Personality Cafe banner
1 - 20 of 33 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
762 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 · (Edited)
I just uploaded a video with my thoughts and experience regarding doorslamming. INFJs such as myself seem to be known in MBTI circles for doorslamming. I'd be interested in what INFJs and other types have to say about it... your own experiences and thoughts as doorslammers/-slammees, as well as responses to my video. Feel free to respond through writing or your own video!

 

·
MOTM August 2012
Joined
·
3,467 Posts
I'm not sure where this idea of 'doorslamming' comes from because it is not rooted anywhere in any actual theory. It's more like some myth about INFJs that's been perpetuated online from God knows who or why?

But this kind of behavior is very specifically a result of Inferior or really undeveloped Feeling.

In Lectures on Jungian Typology Hillman writes,
Inferior Feeling has trouble standing for its feelings. It has trouble supporting its own principles and values, especially if it has to take on an unpleasant task or hurt someone. A man may rule an organization yet be unable to fire an inefficient or disloyal secretary; the parent in the family who takes over the punishing of the children will usually be the one with the better Feeling function; and analyst with inferior Feeling will be unable to cope with his and his patient's aggression.

When it [Feeling] does have a principle to defend, inferior Feeling may of course overdo it. In women, the animus comes in to help overdo things. A woman breaks with her lover and makes the cut surgically or like an architect according to plan. Her values are iron-clad, and she finds a lawyer to support them! Should the man or husband want to see her again, she will unyielding in finding "no reason" for meeting. It just drags things out; it's only his anima-pathos. The reason to see him may be Feeling itself, but inferior Feeling does not evaluate itself; its energy is on its evaluations, formulations of Feeling, affects (physiological effects of emotions), and the all-or-none- reaction of "in-love" or "Cut off."
In other words, anytime you see someone acting in these cartoonishly dramatic ways, that deal specifically with evaluation of a person, or a circumstance, or a job, you can bet that a warped, or childish or under-developed Feeling is at work. True Feeling as the function whose job it is the evaluate, if working properly should actually be much more discerning. Able to see the shades of grey and nuance as all good evaluation should. Now this is being very pure about the Feeling function, because no one exists with only Feeling in a vacuum, most people live in personas and often even Feeling-types, operate on a very archaic level of Feeling. Proper evaluation sees the positive and negative and then reacts appropriately. This appropriateness (really timeliness) is the hallmark of well-developed Feeling (few people really are this far along though), but the kind of childishness that doorslamming represents, one, anyone can be susceptible to, and two, generally represents a very poor development of the Feeling function.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
999 Posts
It's a tough situation. Interpersonal conflict is very complex. Your internal struggle with this issue is indicative of how much you care and how much weight your friend has in your life. The fact that you haven't actually doorslammed, and that you're here discussing it and looking for advice from others who have been in your shoes, is a sign of maturity and that you're actually not OK with the act of doorslamming. You're aware that there is an urge to do it, but you're not OK with that urge and, therefore, you are struggling with it.

I recommend giving it time. Don't feel rushed to act. Let the dust settle in your mind and your heart and, in that time, you'll gain new and better perspective. You'll be more informed to make your decision.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,517 Posts
This appropriateness (really timeliness) is the hallmark of well-developed Feeling (few people really are this far along though), but the kind of childishness that doorslamming represents, one, anyone can be susceptible to, and two, generally represents a very poor development of the Feeling function.
When you say appropriateness, do you mean that in some situations that it is actually the recognition that there is an impasse to never be overcome (or even to escape an abusive situation) and the only thing to be done is a "permaban" out of someone's life? One difference I guess I'd like to chip in that in my case that the door is never completely slammed shut forever (nothing is ever forever with me, unfortunately), unless in a rather extreme situation. If you're trying to grow and there are people in your life suffocating you or dragging you down, isn't the natural thing to do is walking out or shutting them out permanently or until they change, or does the doorslamming experience actually have to be considered permanent with no possibility of reopening? I may have misinterpreted the whole idea. I just know I like to cut serious offenders out surgically from tons of bad past experiences and see no other way. It's not to be a cold-hearted bitch but for self-preservation. I can do that chb stuff plenty without needing to doorslam, but that's another story.
 
