| Socionics Personals |  | Female
Straight
16-25
Oceania
Libra
ENFj |
|  | Male
Straight
16-25
Middle East
Sagittarius
INTj |
|  | Male
Straight
26-35
North America
Pisces
INXj |
| | Join now! |
Who is who?Learn how to convert between different systems
V.I.An introduction into the widely used Socionics Visual Identification technique
TestsA collection of Socionics related tests and quizes
Q & AsAsk a Socionics related question or provide an answer to an existing one
ArticlesVarious articles on the subject of Socionics and Types in general
ForumsWant to discuss Type? Head to Socionics Forums!
|
| Questions & Answers |
| Question #1191877812 | Monday, 8-Oct-2007 |
|
|
| I am ISTp .. How do I stop running away when people want to get to know me too personally. This applies to partners, family and work collegues, who all develop perspect for me, then want to get to know me deeper then I mess things up intentionally to keep distance. Any ISTp out there with similar issue? Any advice esp. from my dual would be useful -- Cyclops |
|
| A30 Interesting criticism. I found some inaccuracies in your evaluation, and will break them down point by point. 1; >> "I give them a demonstrator on how their interactions work for me. They burn their fingers on it, and behaves with much more respect and trust afterwards." If thats how everyone did it, human species wouldve already been extinct. And that breaks even the little already accumulated trust rather than building it my friend.<< You are probably not my friend, however, I won't oppose your statement objectively. I wasnt giving universal guidance to how people should perform in such situations. I claim the privilege to establish my own procedures and apply them within the described frames, and advice others accordingly if I see resemblences with my own thinking. Just like you have done. I am a solution oriented person, and when I am facing misery, counter actions or any other kind of undesirable resistance life may have to offer, I go in endeavour exclusevily for practical solutions of the problems, that is, a good practical fix. Now, in such terrain, you may very well approach me with blunt curiosity about the nature of the problems, as long as I know you can provide practical assets or at least a practical angle of interest. And I can detect that ability quite fast. If you do not comply with this, and approach with emotional agendas, like emotional curiosity, unrestrained emphaty or such, you just add to the problems, diving further into problems I try to disassociate emotionally from to maintain good focus for troubleshooting, for the sake of fixing it practically. Besides, let's say a person suffers when I am suffering, why in the world should he or she do that apart from initials? Now, symphaty is symphatic, emphaty likewise, I can give and take both, to a certain degree, so let that rest, curiosity for curiosity's sake is another. I 've been there, heard it, experienced it, and I am not impressed by such ventures beyond the initial, said the very least. Counter productive. Fix it if it can be fixed. If they do not catch the benefits of my approach, then so be it, but at least pay that much respect to not drag me into such counter productive procedures. They dont work for me, never had. We all have a need to some degree venting problems, and the associated measures to present them, and I have been in the receiving and delivering end of such more than once, and that is OK for a starter, just dont continue with it. 2;>>"they probe for some kind of reassurance, you could give them all kinds of reassurances in the world, and still it won't work for long." Have you ever tried trusting someone enough to believe they will be satisfied, happy and understanding if you give them exactly what they are asking for? I bet not.<< Interesting again, trust, it seems you need more of that than I do, and then we have an established unsurmountable difference, and a completely diverging approach on life. I saw on a reality show sometime, an individual claimed that given the extreme conditions right on the edge, you cant really trust noone, not even your parents. That statement sparked an intense debate, and the incident divided the group in a fascinating pattern. Covered the entire spectrum from trust hungry to trust indifference. I do not demand trust from anyone, why should I impose that responsibility on others? If I say I will do something, I will do it. If on the other hand, you'd ask again and again if I will do it, to boost faulty trust, you are really facing inwards. Then I'll demonstrate how they shall behave, since they have broken a few essential rules; trust is built by actions, and if they suspect my actions wont come through, they obviously have mistrusted my personality, which I can forgive, or oversee unless it becomes manifested by repetitive requests. On the other hand though, it is far more serious to me that they have misjudged my competence, undervalued my ability to follow up, and acknowledged that quality, I do not like to understate my competence with reassurances, se hace falta, as in spanish. Because until I have done it, it remains undone, no matter to what extent assurances have been issued. 