People judge others to be like themselves so obviously this ESFP doesn't quite get that others can have different approaches to socializing and not everyone is a social butterfly like herself/himself fluttering about from group to group accomplishing its "job". Extraverts just pick up the talk. It comes naturally to them. Introverts don't. I would try to explain this to ESFP and also ask her to finally learn the difference between antisocial and asocial. If I am introducing a new person to a group of people I naturally feel responsibility to make it go easier on them and if they are not speaking up or connecting ask them questions about something they can easily talk about and feel less awkward.
Social Etiquette - Introducing Someone to Others (in a Group)
I find it extremely rude when someone introduces a friend to a group of friends then leaving the newby/outsider on their own to try and cut into the conversation. Most of the time the topic is geared towards something that only the group knows about which makes it difficult for the newcomer to "butt in". This ultimately leads to him/her feeling left out.
I started thinking about this after a dumbshit ESFP said I was "antisocial" and that it was my "job" to cut into a gossip session about some person I haven't even met before. It was some pretty mean gossip, too. Not really the sort of thing I would engage in because I'd rather have a neutral opinion of someone before meeting them.
I have always put in effort to try and form some sort of connection between a friend and a group of friends that they don't already know. I firmly believe that it is my duty (or anyone else in such a position) to act as a medium and I consider this a major part of basic social etiquette. I find that it's not very common for a newcomer to hijack a conversation as it may be either difficult to do so or that the very action of doing so may be perceived as rude and selfish.
The main reason why I'm starting this thread under INTJs is because I want to see what other INTJs think about this being one of the more "antisocial" types. (Yes, we're famous for our disappearing act.) I am more concerned about the idea of introducing one person to many that already know each other, rather than a one to one person introduction (which tends to go a little more smoothly as there is no intimidation-due-to- numbers).
So what's your take? Would you find such a situation as described in the opening paragraph to be ill-mannered? How do you deal with it when you're the individual being introduced to a group in this manner?
I started thinking about this after a dumbshit ESFP said I was "antisocial" and that it was my "job" to cut into a gossip session about some person I haven't even met before. It was some pretty mean gossip, too. Not really the sort of thing I would engage in because I'd rather have a neutral opinion of someone before meeting them.
I have always put in effort to try and form some sort of connection between a friend and a group of friends that they don't already know. I firmly believe that it is my duty (or anyone else in such a position) to act as a medium and I consider this a major part of basic social etiquette. I find that it's not very common for a newcomer to hijack a conversation as it may be either difficult to do so or that the very action of doing so may be perceived as rude and selfish.
The main reason why I'm starting this thread under INTJs is because I want to see what other INTJs think about this being one of the more "antisocial" types. (Yes, we're famous for our disappearing act.) I am more concerned about the idea of introducing one person to many that already know each other, rather than a one to one person introduction (which tends to go a little more smoothly as there is no intimidation-due-to- numbers).
So what's your take? Would you find such a situation as described in the opening paragraph to be ill-mannered? How do you deal with it when you're the individual being introduced to a group in this manner?
1 - 18 of 18 Posts
My take....
First, there is the question of which kind of group situation are we considering here:
1. Group gathering with a focus - For example, I have various groups where there are general introductions done as part of a meeting if there are new people present. Note that this is where each person is generally introducing themselves and there is a bit of a backdrop in terms of the purpose of the group,e.g. mental health support groups and social geeks being the main ones that come to mind. Work meetings would also be in this camp usually. Sometimes though in this situation there can be various arrival times and various mingling before the meeting that can also happen which is more of the other case to my mind...
2. General mingling - Now I do have a group where it is just a singles mingles and in this case things can be quite different. Some people will introduce themselves and almost go out of their way to meet everyone and shake a hand. In this situation the onus is on each person to do their duty as it isn't quite as structured as the previous example. There was a Sunday breakfast group where people would get together for breakfast which was like this as well. There was a general ballpark of when people would show up but this is far from the structure of the previous group where a meeting starts at X p.m. and has an agenda and organizers. This would also be the general "Hang Out" category. Another situation here is that there can be multiple conversations within a group and it can be tricky to see how to get into this in a proper way,e.g. 3 people on one side are talking hockey while another 3 may be talking about Apple's latest product launch and how does one know which conversation is better to jump into and be a part of the dialogue.