  • Like
Reactions: pneumoceptor

·
MOTM August 2012
Joined
·
3,467 Posts
Well Feeling tells us what is appropriate (either based on our internal archetypal response in the form of Introversion or an appeal to social evaluation in the form of Extraversion).

What I mean by appropriateness is the ability to discern what is the appropriate measure of action to take at the moment. Remember Feeling is all about evaluations. Sometimes a proper evaluation means having to leave that abusive husband, or having to stick to the job you don't like because it pays the bills (much of this gets confused for Thinking, but these are really evaluative processes). To be mature in your Feeling is to understand how to properly and appropriately deal with both the hot and the cold of life. The parts of life that we like and the parts of life that we don't.

Doorslamming as it is commonly portrayed in the INFJ world is simply an immature expression of not wanting to deal with a problem. It simply is the same thing as saying "this problem is dead to me, or I don't want to deal with the personal or real implications of my life or the actions of others." Unfortunately this is about as far as most people get in their Feeling process. A very, almost adolescent and egocentric disposition. But like I said real Feeling is able to properly and appropriately evaluate.

I think you point out something that deserves repeating. The immature person doorslams and says "I never want to see you again," or whatever comes to their mind, either to themselves or to the other person. But real Feeling often demands otherwise. It often demands reconciliation after time passes, even if its just internally forgiving yourself or the other person. To deny this process is just egocentricity. The reality of the matter is that people are wronged all the time. That life really isn't fair and that the rain falls on the just and the unjust. So the question then becomes how do you deal with this when it happens, and the function that is charged with handling this, is the Feeling function.

On another thread I sort of got in a little spat, parroting James Hillman, about how today's society really doesn't know how to deal with Feeling in a mature way. So often these sorts of behaviors, people will undoubtedly find a myriad of Thinking rationalizations to reconcile these eruptions in people, because proper evaluation is something we generally tend not emphasize. It's all about the here and now and what's in it for me. So its no wonder that something like 'doorslamming' would become a buzz word in these circles. Without being too preachy, I often wonder about people who routinely (and I say routinely to differentiate from the occasional accident) end up in situations where they feel compelled to 'doorslam.' It makes you question that person's level of discernment. Haven't you learned to better evaluate? Fool me once shame on me, fool me twice....It seems sometimes that we like to hide behind things like "I'm an INFJ therefore I doorslam, or I'm an INTP therefore I don't have to be respectful to the people around me," with a sort of juvenile carelessness (now that does take into consideration that many people on here are in fact juveniles, so they get something of a pass since they are still in the process of adaptation). But in the real world, there are plenty of grown folks who behave just as impudently (just turn on daytime television or CSPAN). Instead of properly evaluating why we are compelled to behave this way (which I would hope is what attracts people personality theory and not justification) we simply act on it and then try to justify after the fact ("that's just how I am.")

That's why I get sort of peeved when I read stuff about "the INFJ doorslam" as if it was perfectly normal for people of this type to go about life like this. Because there are real situations where you do have to properly evaluate whether or not to stick around to hit the road and these often aren't (as in the case of the battered wife) to be trivialized.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
762 Posts
Discussion Starter · #6 ·
Maybe another question that all of this brings up is, do you think that INFJs are more likely to instill permabans than other types? I'm not talking about what people *should* do or what the healthy way to interact is. I'm asking whether INFJs (or some other type) have a propensity towards doorslamming. For example, I would say that FJs would be more likely to slam than FPs...
 

·
MOTM August 2012
Joined
·
3,467 Posts
A doorslam involves closure, removing options. Ji-Pe likes to keep options open more than Je-Pi.
Why?

I mean this is something that MBTI and its proponents often hold, but they never actually explain why. Why would extraverted perception want to keep things open? What difference would it make? Can not an introverted judgment type be just as closed as an Extraverted Judgment type. Isn't judgment, judgment?

I'm being rhetorical about this, but this is what I get at all these fairy tale type stories that float around the MBTI world that don't make any sense. Perception is just perception. This implies that the perception functions are making judgments (and in the case of INFP and INTP types, that those perception functions are overruling the dominant introverted judging function). None of this makes any real sense. The only reason you can't have people who are open-ended judgers or decided 'perceivers' is because MBTI says so. Based on their own rules. They simply deny the possibility that a 'likes things decided' INFP could exist (despite the Inferior Te of an INFP).

