly to that and may need more clarity to work out what you're trying to ask about (I'm getting confused), but I'll take a stab at it.

In the context of what I was saying earlier, [MENTION=5999]PeaceBaby[/MENTION]'s statement relates to the INFP fundamental/universal understanding of human beings. In this case, it's not so much about templates (ie. regarding kinds of people, kinds of behaviours) but is based on a common overarching axiom that is taken into account when dealing with all people. In this case that axiom could be, "ulterior motives do not equate with malice" - perhaps combined with, "the fallibility of the individual does not necessarily negate the value of the information offered". Something like that. So, to clarify, we use both the templates (dealing with the specifics of human nature) and axioms (dealing with the broad strokes of human nature) to help decipher and read other people. This helps us to connect individuals to the general aspects of the human condition; it's completing the circle by joining and integrating Fi and Te.

I believe that what she's doing isn't sidestepping people, per se, it's about sidestepping the distracting factors, by use of axioms she has developed or become aware of over time. This is a method we employ to find clarity in all the madness. When you find ways to sidestep the distorted surface factors, you can avoid the "subjective noise" and figure out what's at the heart of the issue.

Does that somehow answer your question?

BTW PB, I hope I'm not overstepping the mark here.

So it caters not only the individual himself/herself but also to other individuals in the immediate/present environment of the Fi-user?

Yes. It's about the individual rather than the collective. Fi is not naturally a selfish function. Of course, if it is misused, it can be.

Failsafes? Can you give an example?

So Fi's failing is that it's highly specific and highly subjective. Fi reads and evaluates certain signs and Si catalogues and organises them. In other relevant situations, Si will bring up that information and Fi will judge the situation with that in mind. If that cycle becomes distorted, the evaluations of Fi will be conducted with a self-confirming bias framing the new information inaccurately. In this situation, Ne should work as the fail-safe. It looks past the narrow, surface perceptions of Si and projects outwards (rather than inwards), searchings for alternative explainations.

OK so I'm going to be obnoxious and quote myself. Here's a post I wrote in another thread (that epic INFJ vs. INFP thread I referenced earlier) where I talked about this. It's an explanation of INFP thinking, how that can be flawed, and how a fail-safe *should* work:

We see emotions as signs, just like data are signs. The emotional sign doesn't necessarily have a complex conclusion attached to it. It might only be, "when that INFJ says ____, I feel hurt" - which is just a individual case of cause and effect to us. It's relatively meaningless: "I feel hurt" is no different to, "that car is red". It doesn't mean, "INFJs are hurtful" or that, "that when INFJs say ___, they intend to be hurtful". Say that sign becomes a regular occurrence among other INFJs you know and Fi+Si might start to draw inaccurate conclusions, like, "INFJs = hurt" or worse, "INFJs are hurtful". That's when it starts to become a problem. However, if Ne is working well, it functions as a fail safe for that. It asks for us to look past what seems obvious and think of other explanations. It says, "Maybe if you understand why the INFJs do it, it won't seem hurtful any more".

Another example of a INFP fail-safe is the use of Te axioms I described earlier. Fi can get bogged down in the specifics and lose sight of things. Te helps escape it with ways of filtering and evaluating the details to achieve more objective clarity.

Also, What should the non-INFJ do then to not trigger INFJs buttons/insecurities?

You're asking me? I would rather you tell me what you think.

I mean do you try to make people feel validated/comfortable in your presence or do you recognize the ailments/wounds in their emotional landscape and attempt to cure/modify/operate those wounds? If yes, how? By letting them pour out the poison by venting, crying etc?

Primarily we try to make people comfortable. We are not as action driven as INFJs and are much less interested in affecting people.

Do you recognize certain emotional landscapes to pose a threat to yourself or to others? How do you disengage from those people if you end up in any kind of relationship with one?

Well I'm a 4w5 so the darkness in another person's soul doesn't frighten me (OTOH perhaps INFP 9s or 6s will back off more often). However, if the way that darkness manifests externally starts to cause problems that I can't find ways to remedy or reconcile with, I might be inclined to back off.

I read the Jena Malone article by the way...thanks, a good read...

Oh you did? Great! Do you have any perspectives on it relating to doorslamming?

