Personality Cafe banner

1 - 20 of 46 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
730 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
I was struggling to come up with what exactly this is- is it a mentality, is it a belief, is it a subconscious defence mechanism, is it a perspective, is it deeper- is it a survival thing?

I've heard this "I don't like to be put into a box" and "I don't believe in putting people into boxes" said many times by a range of people and I'm just wondering what NTs thoughts are on this, have or haven't heard it. What do you think when you hear this perspective? Do you think it's all a matter of perspective? (Ha-ha, just wanted to use perspective twice to make it sound funny) Do you guys have this perspective as your own?

It'll be interesting to see how Fi in NTJs differs compared to Fe in NTPs.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,146 Posts
"Don't assume parameters because things are rarely absolute" e.g don't presume I will do something based on an attribute I share with someone similar or a group, don't expect me to always approach a situation in the same way, don't assume I will adhere to the "usual" way of doing/seeing things, etc.

Individuality exists and it's dismissive to label or box someone based solely on the sum of their parts/superficial reasons.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,800 Posts
I find that assigning identity traits to someone is rude, violent and narrow-minded, being aware that I can't know someone's circumstances, I prefer to hold my judgement of one's actions in order to avoid any situational bias.

This is also true when I'm the one being "judged". I usually react trying to prove the other person wrong :D
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,566 Posts
I was struggling to come up with what exactly this is- is it a mentality, is it a belief, is it a subconscious defence mechanism, is it a perspective, is it deeper- is it a survival thing?
Well, you're putting those people in a box by trying to narrow their individual motivations down to one type of phenomenon. I'm sure that what it is varies from person to person.

I've heard this "I don't like to be put into a box" and "I don't believe in putting people into boxes" said many times by a range of people and I'm just wondering what NTs thoughts are on this, have or haven't heard it. What do you think when you hear this perspective?
Usually I get annoyed, not only because I hate it when people parrot phrases (rather than explaining in their own words), but also because I know that the person saying it is quite fine with putting/being put into some boxes and not others, yet the phrase (and sometimes what, if anything, comes after it) does not allow me to differentiate.

In my experience it communicates little or nothing, so I generally disengage, taking it as a sign that whoever says it isn't really thinking about what she's saying.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,387 Posts
Well, you're putting those people in a box by trying to narrow their individual motivations down to one type of phenomenon. I'm sure that what it is varies from person to person.



Usually I get annoyed, not only because I hate it when people parrot phrases (rather than explaining in their own words), but also because I know that the person saying it is quite fine with putting/being put into some boxes and not others, yet the phrase (and sometimes what, if anything, comes after it) does not allow me to differentiate.

In my experience it communicates little or nothing, so I generally disengage, taking it as a sign that whoever says it isn't really thinking about what she's saying.
This is the reason I try to avoid buzz words and unnecessary jargon as much as possible. It becomes a barrier for the speaker and the listener to understand one another. They rely on the other to recognize a word/phrase and assign a meaning for it to make a discussion easier (especially if they have a weak grasp on their meaning to begin with), and in so doing sacrifice real communication as the context of the terms might be entirely different for each of them.

I find it particularly frustrating when people expect to see specific kinds of congruity that reinforces their prejudices, otherwise they get confused and automatically reject whatever doesn't fit.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
912 Posts
The former may mean "I don't want to be restrained". Either he may not like feel like if he's not free of do something he likes, or maybe he just want to feel chained to someone he doesn't like. Or maybe is a negative statement about someone who doesn't want to receive help, as the box may mean "family" or even worse, a mental health center. Or in a neutral way, he doesn't want to be part of something that doesn't exactly attract him. The box may mean "social standarts", and he doesn't want to be in a box because he doesn't like those standarts.

The later phrase implies that he doesn't want to cut other people's freedom. He wants to assure everyone can be free, living in peace and coexistence, with people doing what they like, enjoying their time in life without any kind of restriction. A negative way to see it would be "I want chaos among the people", no organizations, no institutions, all that equals chaos and anarky, people are not in the rolemodel, all can do t¿whatever what they want. Neutral way would mean "don't follow that choice" because either he doesn't like it and thinks he have a better choice.