So I just don't understand this whole thing about FJ types being more willing to doorslam, how this would be anything other than the immaturity of the individual (in other words related more to their social development and not their type).

Removing options has nothing to do with Extraverted Perception that is judgment (generally Feeling judgment but could also be Thinking) too. And everyone has the capability of this. Have you ever met someone who was truly incapable of removing from his or her life things (or people) that were of no more value? I mean if we want to keep up this charade of INFJs doorslam or whatever that's fine, but its not theoretical, it's not real life, it doesn't pertain to anything coherent other than some internet borne legend. If you can find a book (from someone reputable like Thomson, or Quenk, Beebe, Nardi, Pearman, Hillman, Von Franz) or some research that equivocally states "INFJs doorslam," I'd be happy to see it personally. Otherwise its just as urban legend as the whole "INFPs are emo" thing.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
762 Posts
Discussion Starter · #10 ·
LL, I appreciate your skepticism and your contention that, if there's no "research" indicating a particular trait, then it may be a wives' tale.

I have much anecdotal evidence in my own life of Ji-Pe types desiring less closure and Je-Pi types desiring more. This is not to say that one type is more 'judgmental' than another per se... that term doesn't even really apply to MBTI, because we are all judgers and perceivers. The orientation is what matters. And in my own experience, it *does* matter in terms of desire for closure. Now, I don't know whether this would particularly apply to doorslamming, which is why I welcome all of this discussion.

I agree that introverted judgments are just as "closured" as extraverted. The difference is that they're internal and may not seek to affect the external world. My extraverted judgments seek to affect the world, not just my insides.

I agree that it's not useful to make blanket statements about Pe's never desiring closure and Je's never desiring open-endedness. But I'm talking about propensities here. I'll stand by my statement that Ji-Pe likes to keep options open more than Je-Pi, in general. I would welcome the input of some Ji-Pe types reading this. If you disagree with me, please speak up!

This is a very specific example and may not be universal, but my experience is that an FJ such as myself, when "at the end of his/her rope", would experience the desire to cut someone out of his/her life "forever". Now, my morals tell me that this is unloving, so they temper me and hopefully prevent me from executing this. But I'd be lying if I said I never desired complete doorslam. I would challenge you to find an FP who would make this statement, that they have ever desired cutting someone out of their lives completely, especially someone whom they'd been very close to.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,517 Posts
A doorslam involves closure, removing options. Ji-Pe likes to keep options open more than Je-Pi.
Your story says it's not so much the stereotypical type, but the very necessary not necessarily permanent type for self-preservation. I can't say there's anything wrong with that. I'm glad to see that we're all on the same page as far as what doorslamming means. But before I had ever heard the term, I would refer to it as closing a door, which is close to what we're talking about since we're not in any way considering this a permanent not out of harshness excision. I mean, do what you have to do. Eleventeenth is right though, don't rush it, think it over, ask around to those who actually know you and this other person, give it lots of time because once you do it, depending on your method, it can be permanent. if you even have a slight hesitation, don't do it, or don't until you are sure. It doesn't sound like you are in the vid. If you're in therapy of any sort, maybe ask her to go with you, if she is unwilling, well you probably would be closer to being able to make a decision. If you want my honest opinion though, it sounds like you two have a lot of work. I am much like your friend where I like my space, but for me it's because I have really crappy health, and I've had people be way too intrusive and not understanding at all and actually, I stopped talking to them and never went back. I have regrets that I couldn't be healthier, but she wasn't respecting my need to be on my own much of the time, so that was it.

In answer to the quote above, what if you're mistyped and you're say INFP? It's not always 100% either, like I'm sure other Fe types don't always use the 100% you're out of my life forever doorslam.

Thank you to @LiquidLight for yet again shedding light on this subject. I'm going to go back to referring my own as just "closing the door" lol. Or rather turning a page in my life.

PS I love closure when there needs to be and it's a lot more often than people might guess.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
999 Posts
LL, I appreciate your skepticism and your contention that, if there's no "research" indicating a particular trait, then it may be a wives' tale.