 

[PeaceBaby]

In the context of what I was saying earlier, PeaceBaby's statement relates to the INFP fundamental/universal understanding of human beings. In this case, it's not so much about templates (ie. regarding kinds of people, kinds of behaviours) but is based on a common overarching axiom that is taken into account when dealing with all people. In this case that axiom could be, "ulterior motives do not equate with malice" - perhaps combined with, "the fallibility of the individual does not necessarily negate the value of the information offered". Something like that. So, to clarify, we use both the templates (dealing with the specifics of human nature) and axioms (dealing with the broad strokes of human nature) to help decipher and read other people. This helps us to connect individuals to the general aspects of the human condition; it's completing the circle by joining and integrating Fi and Te.

I believe that what she's doing isn't sidestepping people, per se, it's about sidestepping the distracting factors, by use of axioms she has developed or become aware of over time. This is a method we employ to find clarity in all the madness. When you find ways to sidestep the distorted surface factors, you can avoid the "subjective noise" and figure out what's at the heart of the issue.

Does that somehow answer your question?

BTW PB, I hope I'm not overstepping the mark here.

That was lovely and saved me trying to explain that it's not about sidestepping anyone. Far from it. Thank you muchly.

------------------------------------------------------------

Here's a quick little story:

Yesterday I was at our "music team" practice. We are learning a new piece that will be performed February 2nd and it's nowhere near ready. Since many of the folks in our music team do not read music, we must rely on going over each section repeatedly to sink it into auditory memory. This piece also has a couple of time changes, so keeping track of our timing overall is important and unfortunately quite messy at the moment. We've only got one more practice 'til we sing it.

Our conductor is also the "pianist" and she is usually not facing us to keep time. Sometimes I lightly tap my toes to keep my own time, whilst having one eye peeled to her fingers to watch her speed. I've been in choirs for many years and am totally aware that any extraneous tapping sound is generally distracting to keeping time overall, so I take great pains to not do it loud enough to be any kind of problem. This tapping isn't usually conscious though. However, there are times I do move my foot consciously, like when I'm not hearing the tempo properly or when the folks around me are throwing me off-beat and it helps to focus me and keep my timing solid.

Anyway, there's the preamble. Look how I'm already feeling oppressed and putting myself in a position to justify myself.

So yesterday, I was tapping my toes more than usual. We were going through this piece line by line, and people were having troubles. I'm focussing on keeping the right time and out of the blue one of the older ladies reaches over the person beside her, touches my leg, and with irritation says, "Can you stop that? I can't hear the notes". This startles me, and now what I am supposed to do? If I keep moving, I'm not being considerate of her apparent need for me to stop and keep still. If I don't move my foot, I lose one of the tools I personally find very helpful to allow me to keep time and lead our section.

What would you do?

So here's the rub: I am the person who is forced to compromise my preference here. It does not matter that it makes my experience more difficult, because by not conceding the action I would be deemed inconsiderate. Using the same teminology, she is as equally "inconsiderate" in the moment to impose her preference over mine. And yet I am not being inconsiderate for wishing to try to work through this music true to my own preference, nor is she for wishing I not tap it out. It's the judging of my behaviour that is the issue. The "toe-tapping" behaviour is not intrinsically good or bad in any way. My intention was not to be a distraction, and yet it was. It was not right for her. But I am the one who is compelled to change. Not she to adapt.

Of course, I adapted and did not move my foot for the rest of practice. I was startled though and I did let a flash of it show. After all, it's rude to jostle someone and tell them what to do. After the rehearsal, she was conciliatory and trying to explain she didn't mean to be demanding, it's just that hearing any low tones / tapping sounds makes it hard for her to concentrate on singing her notes. And I did remember her talking about tinnitus a couple of months back, so was kindly and sympathetic and made her feel ok for expressing herself, even though it did startle me in the moment and I didn't enjoy that. I just find it interesting that she feels free to impose her preferences over mine without any due consideration for why I was doing what I was doing. As though I was doing something wrong ... it's not actually wrong.

This is the purview of Je. One's preference is a lens of what other things or people should or should not do. How actions or behaviour does or does not affect you. How things should be. And the need to control the external extends into pushing and pulling the actions of the people all around you. Do this, don't do that, if you comply you are good, if you don't comply you are bad.

Subjectivity passed off as objectivity. Every.Single.Day.