For myself in new groups, I tend to be quiet, shy, and reserved. This means I'm observing what is happening, what kind of vocabulary is used, what topics are discussed, what format is there, what structure is there, etc. This does presume the first case more than the second usually. For those cases where the second is where I am, I tend to find that some people will come up to me and start things. I'm good at maintaining a conversation but not initiating them. I get that and am fine with that.
First, there is the question of which kind of group situation are we considering here:
1. Group gathering with a focus - For example, I have various groups where there are general introductions done as part of a meeting if there are new people present. Note that this is where each person is generally introducing themselves and there is a bit of a backdrop in terms of the purpose of the group,e.g. mental health support groups and social geeks being the main ones that come to mind. Work meetings would also be in this camp usually. Sometimes though in this situation there can be various arrival times and various mingling before the meeting that can also happen which is more of the other case to my mind...
2. General mingling - Now I do have a group where it is just a singles mingles and in this case things can be quite different. Some people will introduce themselves and almost go out of their way to meet everyone and shake a hand. In this situation the onus is on each person to do their duty as it isn't quite as structured as the previous example. There was a Sunday breakfast group where people would get together for breakfast which was like this as well. There was a general ballpark of when people would show up but this is far from the structure of the previous group where a meeting starts at X p.m. and has an agenda and organizers. This would also be the general "Hang Out" category. Another situation here is that there can be multiple conversations within a group and it can be tricky to see how to get into this in a proper way,e.g. 3 people on one side are talking hockey while another 3 may be talking about Apple's latest product launch and how does one know which conversation is better to jump into and be a part of the dialogue.
For myself in new groups, I tend to be quiet, shy, and reserved. This means I'm observing what is happening, what kind of vocabulary is used, what topics are discussed, what format is there, what structure is there, etc. This does presume the first case more than the second usually. For those cases where the second is where I am, I tend to find that some people will come up to me and start things. I'm good at maintaining a conversation but not initiating them. I get that and am fine with that.
This is an interesting question. The deciding factor in this case is the friend. Some friends do not need or want that kind of help (me for example), and I think that there are several cases where it is most appropriate to simply introduce the friend, and then let conversation live or die as normal. However, in a recent social gathering I was in a position to help a friend whom was socially inept and new to the group. He had asked me before we arrived if I would help him, and I agreed. At the event I drew him into conversation by citing remarks and opinions which he held and where relevant to the conversation. This was adequate.
I feel very strongly as the OP does. I hate the exclusion of people who are new to a group. I hate the justification that when they have completed their initiation process (hazing) that they can have fun feeling superior to the next newcomer. I have lots of judgment on people in a group who cannot recognize and take extra care so the new person feels welcome. I always thought this was just plain good manners, an essential part of being a host, that when you bring someone new in, you make sure they feel comfortable. I assumed this was the most basic of social ettiquette, and was really surprised to find out it's very low on most people's priority. Funny that an INTJ would be so socially sophisticated in this area. But yeah, it's definitely one of my pet peeves.
Special case...
There is at least one odd special case that may be worth noting here. In at least a couple of my groups, there are people suffering from depression and/or anxiety where new people should be welcomed but not tossed into the hot seat. This may or may not be that different from what was initially described as I could imagine that if I had a friend that suffered from something and I thought it may be helpful, I may bring this person to a meeting. However, I don't know how comfortable that friend would feel in sharing stuff and so it wouldn't be my place to say anything really as this could be seen as an invasion of my friend's privacy. Picture being in a room with a dozen strangers and be expected to open up about all your dark secrets. Easy to do right? I think not.
Just to give some examples of even simple things crossing a line here. If I stated where my friend worked, my friend's name, where my friend lived, or any other highly personal information this could be seen as crossing a line. Thus, one has to be careful about how to apply certain rules as rarely are there rules that have no exceptions.