I have much anecdotal evidence in my own life of Ji-Pe types desiring less closure and Je-Pi types desiring more. This is not to say that one type is more 'judgmental' than another per se... that term doesn't even really apply to MBTI, because we are all judgers and perceivers. The orientation is what matters. And in my own experience, it *does* matter in terms of desire for closure. Now, I don't know whether this would particularly apply to doorslamming, which is why I welcome all of this discussion.

I agree that introverted judgments are just as "closured" as extraverted. The difference is that they're internal and may not seek to affect the external world. My extraverted judgments seek to affect the world, not just my insides.

I agree that it's not useful to make blanket statements about Pe's never desiring closure and Je's never desiring open-endedness. But I'm talking about propensities here. I'll stand by my statement that Ji-Pe likes to keep options open more than Je-Pi, in general. I would welcome the input of some Ji-Pe types reading this. If you disagree with me, please speak up!

This is a very specific example and may not be universal, but my experience is that an FJ such as myself, when "at the end of his/her rope", would experience the desire to cut someone out of his/her life "forever". Now, my morals tell me that this is unloving, so they temper me and hopefully prevent me from executing this. But I'd be lying if I said I never desired complete doorslam. I would challenge you to find an FP who would make this statement, that they have ever desired cutting someone out of their lives completely, especially someone whom they'd been very close to.
I see what you're saying here about internal judging versus external judging. I do like to keep things "open-ended" in my external world. I think this is why, very generally speaking, Pe types struggle more with things like deadlines, tying the knot (getting married forever), staying on task/schedule (which means you can't be open-ended), etc. Internally (within myself), I'm decisive. But, that doesn't always carry over into my external world with other people. When I'm by myself, I'm super decisive. When with others, I feel that I need to be very flexible and allow them to do some of the leading/directing because I don't want to impose and because I feel like I can't assume that they'll want to do whatever I want to do. If I'm not careful, that can translate into passivity. Passivity = lack of external judgment.

@LiquidLight , I also appreciate your insight. I do have a question for you in terms of what you said about MBTI. A lot this stuff - Jung's cognitive theories, MBTI, etc. is all empirical anyways. And so, when you or I see something empirically - a trend in personalities let's say - we intuitively see that trend and we sort of "know" it to be true, because it is repeated over and over and we come to "know" that it's true. That's sort of what intuition is - perceiving and picking up on things and trends that otherwise wouldn't be noticed (or proven) by the 5 senses. So, what I'm asking here is...if you or I see trends in personalities...why would those be any less valid than Jung's empirical observations, or anyone else's empirical observations for that matter? If we're talking about things that can be dissected and proven in a lab, then yes, one observation could be proven right and another wrong. But, when we're talking about "observed behavior patterns" that cannot be "proven", yet are empirical and can be seen to repeat themselves again and again, and our intuition recognizes these repeating patterns in human behavior, these things start to become valid. That's all that Jung and MBTI is anyways - is empirical observations of human behavior. Surely you and I observe things/trends as well, and surely we can come to some conclusions on these things as well. If all of our intuitive observations/perceptions are hogwash, then maybe Jung's whole system (based on observations) is hogwash as well. I'm not sure what makes his observations any more valid than yours or mine.

I have no idea if doorslamming is an INFJ trait or not. Or if it's complete hogwash. I'll leave that to the INFJ's to figure out. What I'm getting at though, is you are right that there are a lot of whacky stereotypes floating around the net. But, there's also some good ones, that intuition has observed and seen as being repeatable - trends. Like with what I mentioned above about internal judging versus external judging. I see this empirically. I see it as a trend. External judgers are decisive in their outer world. They come to conclusions, they set out to reach their goals in a timely fashion, they stay on schedule more or less, etc. Pe types don't do these things as much. They tend to struggle with those things. They are more about "leaving things open", moving with the natural tide/flow of life, they seem to be more "reactive" than "initiating", etc. Would love to hear your thoughts.

Interesting thread BTW.
 

·
MOTM August 2012
Joined
·
3,467 Posts
Well the issue with behavioral observation in and of itself is that we have to understand what motivates that behavior. See the difference between Jung (and actually most psychotherapists) and the approach of the MBTI and similar faculties is that MBTI starts with behavior, how someone acts in person, and then works backwards to make their theory work. They created a paradigm, judging and perceiving that really has nothing to do with either. By one only focusing on Extraverted Judging and Perceiving this denies the influence of introverted functions, so we have a problem from the get-go and secondly associating with functions things that might, in real life, having nothing to do with functions whatsoever.