Anyway, the point of this story? I've really realized that it's almost all about behaviour for Fe. Practically nothing is about the internal human landscape, the purview I think of as Fi. I figured incorrectly that INFJ's could somehow access that space indirectly. But after thousands of posts on the topic, I realize there's no read on the other to realize the internal state and adjust according to that in the moment. The person who's come closest is [MENTION=8244]Eilonwy[/MENTION] and for that I want to say I truly appreciate her efforts. So, to answer the question of another thread, no INFJ's are not telepathic because if they were they would realize this inability to see all of these other perspectives.

Overall, I don't think any J types realize how much P types already adapt to their preferences. And the funny thing is that the J types think that other people are unreasonable! Pretty hilarious actually.

And another true story - my husband and I were talking about the cars we've had over the years a few months back and he said, "You picked out all of our cars" to which I said, "I did not, I did the research and made a recommendation, but I didn't choose what we bought. We both did." To which he replied, "Yes you did, we always buy the one you say we should buy" and after some more "discussion" on the topic, I realized that he DID NOT KNOW that the cars I really wanted I had already done the research on and deemed them inappropriate, out of the running somewhere along the line in the decision-making process. Because I did not express any initial preference, and how I had already conceded it, he felt I was advocating for my preference!

Again, hilarious!

So, I've decided I am out of these discussions for now. This endless itch may never get scratched. Sorry to anyone who I haven't answered questions to.

To [MENTION=13502]March[/MENTION], no, I have never advocated "INFJs needing to 'give up the right to doorslam' to be a reliable partner." I don't think I've even said anything remotely close to that. But nevertheless, thanks for your post.

 

[yeghor]

 

[yeghor]

...Here's an example from the forum and a previous, epic INFJ vs. INFP debate that raged on a while back. It was much like this thread: tense and angry in parts but also providing wonderful insights. Two posters offered criticisms of INFJ behaviour and the INFJ baulked at their style of address and thought it tainted their perspectives. Myself and other INFPs were trying to explain why those views were still of some value, despite the negative tone in which they were delivered. We also tried explain the mindset behind INFP thinking in hope of clarifying things. I felt the INFJs were stonewalling me; failing to appreciate and accept my attempts to remedy the communication difficulties. I suppose I felt like I was bending and accommodating as much as I could and the reaction was dismissal after dismissal (keep in mind this conversation had gone on for over 70 pages) - particularly what Z Buck was saying at one point.

I think Z Buck also experienced a breakdown at that point due to feeling that his/her perceptions of how offensive posters' were coming across were being invalidated...I think INFJ and INFP styles of communication are incompatible and make both sides feel invalidated...

INFJ focuses on intent/cause (why)...INFP focuses on affect (what)...

When you find ways to sidestep the distorted surface factors, you can avoid the "subjective noise" and figure out what's at the heart of the issue.

Why doesn't that (avoiding subjective noise) work with INFJs?

So Fi's failing is that it's highly specific and highly subjective. Fi reads and evaluates certain signs and Si catalogues and organises them. In other relevant situations, Si will bring up that information and Fi will judge the situation with that in mind. If that cycle becomes distorted, the evaluations of Fi will be conducted with a self-confirming bias framing the new information inaccurately. In this situation, Ne should work as the fail-safe. It looks past the narrow, surface perceptions of Si and projects outwards (rather than inwards), searchings for alternative explainations.

So Fi's an emotional barometer and associates/records (or pull back from the records) how the individual felt in a specific instance using Si...

So when a similar emotion is triggered in INFP it also invokes past memories (traumas in the event of negative feelings?) associated with that emotion?

So when a negative emotion is triggered in INFP, INFP is prone to associating it with a past event too readily without diligently examining whether the external circumstances/situation is predominantly the same with that of the past event? So may end up feeling justified/right in some situations despite the external circumstance may be dictating otherwise?

So, Ne should learn to filter Fi emotional output based on the immediate external circumstances like "I am feeling angry and this feels similar to this past event but this and this are different than that past event which may mean I must filter my emotional output cause it's not exactly appropriate for this case..."?

You're asking me? I would rather you tell me what you think.

I was hoping you could tell what (triggers and knots) you'd observed in INFJ emotional landscape based on your face to face interactions with INFJs, if any? Like, "hmm here's a hot spot/trigger, I should better not push this one...or adjust myself in such a way so I will not trigger it"?

Well I'm a 4w5 so the darkness in another person's soul doesn't frighten me (OTOH perhaps INFP 9s or 6s will back off more often). However, if the way that darkness manifests externally starts to cause problems that I can't find ways to remedy or reconcile with, I might be inclined to back off.