There is at least one odd special case that may be worth noting here. In at least a couple of my groups, there are people suffering from depression and/or anxiety where new people should be welcomed but not tossed into the hot seat. This may or may not be that different from what was initially described as I could imagine that if I had a friend that suffered from something and I thought it may be helpful, I may bring this person to a meeting. However, I don't know how comfortable that friend would feel in sharing stuff and so it wouldn't be my place to say anything really as this could be seen as an invasion of my friend's privacy. Picture being in a room with a dozen strangers and be expected to open up about all your dark secrets. Easy to do right? I think not.
Just to give some examples of even simple things crossing a line here. If I stated where my friend worked, my friend's name, where my friend lived, or any other highly personal information this could be seen as crossing a line. Thus, one has to be careful about how to apply certain rules as rarely are there rules that have no exceptions.
I guess there's always boundaries to be considered, but I'm sure people who are aware of what's too personal to say.
Singles mingles... that really depends. If it's a party where no one really knows each other well, people will start talking to each other. However, if people already know each other quite well (but choose to interact one on one or in small intimate group), it would be easy for a stranger to be ignored as people would typically automatically assume that he/she would be acquainted with some others.
@dagdraumur: True, some people may not necessarily need help but it will still make things run a lot more smoothly. Even if it's just a few words, something is waaaaaaaaay better than nothing. Besidies, it lets your newcomer friend that you're there for them :happy:.
@Calliope: I'm glad you feel the same way about this, too :laughing:
Singles mingles... that really depends. If it's a party where no one really knows each other well, people will start talking to each other. However, if people already know each other quite well (but choose to interact one on one or in small intimate group), it would be easy for a stranger to be ignored as people would typically automatically assume that he/she would be acquainted with some others.
@dagdraumur: True, some people may not necessarily need help but it will still make things run a lot more smoothly. Even if it's just a few words, something is waaaaaaaaay better than nothing. Besidies, it lets your newcomer friend that you're there for them :happy:.
@Calliope: I'm glad you feel the same way about this, too :laughing:
I forgot to comment on the second part of the topic question: How do I deal with it when I'm the individual being introduced to a group in this manner?
I actually find this kind of 'inclusiveness' socializing to be very annoying. If I have something worth saying, I'll say it, and I don't need or want anyone prompting me for my thoughts or opinions. If I'm interested I just want to listen until I actually have something to say. If I'm ignorant of the topic, just give me some time to hear what it's about. I'll ask a question or two if I need to.
When the topic of conversation is something asinine, like petty gossip, I try to just stay out of it, but if someone insists on dragging me into the conversation, I usually end up explaining to the leading gossip-mongers just why it is so sickening to listen to their blathering half-baked quips at other peoples expense, even when I have no idea who they are talking about. This usually makes everyone feel awkward, as the gossip-mongers are usually well liked, and is usually a party killer.
Honestly though, this kind of pressure to chat for chatting's sake is worse than small talk about bad summer movies. Those who would pressure their friends into meaningless chattery for the goal of comfort through social interaction should reconsider what will actually make their friends comfortable. Manners and etiquette are about consideration and comfort, not social maxims.
I actually find this kind of 'inclusiveness' socializing to be very annoying. If I have something worth saying, I'll say it, and I don't need or want anyone prompting me for my thoughts or opinions. If I'm interested I just want to listen until I actually have something to say. If I'm ignorant of the topic, just give me some time to hear what it's about. I'll ask a question or two if I need to.
When the topic of conversation is something asinine, like petty gossip, I try to just stay out of it, but if someone insists on dragging me into the conversation, I usually end up explaining to the leading gossip-mongers just why it is so sickening to listen to their blathering half-baked quips at other peoples expense, even when I have no idea who they are talking about. This usually makes everyone feel awkward, as the gossip-mongers are usually well liked, and is usually a party killer.
Honestly though, this kind of pressure to chat for chatting's sake is worse than small talk about bad summer movies. Those who would pressure their friends into meaningless chattery for the goal of comfort through social interaction should reconsider what will actually make their friends comfortable. Manners and etiquette are about consideration and comfort, not social maxims.
Portable gaming
I don't mind looking like a loner
I don't mind looking like a loner
It doesn't really come up. My friends don't do that to people, so I don't feel worried about introducing anyone to them. Everyone is inclusive - it doesn't rest on my shoulders.
I've been in the outsider situation before, and I feel more comfortable if no one is probing me and I always considered it on me to speak when I had something to say. It may not be much, but I'm fine with that - I don't appreciate being told off for being antisocial in such a situation though.