Or maybe he literally doesn't want to be in a box. Did you ever tried to sleep in a box? That's unconfortable. Same with people in the box, I don't want to waste my day putting people in a cargo box.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
188 Posts
This reminds me of a thought experiment from Wittgenstein called ‘beetle-in-the-box,’ which is:

- A group of people that have their own box with a beetle in each of them. Each person can individually view their own beetle, but others can’t really take a peek at it, nor can they open it.

The box can be analogous to one’s physicality, and the beetle can be analogous to one’s qualia – the latter being something other people can’t really have direct, third-person access to. In spite of this futility of exactly knowing that other person’s inner experience, their sonder, i.e., the awareness of everyone having their own story, individuality, and complexity, we still end up being predisposed in putting people in boxes. Maybe not just for the sake of being biased, or just to relate to them, but also realizing that by doing so, one is acknowledging those are people that would also like to think they have their own box with their own beetle in it that no one else can tap into.

By hearing another person, or feeling as if another person is putting them in a box, the intimidation may be rooted towards the idea that this person-in-question has mastery over the other person’s box, and maybe even their own beetle. Indirectly, one realizes the futility of this, and thus the scoffing and pffting begins. Ironically though, when we try to feel we can have mastery over our own qualia, and even what instantiates that qualia into being (e.g. the back-office of our brains that seems to make it so), we may over time realize that it’s also futile to feel we can become that ‘unconscious totality.’

So while we’re trying to build rapport with this conflict that we can’t become masters of the back-office of our minds, feeling others putting us in boxes causes another conflict because if we truly were masters of own beetles/qualia, we may lack the ability to advance ourselves further. Seeing others that seem to feel they have our dispositions down to perfection would become intimidating and a dead-end sometimes because the futility becomes doubly apparent – if we can’t really be masters of what instantiates our beetle, i.e., our qualia, what gives that person the audacity to feel they can be masters of who we really are?

And yet, the double-edged sword here is while the above I posted is probably prevalent, we still end up doing it because by doing so, we build an assurance that those other boxes have their own little story, and are sentient as much as we are. This can either make a person feel a sense of peace that there’s impermanence with one’s own continuity and others, or disgusted. It just depends on how they react to this fork-road.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
73 Posts
Reality is infinitely complex. People have a hard time figuring out themselves, let alone everyone they meet. The solution is to put people into low resolution boxes of identity upon seeing them, as we do with all objects. It isn't until we start to interact with people that we begin to improve the resolution of these boxes. This is done based on the exchange of all sorts information, so that means there are two parties involved in constructing the box. The person constructing the box and the person being boxed. And most of the time there is a box being constructed the other way around as well.

For instance, if I walk down the street and I see a guy walking with long hair, a slayer T-shirt and ripped jeans, I immediatly put him in the 'metalhead box'. Notice that this is being done based on the information this person emits through physical appearance, and my understanding of the metalhead demographic. It isn't until I start to interact with this guy when I can start improving the resolution of my very crude box I constructed for him, and thus improve my interaction with him.

Very important to note, you have a large influence on how people 'box' you. The comment 'I don't like being boxed' to me is utter rubbish. Everyone does it, including you. So you had better accept it and do something with it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,332 Posts
Like people with special snowflake syndrome, they seek validity in uniqueness and can't stand being compared with others.

Then again... sometimes being boxed with one you don't identify with does feel a bit unfair. Depends on how well defined those boxes are, too, as some are way more sensitive to it than others.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,344 Posts
Putting things/people in a hypothetical "box" is nothing more than labelling a subset of the shared peoperties of those things/people. For example, labelling a group of people as "Liberals" is a way of refering to their shared ideologies and attitudes towards certain things. It doesn't tell you anything else about each specific person. When you read a Wikipedia article about a famous person, it usually starts with their name, followed by their nationality and occupations. These are simply categories and labels (properties) attributed to that person. I don't see a problem with that. For example, if you wanted to do a search on all famous Computer Scientists, it'd be really difficult to do without having such labels (indeed, the term wouldn't even be defined if we didn't have "boxes"!).