What if they do not want to allow you to disengage...like put an obligation on you to maintain the connection?

Oh you did? Great! Do you have any perspectives on it relating to doorslamming?

She was still a child...The mother and the manager both tried to milk her fame/glory/fortune and fought over her as if she was a property...She got stuck in the middle of the fire...Her manager violated rules of professionality and her parent violated rules of parenting...

Her mother wasn't fit for parenting as she couldn't manage her finances (by trying to compensate for her unhappiness thru spending)...She should have served as a safehaven where Jena could fall back onto whenever she was stressed from the workload...

Her mother lost sight of her daughter's wellbeing and instead focused on her own...and failed to recognize what she thought she had been doing for her daughter's wellbeing was actually causing her more harm than good...She should have fallen back, built a stable/happy life of her own (less dependent on Jena) where Jena could have taken refuge from the limelight...

I guess the mother had serious fear of abandonment and loneliness issues and was inadvertantly using her child as an emotional crutch and a friend to keep her company...

I think she handled it quite well given her age and that she had not resorted to drug and alcohol AFAIK...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judgment_of_Solomon

 

[March]

Ah, my apologies, [MENTION=5999]PeaceBaby[/MENTION]. (I know you're out of the discussion, just wanted to show you where I got confused.)

It was [MENTION=15291]Mane[/MENTION] who said:

i already explained how maintaining "the right to doorslam" in existing relationships if anything doesn't go your way is an unhealthy take of a 100% of the power in a relationship. giving that up is a healthy rebalancing of unequal power. essentially it's like holding a gun to every relationship's head for the prospecting doorslammer to judge when someone is dead to you (and then demanding they will play dead), as long as you hold that gun no relationship is ever going to have a healthy distribution of power unless they do the same to you.

And in your first post below that you say:

[MENTION=15291]Mane[/MENTION] is picking up on the path I'm nudging towards. It's about the recognition that in a typical relationship dynamic its unfair for one person to reserve control of 100% of the interactions (barring abusive scenarios which require these measures). Anyone reserving the "right" to terminate interactions unequivocally defeats any ability to solve complex issues and often leaves the other in a position of having to relinquish their own personal power to maintain peace. It feels like a metaphorical guillotine held over the head [...] When INFJ's (or anyone) hold the last card on the issue of doorslamming, they can, in effect, hold all of their interactions with others hostage to the ultimate power play.

Since [MENTION=15291]Mane[/MENTION] was advocating for relinquishing doorslamming, you said [MENTION=15291]Mane[/MENTION] was picking up on your path, and your arguments were the same, I figured that your path also took you past HIS conclusion. But you never actually explicitly said that, so I overlooked that there's room in your stance for something else, although I don't think I have the sense of nuance to decide exactly exactly your conclusion would be. Maybe you weren't advocating for anything, just summing up the way you see it without extrapolating into 'so a best practice would be X.'

(Interesting insight into my own perspective: I do think that everyone in a relationship with me has the same gun or guillotine. Of course they do, even. How could they not? Maybe my husband decides tomorrow that he's finally fed up with our little returning squabbles and picks up and leaves. I think that's his right, and I don't think I'd ever get a satisfactory explanation nor do I think I could talk him into giving me another chance, even though to me the relationship still looked like it could be saved. I'd be heartbroken and destroyed, but that doesn't mean he's wrong for doing so. As long as he doesn't torch the house and strip the bank accounts while he's at it. So that's a fair distribution of weapons, in a way.)

 

[Southern Kross]

I think Z Buck also experienced a breakdown at that point due to feeling that his/her perceptions of how offensive posters' were coming across were being invalidated...I think INFJ and INFP styles of communication are incompatible and make both sides feel invalidated...

I think that perhaps they are naturally less compatible but I think with some small adjustments in both the way each communicates and in the way they receive the information would help. We just need to figure out what works and what doesn't for each other. I do this all the time with different types IRL.

INFJ focuses on intent/cause (why)...INFP focuses on affect (what)...

Sort of. I think INFPs are more focused on "meaning". That can relate to both cause and effect but in the sense of what that they signify/entail/suggest. The "what" has no significance to me until I until I come to grips with what it means.

Why doesn't that (avoiding subjective noise) work with INFJs?