3;>> I would hate to ask for something as simple as water from somebody like you cause I would never get it at all as you'll believe all the seven oceans wouldn't be enough... you'll most probably let me die out of dehydration to save your cup full of water<< Here you are completely right to the extreme, out in the astro. I will give you a demo; In a church far back in my history there were a sunday ministry and a story about Saul. I have forgotten most details about his life and relevant ventures, but he had been prosecuted in extreme ways by someone, and managed to foregive them. A biblical example how people may handle undesirable interactions by other people. A man beside me was obviously impressed by this figure's performance in consolation, and he turned to me and asked; "Could you have done the same?" >Tough one I replied, probably not, I have to imagine someone harmed me to intolerance physically and then some, lying on my doorstep dehydrated(yes, really, thanks for the metaphor). Now, as I said to him, > I am really facing two different situations to consider; Objectively that person needs water, subjectively I have a need for justice. But two separate events in time and space. So, I would have given him water until recuperated, and then probably settled the affairs. It is right to help him, and there is also a need for most to settle justice. But it is NOT right to take advantage of his temporary handicap, cause that really doesnt relate to the story. So you would have received your water allright, tons of it if needed, even if you'd been my enemy. There is no conflict in that, unless it would have given you a strategic advantage of some kind in a friend\foe environment. More than once I've helped persons I do not like, because of their bad actions and just each time I did it because it was the right thing to do in that given situation. They needed help, so I can disassociate from emotional issues if objectivity demands it, and I am glad I have that ability. 4;>> Why does it hurt you to give straightforward reassurances? Is there something you need to hide? I'd be much more happy and comfortable not trusting someone like you than wonder over and over if this time you are telling the truth ("or downright hand out loads of desinformation"),<< This is the exact kind of probing I referred to, thanks for the opportunity given. Jump-on-conclusive misguided impressions and interpretations in reality , rationalising the imaginations about the psychology behind them, with non warranted emotions. As you may have realized now, I have no need for trust generally as long as it doesnt infringe on my freedom in actions and words, and you are not an exception, so save it to others. It doesnt hurt me to tell truths as per se, I can guarantee it, but truth to me is an obvious thing in itself, in it's own actions and proven by actions, agenda depleated, what the heck can beat that? On the other hand though, repetitive verbal assurances takes a considerable toll on my patience since it undervalues and undermine the integrity of my competence to act. Talk proof vs. do proof. Indulgence in words rather than appreciation of actions. And if people do not believe I mean and do what I say, well, so be it, but that is an obvious lack of trust by the other party, isnt it? I just wont use much time on them, that is all. Why should I persuade someone to trust me? If that is needed something essential is lacking in the picture in the first place. I work better with people that takes a statement intitally and let you prove what you say. Dont waste my time assuring, give me time to act. That is what I need. >> You've still got a lot to learn about life kid<< Haha... tell me one who doesn't. That remark just have to stand by itself. 5;>>I hope you'll find your perfect match soon who can make you comfortable and trust enough to open up to the joy of doing things just to cause someone happiness<< Sincerely, thanks for wishes, (no sarcasm), but frankly I do not need anyone in that fashion anylonger. And I detest the idea to approach someone with personal comfort as an agenda, like you described. What a demand! Such doesnt fit together anymore in my world, I prefer to seek independant comfort, tranquil indepence, in speech, talk, thoughts, philosophies and physical movement. A ride to to enhance and accept my existencial without creating demands for others to fulfill, in order to maintain it's presence. I have seen more than once relationships beeing established with almost pure personal agendas, like; I NEED someone, I want to be FULFILLED by someone, I can't LIVE alone, etc. Creating momentums of unescapable unfulfilled selfsufficiency. Now, to what extent is such behaviour reflecting altruism? Would'nt it be quite a tremendous productive idea to sort out such things BEFORE you invite someone into your life? I mean, doing something for them without having personal rewarding agendas or needs? Very seldom seen though, if ever I have seen it. Dolly Parton have a lyric though in "I will always love you" ; Wishes her departing partner all the best in the new relationship. Now that is Kantian philosophy! According to Kant, even doing right things for people because it gives you something back in comfort isnt the optimal action. Das ding an sich, when you do it because the action is an action in it's own right and it's consequence fits with universal, sustainable integrity of benefit, free from personal agendas what so ever, you have the optimum. I share that wiew, and strive to encompass it in everything I do. But trying to reassure unassured individuals is to me to enhance and consolidate an already manifested undesirable deficiency. And accordingly I will resist following that approach- -- A27 ENTp until proven otherwise |
|
|
| A31 You A30 dont have a life do you? "I give them a demonstrator on how their interactions work for me. They burn their fingers on it, and behaves with much more respect and trust afterwards." If thats how everyone did it, human species wouldve already been extinct. And that breaks even the little already accumulated trust rather than building it my friend.<< You are probably not my friend" AWESOME! this means I dont have to worry about you or responding to your bs. I was going to say a little more but i got lazy. -- the real entp |
| *Please note that the opinions expressed are not necessarily those of socionics.com* |
|
| Would you like to add anything? |
(When posting, we ask you to make the effort to qualify your opinions.)
|
|