When people talking about being "put in a box", they usually mean that in a negative way. The only possible reason I can think of for dissapproving of this is that either they do not like the connotations, implications, associations, implications etc. of being in said category, or they feel it is not representative of who they are (or both). For example, some Americans may take offense when people make general statements about Americans as a whole. So basically I think the problem is stereotyping; a fundamental violation of basic set theory principles. To say that a handful of Americans belong to the "climate change deniers" category does not generalize to the entire population of the USA.

TL;DR: Boxes are fine. The way in which they're used and defined in some cases is innaccurate abd/or misleading.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,679 Posts
I was struggling to come up with what exactly this is- is it a mentality, is it a belief, is it a subconscious defence mechanism, is it a perspective, is it deeper- is it a survival thing?

I've heard this "I don't like to be put into a box" and "I don't believe in putting people into boxes" said many times by a range of people and I'm just wondering what NTs thoughts are on this, have or haven't heard it. What do you think when you hear this perspective? Do you think it's all a matter of perspective? (Ha-ha, just wanted to use perspective twice to make it sound funny) Do you guys have this perspective as your own?

It'll be interesting to see how Fi in NTJs differs compared to Fe in NTPs.
I've never seen the 'don't put me in a box' attitude in someone without it being accompanied by one of the following:

1) "OMG I'M SUCH A SPECIAL LITTLE SNOWFLAKE THAT I'M COMPLETELY UNLIKE ANYONE ELSE WHO HAS EVER LIVED!!!11" (i.e. immature delusional crap)

2) "I am a dishonest POS and I don't want people to know, so stop trying to figure me out." (garden variety trailer/ghetto trash ranging on out to one of the full-blown Cluster B personality disorders.)

3) Both.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,721 Posts
I've only known two people who've said this on a consistent basis. They were both incredibly obnoxious and all too willing to box in those that boxed or labeled them.

Good luck with that. It's human nature to categorize whether we like the labels or not.

I understand the need to assert one's identity, especially if you feel that the labeler got you wrong, I just don't see the point in shouting about it. If you know what you are and are confident with that, then why does it matter that people outside of you think you're something else? It's not like they matter in the grand scheme of your individuality.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,082 Posts
As an INTP who has of course been persecuted for being lazy, slob, know-it-all, arrogant, bum, their whole life. It's nice to know at least one or two people in a hundred are like me. For other people to say Albert Einstein is like me... makes me happy that I'm not condemned to be a waste of space and contribute nothing to society. So... bring on the box.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,053 Posts
"Don't assume parameters because things are rarely absolute" e.g don't presume I will do something based on an attribute I share with someone similar or a group, don't expect me to always approach a situation in the same way, don't assume I will adhere to the "usual" way of doing/seeing things, etc.

Individuality exists and it's dismissive to label or box someone based solely on the sum of their parts/superficial reasons.
I agree! Humans are quite complex and no human could be fully put into a box. Heck! This is even seen with the MBTI since there is variation within each type. Not all INTJs are going to behave exactly like another INTJ - we're just all INTJ because we have some attitudes and perceptions that correlate with each other.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
39 Posts
As an INTP who has of course been persecuted for being lazy, slob, know-it-all, arrogant, bum, their whole life. It's nice to know at least one or two people in a hundred are like me. For other people to say Albert Einstein is like me... makes me happy that I'm not condemned to be a waste of space and contribute nothing to society. So... bring on the box.
:m0827: I was delighted to discover MBTI and the fact that I wasn't some sort of sub human freak, just an INTJ and there were others out there like me. So yes, bring that box on!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,679 Posts
I've heard this "I don't like to be put into a box" and "I don't believe in putting people into boxes" said many times by a range of people and I'm just wondering what NTs thoughts are on this, have or haven't heard it. What do you think when you hear this perspective?
When people say that kind of thing, I hear them saying they are a special little snowflake, are afraid someone will figure them out, or both.

Harsh, but true.
 
1 - 20 of 46 Posts
Top