Oh it does for the most part. I've just had to learn more templates about dealing with them (and FJs in general). The problem is that they're such accommodating folks that when they not as direct in explaining what they need nor are they as vocal when they're dissatisfied.

But to be perfectly frank, I feel like that INFJs don't know their own emotional states and inclinations as well as they think they do - they can be like Thinkers in this regard. They're such experts in human behaviour but their emotional drives seem rather unconscious for them. It can be hard to get around this because they can have trouble accepting things that exist outside the realm of what they can perceive.

Anyway that's just an off-hand observation. Don't get me started on how dopey INFPs can be.

So Fi's an emotional barometer and associates/records (or pull back from the records) how the individual felt in a specific instance using Si...

So when a similar emotion is triggered in INFP it also invokes past memories (traumas in the event of negative feelings?) associated with that emotion?

So when a negative emotion is triggered in INFP, INFP is prone to associating it with a past event too readily without diligently examining whether the external circumstances/situation is predominantly the same with that of the past event? So may end up feeling justified/right in some situations despite the external circumstance may be dictating otherwise?

Basically yes. But Fi is not just feelings; it's more generally about evaluations.

So, Ne should learn to filter Fi emotional output based on the immediate external circumstances like "I am feeling angry and this feels similar to this past event but this and this are different than that past event which may mean I must filter my emotional output cause it's not exactly appropriate for this case..."?

Perhaps in STJs, but Ne is very strong in NFPs. Ne is more automatic for us. What I described, I guess, is a Fi-Si loop; when Ne shuts down. In healthy INFPs, Ne avoids this constantly on an everyday basis.

What I'm trying to get across is how Ne can prevent INFPs from using self-confirming information - which is something non-NFP MBTI enthusiasts fear (in theory) will be a problem in the type.

I was hoping you could tell what (triggers and knots) you'd observed in INFJ emotional landscape based on your face to face interactions with INFJs, if any? Like, "hmm here's a hot spot/trigger, I should better not push this one...or adjust myself in such a way so I will not trigger it"?

Oh, OK. They don't like presumptions to be made about them, especially if they're wrong. They need space when dealing with emotional stuff - so you shouldn't press them to respond to quickly. They hear observations as a call to action, so I have to be careful how I word things so they don't seem like demands, criticism or manipulation.

What if they do not want to allow you to disengage...like put an obligation on you to maintain the connection?

Awkward. People often do this to me - strangers do this to me. I usually put up with it until I can find an opening to escape - but I'm not good at dealing with that stuff.

With my family, or someone I'm really close to, I might blow up at them. I get very irritable when I'm constantly having demands place on me.

She was still a child...The mother and the manager both tried to milk her fame/glory/fortune and fought over her as if she was a property...She got stuck in the middle of the fire...Her manager violated rules of professionality and her parent violated rules of parenting...

Her mother wasn't fit for parenting as she couldn't manage her finances (by trying to compensate for her unhappiness thru spending)...She should have served as a safehaven where Jena could fall back onto whenever she was stressed from the workload...

Her mother lost sight of her daughter's wellbeing and instead focused on her own...and failed to recognize what she thought she had been doing for her daughter's wellbeing was actually causing her more harm than good...She should have fallen back, built a stable/happy life of her own (less dependent on Jena) where Jena could have taken refuge from the limelight...

I guess the mother had serious fear of abandonment and loneliness issues and was inadvertantly using her child as an emotional crutch and a friend to keep her company...

I think she handled it quite well given her age and that she had not resorted to drug and alcohol AFAIK..

Do you think what the mother did was unforgivable? Do you think that she may have made mistakes, things spiraled out of control, and she lost sight of what mattered?

Do you think Jena dealt with the situation in the best way possible? Do you think that her own issues may have contributed to the situation too?

(BTW I pretty much agree with everything you said - I'm just trying to pick your brain.)

 

[March]

Do you think what the mother did was unforgivable? Do you think that she may have made mistakes, things spiraled out of control, and she lost sight of what mattered?

Do you think Jena dealt with the situation in the best way possible? Do you think that her own issues may have contributed to the situation too?

(BTW I pretty much agree with everything you said - I'm just trying to pick your brain.)

Hi, barging into your conversation.

Is that what doorslamming seems to be about for non-INFJs? Whether something is forgivABLE?