See my problem is (and really this is the problem of most people who are critical of MBTI) is that judging and perceiving are defined as 'likes things decided,' and 'likes things left open-ended.' But like I said, how can we attribute this to a function? It sort of ignores MBTI's own type dynamics theory, to suggest that for example, an INTP would be governed more by their Ne than by their Ti. This isn't even self-coherent. So what they are saying is that XXXX type will behave in a certain way based on how they define judging and perceiving behavior but the motivations for it are misattributed.

Surely there are INFPs out there who have J-ish (as MBTI defines) traits. There damn well better be if Extraverted Thinking is their inferior function, yet if those traits were observed outwardly MBTI would say these people are INFJs (which we know is ridiculous because INFP and INFJs don't share any functions). That's what I mean by not self-coherent. Fudjack and Dinkelaker do a much better job of breaking it down in their article What We Mean When We Speak of the 'inFp', etc - A Critique of the J/P Designation in the MBTI where they basically take MBTI to task for this silliness.

So all this stuff about introverted judgment likes this, or extraverted perception likes that is silly. Functions don't like anything anymore than your right eye 'likes' something. The eye is a function of your visual system. Ne is a function of the cognitive system. Jung compared the functions to organs. Simply humming along to help the ego advance its goals. Thats why he called them functions and made sure to not confuse them with complexes (which might very well cause J/P like tendencies). The only reason we think that people who like leaving things open are P's is because we have all been taught that. But what we really have to ask ourselves is "why would Extraverted Feeling, for instance, in the dominant or auxiliary position, result in J-like behavior?" What motivates that? Because J in MBTI doesn't mean judging as in your first extraverted function is a judging one (that's the official definition). Hidden in that its also implying 'and because your first Je function is dom or aux, you will then also behave a certain way. It's sort of like saying a person who is short will prefer to drive fast cars. The two don't really have much to do with each other. How you process cognitively and what motivates you to act a certain way aren't always neatly related (in fact, much of what motivates us to act is driven by our personas, how we've been raised, social standards, hopes, fears, etc -- simply saying "it's because you're a judger," is to oversimplify).

But we have to remember that the MBTI was never meant to be an all encompassing theory which is again why we should caution ourselves against saying INFJs will do x, because INFJ is a made up category. We are really talking about Introverted Intuitives, people whose primary orientation is toward inner hunches and notions. MBTI with its J wants to also say "Introverted Intuitives will also (and apparently always if its to be in the code itself) like things decided," and I'm not convinced real life bears this out.

So we have to remember that there is a big difference between MBTI and its underlying parent theory. MBTI is an amalgamation of Jung's theory, sort of picking and choosing out of it what it wanted, and blending the rest of it into its own stew. Its from this we get ideas like the functions being the centerpiece and substratum of your entire cognitive system (where to Jung they are just a small part of a bigger picture, liking things decided, or doorslamming, might well be the result of your upbringing). Psychological Types was written, as you point out, as a heuristic way of looking at people, from the standpoint of trying to understand underlying motivations and then perhaps maybe see what behaviors might come of them (I can't imagine Jung would ever have placed something so rigid as the MBTI J/P paradigm in his writings, he's vague on purpose for the sole reason of not putting people into these rigid behavioral and temperamental categories), where MBTI takes the opposite approach of starting with behaviors and then trying to make its theory fit. Essentially MBTI is a behavioral/social interaction model, and Jung's theories are psychological. MBTI with its insistence on Extraverted functions, is really only looking at outer manifestations (which sort of makes sense once you recognize the reasons for its inception to begin with) and saying if you exhibit xyz behavior, then you are xxxx type. Where Jung is looking at it from the standpoint of you are XX type based upon the focus of your thinking (behaviors are an afterthought because of their ability to be influenced by so many other non-type related things).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
999 Posts
Well, I certainly agree with you on a lot of what you've written here. I, for one, don't see MBTI as the end-all, be-all. I realize that there are many (many!) more things contributing to our behaviors (like you say - upbringing, fears, hopes, etc.) than just a 4-letter code. I don't buy into the fallacy that an MBTI code explains all human behavior - not by a long shot. But, there are some empirical things about it...and I think a lot of people recognize those trends, else they wouldn't all be here discussing how they've noticed that "most of the ENTJ's they know all seem to be executives...or somewhat bossy...yet loyal, intelligent, and tenacious." People see that in that type. With that said, I definitely put more stock in Jung's cog function theory than I do in some of the MBTI stuff. It seems as if MBTI just sort of built off of Jung's theories, simplified it quite a bit, threw it in a box, put some neat, fancy packaging on it, and called it a "system". In doing so, some good stuff got sacrificed. But, there is still some "meat" there - and that's what people come to discuss. And yes, there are some silly discussion on the forums as well, but that's just people being people. They want to let loose and joke around a bit.