I have one or two friends who will withdraw if I am not holding their hand in conversations with new people. I find it a little annoying, because these are not awkward people and the conversation topics were extremely open to anyone joining. I do not want to have to go around in a circle to make sure everyone is included. These were easy conversations to join and easy-going people who were all being nice.
Perhaps if I were introducing people to a more hostile group I would take it upon myself to nudge a little - then again, I don't know why I would be hanging out with these people in the first place. And I'll occasionally go out of my way to help out someone who actually looks awkward. But it usually is unnecessary and I dislike doing unnecessary things.
Work situations it's all fake schmoozing so whatever. Mindless little courtesies to make people feel special can happen too. Baby them along and all..
I've been in the outsider situation before, and I feel more comfortable if no one is probing me and I always considered it on me to speak when I had something to say. It may not be much, but I'm fine with that - I don't appreciate being told off for being antisocial in such a situation though.
I have one or two friends who will withdraw if I am not holding their hand in conversations with new people. I find it a little annoying, because these are not awkward people and the conversation topics were extremely open to anyone joining. I do not want to have to go around in a circle to make sure everyone is included. These were easy conversations to join and easy-going people who were all being nice.
Perhaps if I were introducing people to a more hostile group I would take it upon myself to nudge a little - then again, I don't know why I would be hanging out with these people in the first place. And I'll occasionally go out of my way to help out someone who actually looks awkward. But it usually is unnecessary and I dislike doing unnecessary things.
Work situations it's all fake schmoozing so whatever. Mindless little courtesies to make people feel special can happen too. Baby them along and all..
eep! why are you associating with these people?
If you have to associate with them and there is no way around it, just make sure you are picking your battles right. Sometimes it makes good sense to stand up for what you believe and voice it. Other times it is not worth it. Your lecture will be lost and you will only alienate people from yourself or come off as too critical. It depends on the people you are dealing with and of course your choice of words. There are right ways and wrong way to lecture people about their shortcomings - do it wrong and you won't achieve anything but come off as a party pooper or that eccentric critical person that nobody really likes.
When I am in such situation, I usually focus on trying to understand things from other people's point of view. Because as INFJ group harmony is important to me, so I devote mental energy to understanding where other people are coming from. I don't know what INTJs do besides just being really really good at avoiding such situations and associating with people who have something interesting to say. All in all it comes down to what is more important to you in these situations (picking the right social strategy) - is it important for you to point out that they are wrong and that you are bored by their conversation? or is it important for you to blend and be accepted by this group? You cannot have both. And yes, those people are genuinely interested in their own gossip and no they don't really understand what beef you have with it.
@vel: Thanks for the suggestion. I never seek out groups like that, but sometimes they find me.
Without a doubt, I would definitely choose pointing out that they are wrong and that I am offended by their conversation, over blending in and finding acceptance within the group. I'm picky about my friends, and I wouldn't want people like that to like me, so I would prefer that they think of me as that eccentric critical person that nobody really likes. Hopefully I would alienate them with enough sharp wit and brilliance to make me known as that cruel eccentric critical cynic that doesn't like anybody. (I'm looking forward to being a mean old lady! :wink: ) Though over both options I wold prefer to be left out of the conversation entirely.
Luckily, I have not been faced with this dilemma since high school, and the good friends that I have now would know better than to bring me into that kind of conversation.
Without a doubt, I would definitely choose pointing out that they are wrong and that I am offended by their conversation, over blending in and finding acceptance within the group. I'm picky about my friends, and I wouldn't want people like that to like me, so I would prefer that they think of me as that eccentric critical person that nobody really likes. Hopefully I would alienate them with enough sharp wit and brilliance to make me known as that cruel eccentric critical cynic that doesn't like anybody. (I'm looking forward to being a mean old lady! :wink: ) Though over both options I wold prefer to be left out of the conversation entirely.
Luckily, I have not been faced with this dilemma since high school, and the good friends that I have now would know better than to bring me into that kind of conversation.