In the case of Jena Malone, I think her mother sounds sweet, clueless, in over her head, and completely lacking in the education, resources and support system that could've alleviated those drawbacks. I think she made predictable human mistakes, and I think she did about as well as most people would have in that situation. Apart from petty acts of jealousy and revenge almost everybody is prone to occasionally, I think she meant well from start to finish.

Still, asking whether what she did is forgivable is like asking me whether Paris is reachable by car. It is, in theory, but at this time my car is completely out of gas and I don't have the money to fill it up.

In that situation, Jena was completely out of cope, and she didn't have the resources to fill up on it. So while nothing her mother had done was unforgivable, she didn't feel able to forgive right there and then and be happy or even productive with her around. You said that they'd reconciled? Jena seems to have been able to fill up on cope, shore up her own support system and resources, and maybe even grown some thicker skin. The doorslam of 'I'm not your daughter!' has probably never gone away completely - I don't see grown-up Jena going to her mother for the kind of advice daughters go to mothers for.

Was what she did the best/strongest/most humane and empathetic thing ever? Probably not. Still, she was out of cope, and that severely limits options. Besides, her cope tank was smaller because she was a kid in extraordinary circumstances, the situation had drained it completely, and it was clear that her mother wasn't going to stop being damaging (no matter how accidentally!) any time soon. Just because someone isn't damaging you out of malice, doesn't mean you have to keep standing in the path of the damage. Getting out of the way gracelessly and causing a bunch of bruises here and there is allowable, IMO.

 

[yeghor]

...But to be perfectly frank, I feel like that INFJs don't know their own emotional states and inclinations as well as they think they do - they can be like Thinkers in this regard. They're such experts in human behaviour but their emotional drives seem rather unconscious for them. It can be hard to get around this because they can have trouble accepting things that exist outside the realm of what they can perceive.

Some songs or movies can give me this feeling of bliss but that doesn't happen much IRL...I feel emotionally barren most of the time...In those times, what I don't know is whether it is there but I cannot recognize it or it is not there at all...

Oh, OK. They don't like presumptions to be made about them, especially if they're wrong.

"They don't like presumptions to be made about them, especially if they're wrong not properly justified in terms of cause and effect (Ti)." perhaps? Cause that makes those presumptions seem coming from out of nowhere or for some ulterior motive?

Do you think what the mother did was unforgivable? Do you think that she may have made mistakes, things spiraled out of control, and she lost sight of what mattered?

No it wasn't...She's her mother after all...And, yes, definitely...However, she pulled Jena inside her spiral as well when Jena was not old enough to be able to resist that effect...

Do you think Jena dealt with the situation in the best way possible? Do you think that her own issues may have contributed to the situation too?

Given her age, yes she did...She was not yet an adult...Her relationship with her mother was supposed to be adult-child relationship but the dynamic forced her to impose an peer-to-peer relationship on her own mother...She had to act like an adult when she was still a child and needed parenting...

She had to end and get out of the dynamic to be able to decide clearly on how to act...She had to put a barrier between herself and her mother so as to be able to do what she needed to do without feeling guilty (as the mother, having tied her own happiness to the possession of Jena, would inadvertantly keep pulling her strings), as that would, most likely, cause her to give in and revert back into her role the dynamic and enable her mother further...

The mother might even have spent Jena's earnings so as to unconciously render Jena dependent on her (or vice versa) and to impede her capacity to leave her (the mother) behind...

One thing they didn't do was that they could have gone to a therapist to sort out these issues...I don't know if that would have turned out to be fruitful though...

 

[Eilonwy]

But to be perfectly frank, I feel like that INFJs don't know their own emotional states and inclinations as well as they think they do - they can be like Thinkers in this regard. They're such experts in human behaviour but their emotional drives seem rather unconscious for them. It can be hard to get around this because they can have trouble accepting things that exist outside the realm of what they can perceive.

Yes. This is absolutely correct for me. I don't always know my emotional states. Strong feelings can be confusing--I can interpret them as being something they're not. And the ones that feel good can be somewhat addictive in a way. And they attach me to the people I feel them for, sometimes in ways that are against my own good sense. I can see how I could start to blame the other person for "causing" those feelings in me, when they have no idea of what I'm feeling, and I have no idea of why I'm feeling it.