You mentioned that it wouldn't make sense for my Ne, for instance, to dominate or take precedence over my Ti. I agree. I recognize Ti as my dominant function for sure. But, even Jung himself recognized introverted thinking as a function that was focused inwardly. And extroverted intuition as one that was focused outwardly. In that light, it makes sense that I'm perceiving in my outer world. When focused on "objects" (things/people/situations outside myself) I am intuiting, making connections, observing, perceiving. With that information, with those perceptions, I then turn inwardly and put the observations into more strict frameworks - and that's where/how I judge and come to conclusions and make decisions. It's often difficult for an INTP (not only myself), for instance, to be a leader of an organization in the way that you'd see an ENTJ do it. That doesn't mean we can't do it, of course. It just means that it feels a bit difficult/foreign to us because our thinking is directed inwardly. We can judge/decide/make decisions just as well as an ENTJ, but they make their decisions by "talking things out", talking with others, talking through the situation verbally. INTP's, on the other hand, are formulating things in their reserved world. As an example, I have a hard time being decisive when there are a lot of people around or involved in the situation that requires a decision. I can almost say that it's a blind spot for me - I almost feel retarded at times (or at least when I was much younger it felt really hard) in these situations because they require "outward directed judging". I can judge/conclude/make decisions internally all day long - it's the thing that is most familiar to me.

Likewise, my aux extroverted intuition, is just that - it's extroverted - it's focused outwardly and it's not about judging or finalizing things or making decisions - it's about observing and perceiving, which can then be fed to the ego or to Ti. I know it doesn't occur all neatly and perfectly as if the functions operate in a respective vacuums. But, hopefully you see what I'm saying. And this isn't me parroting back something I've read in an MBTI book. This is my own description of what I observe within myself - it's how I see and experience my own psyche at work.

So, to summarize my post:

1. I agree that MBTI doesn't encapsulate human behavior. Not even close.
2. I think we have to consider the "direction" of the functions, just like Jung did. Ti is in fact different from Te, otherwise Jung wouldn't have written different descriptions for the two. And those two descriptions are actually quite different in terms of how those two functions manifest. Same with Ne and Ni - they are both perceiving, but they manifest quite differently.
3. Despite whatever shortcomings MBTI may have, I can only speak from my own individual experience and in consideration of others who have corroborated/confirmed similar experiences. I still experience/see an empirical difference between "introverted judging coupled with extroverted perceiving" and "introverted perceiving coupled with extroverted judging". Jung says Ti is introverted and it's judging. And he says Ne is extroverted and its perceiving. This is very different from someone who is an extroverted judger and an introverted perceiver. He even gives special treatment to the differences between functions that are introverted versus extroverted, because he sees a very big difference in how they manifest.

BTW, you really dislike MBTI, eh? :p
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,382 Posts
"most of the ENTJ's they know all seem to be executives...or somewhat bossy
Honestly, most of the ENTJs I know aren't executives or bossy - I'm not exaggerating (most people who take the type descriptions too seriously would probably type them as ENTPs, not knowing anything about cognitive functions). One of my TAs is an ENTJ and is probably the most laid back, hands-off person you'll ever meet. I think most people are just under the influence of type descriptions and selectively applying them to people who share BEHAVIORAL traits with them, rather than ADAPTING the descriptions to real people. This is 100% the problem with type descriptions - they absolutely should not be used to predict behavior in a person, no matter whether or not they even have a 10% chance at doing it somewhat. I'd advocate just using an elementary method of typing people by the letters (T, F, S, N) of what stands out most about their personalities than ever resorting to silly behavioral descriptions.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Neon Knight

·
Banned
Joined
·
14,801 Posts
I sometimes wonder if "doorslamming" has to do with Pi/Je in general, and that's where the stereotype of J's wanted a closed final decision to feel comfortable comes from. I would think it would be more common, though, in IxxJs, because of Pi dominant. A Je dominant actually might modify their judgment if new external information came their way that aligned with either Fe or Te.