After reading the discussion in this thread, that started after @Zarathustra joined in, I realized that if I commit to relationships based on my feelings, I am most likely making a shaky commitment. I don't know how the other NF-types do it, but they seem to be able to trust their feelings in ways that I can't, or shouldn't. @Amargith's second paragraph here summed it up for me--I don't think I know how to commit based only on intimacy, so I shouldn't. I can't trust my feelings alone to make those decisions for me because I don't have a lot of control over those feelings and they aren't stable. I do need to be more like the Thinkers when it comes to close, intimate relationships.

I also think that perhaps the way I experience my own feelings might work well when it's applied to whole groups of relationships, or non-intimate relationships. I can get a feel for those types of connections, see where problems in those relationships might lie, and look for solutions to those problems. But, all the mirroring and vagueness don't seem to work well when focused towards close, one-on-one relationships. For those, I need to find a different way of relating.

I've come to see that I have to take responsibility for my own feelings, rather than relying on others to take care of them for me. That doesn't mean that others have no responsibility towards me in return, but I think I didn't know in what ways those responsibilities should be shared out, especially in intimate relationships. I can't base my commitments/decisions/judgements solely on what feels good and what feels bad, which I think I have a tendency to do.

 

[Amargith]

Yes. This is absolutely correct for me. I don't always know my emotional states. Strong feelings can be confusing--I can interpret them as being something they're not. And the ones that feel good can be somewhat addictive in a way. And they attach me to the people I feel them for, sometimes in ways that are against my own good sense. I can see how I could start to blame the other person for "causing" those feelings in me, when they have no idea of what I'm feeling, and I have no idea of why I'm feeling it.

After reading the discussion in this thread, that started after @Zarathustra joined in, I realized that if I commit to relationships based on my feelings, I am most likely making a shaky commitment. I don't know how the other NF-types do it, but they seem to be able to trust their feelings in ways that I can't, or shouldn't. @Amargith's second paragraph here summed it up for me--I don't think I know how to commit based only on intimacy, so I shouldn't. I can't trust my feelings alone to make those decisions for me because I don't have a lot of control over those feelings and they aren't stable. I do need to be more like the Thinkers when it comes to close, intimate relationships.

I also think that perhaps the way I experience my own feelings might work well when it's applied to whole groups of relationships, or non-intimate relationships. I can get a feel for those types of connections, see where problems in those relationships might lie, and look for solutions to those problems. But, all the mirroring and vagueness don't seem to work well when focused towards close, one-on-one relationships. For those, I need to find a different way of relating.

Thank you for confirming something I've wondered for a long time - and to [MENTION=5871]Southern Kross[/MENTION] for having the balls and eloquence to put it out there, for that matter. In that respect, I feel that it really shows that ENFP and INFJ are each others shadow sides. I actually have no doubt you do have the capability of examining your own feelings, and the evaluation of intimacy, as you guys are highly perceptive of emotional states, but it isn't a skill you're fully willing to lean on as you don't practice it enough in that particular field - and I feel the same about INFJs strengths. I miss the impulse to orchestrate and check up on people, the way you do, and big groups overwhelm me if I don't make a conscious shift to my shadow functions to manage that stuff, not to mention it tires me out way faster - compared to my natural process that almost automatically runs in the background.


It also explains why INFJs are The Counsellor- it is a business situation where they can perfectly give their gifts the room they need, in a detached, impersonal manner, while still being warm, friendly, reassuring and incredibly perceptive, in the way the patient needs to address things.

 

[cafe]

I almost never know my emotional state on the spot. I'll sometimes notice there's a disturbance in the force and when I do, I usually try to figure it out but I don't actually have a lot of emotions of my own very often. Or I'm not conscious of having them.

I'm much more often moved by the strong expression of emotion from others than I am moved by my own emotions. Books, movies, TV news easily make me cry. I cry about my own stuff maybe a handful of times a year. Usually I'm hormonal and I'm crying from frustration. If I'm showing overt emotion of my own, there is probably something physically wrong with me weakening my reserves. Sickness, hunger, exhaustion, extremes in temperature. I won't even realize I'm cranky until I encounter another person and realize I'm becoming irritated way out of proportion to the behavior.

That's why I almost never address stuff when it initially upsets me. I don't know what's upsetting me and I don't know if it's that big a deal or if I forgot to eat. A lot of times, by the time I figure it out, it seems pretty silly to bring it up. But if, over time, I start seeing a pattern, then it starts to become a big deal. Or it could become an unconscious negative association like Pavlov's dogs.