I just say this because a self-confirmed SJ speculated that he thinks that SJ women are more likely to doorslam, where he saw me as being very forgiving, and not being "through" even if I got really mad, I might calm down later and talk about it and get over it and shift. I'm like that, though. I let it out, process it, then make my decision. I don't let it simmer and stew until the door just slams shut.

I think I have been doorslammed now by him, though, which has led me to also cut ties with him for reasons of self-preservation.

But seriously there were so many times where I was willing to at least be friendly to or help out an ex, or forgive a person if I truly cared about them to begin with, blah blah blah.

As an FP, I'm not a big doorslammer, and if I do get pushed to that point, it's usually because of repeated bad experiences and wanting to self-preserve, because continuing to leave the door open would just be the equivalent of not having healthy boundaries for myself. I like to inform people of why it's happening, though. I always want people to be clear of what I'm thinking and feeling. I don't walk away with no explanation, because I despise when people do it to me.

So my point is that I do think it may be more common in Pi/Je types, not just INFJs.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
999 Posts
Honestly, most of the ENTJs I know aren't executives or bossy - I'm not exaggerating (most people who take the type descriptions too seriously would probably type them as ENTPs, not knowing anything about cognitive functions). One of my TAs is an ENTJ and is probably the most laid back, hands-off person you'll ever meet. I think most people are just under the influence of type descriptions and selectively applying them to people who share BEHAVIORAL traits with them, rather than ADAPTING the descriptions to real people. This is 100% the problem with type descriptions - they absolutely should not be used to predict behavior in a person, no matter whether or not they even have a 10% chance at doing it somewhat. I'd advocate just using an elementary method of typing people by the letters (T, F, S, N) of what stands out most about their personalities than ever resorting to silly behavioral descriptions.
Do you not see things in common with people of the same type? I know there are exceptions to every rule. And I know that ENTJ's can be hands-off - they're actually not micromanagers at all, with all of the ones that I've worked with and for. But, do you not see commonalities within the types?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,517 Posts
But seriously there were so many times where I was willing to at least be friendly to or help out an ex, or forgive a person if I truly cared about them to begin with, blah blah blah.

As an FP, I'm not a big doorslammer, and if I do get pushed to that point, it's usually because of repeated bad experiences and wanting to self-preserve, because continuing to leave the door open would just be the equivalent of not having healthy boundaries for myself. I like to inform people of why it's happening, though. I always want people to be clear of what I'm thinking and feeling. I don't walk away with no explanation, because I despise when people do it to me.
Perfect! Most of the time I tried to explain too, but sometimes it's impossible because of the individual situations. Usually this involves someone being abusive, so really my need to explain or the courtesy explanation just sort of ends up flying out the window. My current weakness here is finding the tactful way to while still being assertive while being able to say, "I deserve better".
 
  • Like
Reactions: Thalassa

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,382 Posts
Do you not see things in common with people of the same type? I know there are exceptions to every rule. And I know that ENTJ's can be hands-off - they're actually not micromanagers at all, with all of the ones that I've worked with and for. But, do you not see commonalities within the types?
I don't really think persona labels, like "The Executive" constitute universal commonalities within people of the same type, no. I think "Efficiency Expert" would probably be a billion times more accurate to describe ENTJs than "The Executives," since being an executive is a persona role that doesn't describe anything inherent to their cognitive functions (I'm sure there are other types out there who aren't Te types who are executives). Efficiency expertise is definitely in the realm of Te though. Honestly, I just think super logically-inclined is the best way to fundamentally describe all ENTJs based on the ones I know, really. This makes sense, considering that they are dominant T types.
 
1 - 20 of 33 Posts
Top