I disagree with your reasoning, but it brings up an interesting topic to talk about. So, if I attempt to see it from your perspective, I would start by putting group harmony very important in the ranking of values. So from your view, somewhat harmless negative talk about someone might not be so bad that it trumps group harmony. But what you are not taking into account is that a group against one person has much greater power than a put-down has in a one-on-one situation. As we are herd animals, group excusion, or group shunning, is a much more powerful punishment than even the expression of aggression. So this is where group harmony can quickly turn malevolent. And if you are strongly for the decent treatment of people, at this point you would be wanting to step in. Gossiping in a group situation is a form of mobbing. It is someone trying to pit a group against a person. Most people actually do know that it's mean to gossip. And they do understand what the beef is, but they are temporarily blocking that knowledge in order to subconsciously fulfill an immediate gratification to feel better by putting another person down.
The reason for going into a group and pointing out the bad behavior is not to make a change in these people or in the world. The reason is to preserve one's self esteem. If I didn't try to stop behavior that I thought was wrong, I would feel bad about myself. What allows INTJ to do this when others can't is that we can risk people not liking us. I would much prefer to be this way. I would feel awful about myself if I cared so much about being accepted by a group that I would go against my own values for it.
To verify what I am saying, try to find a rationale for gossiping. There is no side or perspective that makes gossiping a reasonable thing to do. It's a defense mechanism. Defense mechanisms don't have a perspective that you can empathize with. That's why they are so crazy-making for others.
You are assuming that their are gossiping with significant malevolent intent. If I sensed such intent, of course I would step in and try to stop it. But if it is gossiping alike "ugh, I really hated her dress yesterday" this kind of gossiping is harmless. The original post, by the way, is a form of gossip - the author is discussing her friends with other people behind their back on this forum bestowing her judgement from her subjective point of view. But my own judgement on this is that it sounds harmless, she is just expressing her frustration and venting a little, therefore no need for me to have a conflict with her about it. If I did so I am sure other INTJs would step up to defend her and we would have a nice word-fight, but in the end this would achieve nothing and thus be a complete waste of time for myself and others. Thus like I said, one needs to be able to pick the right strategy and rallying up conflict within the group to defend your own subjective point of view (your values and opinions) is not always the right approach.
It is not just about you feeling bad about yourself. Other people will also not like themselves if you continuously point out their negative traits to them. This is something that strong J-type parents often disregard when bringing up their children, in that they use criticism to make a child realize how wrong his or her actions are. What it also does along the way is destroys the child's self-esteem. So whether you criticize other people you have to weight out the pros and the cons for it, with cons being that both of you will might end up feeling devalued as a result of the exchange. However, the right criticism delivered at the right moment with the right delivery tactic can do a lot of good. Like I said it depends on the circumstances and the people you're dealing with.
rationale for gossiping ... i see it as form of increasing unity of a group by reinforcing the 'us vs others' concept that we all are very familiar with at the very instinctive level ... i cannot emotionally sympathize with it but i can for sure rationally understand where it is coming from
Naturally, but everyone has to decide what makes it significant in the context of the event.
I would not consider that harmless. It's certainly inconsequential, because no sensible person should care how much said gossiper hates the dress in question. For the sentiment to be harmless it could be worded something like, " So-and-so's outfit seemed rather unflattering yesterday."
That said, the original comment, "I really hated her dress yesterday." could actually be entirely defensible if it was in a different context. Perhaps the dress wearer used her dress to do something inconsiderate, like flaunting her wealth or beauty. In this case the 'gossiper' would only be misplacing her hate on the dress instead of the wearer's actions. Another defensible context could be that the dress was actually offensive, and perhaps had a depiction of something particularly obscene (insert racial slur or image of dead babies/guro/2girls1cup here)
I would not word fight with you. I try very hard to not word fight with people. I would ask you to explain your declared position, and then proceed to tell you where and how you are right, where and how you are wrong, and where and how I still don't understand your position. You would be given these courtesies as long as you were polite enough. Failing that, you would be informed of your present irrelevance in the topic and ignored until you made a point worth noting.
I would not feel bad about myself for letting some harmful gossip slide. I do not confront gossip to feel good about myself. I do it because my purpose in life is to work against ignorance. Nothing more or less. Failing to correct one moment of ignorance is unfortunate, but acceptable if I simply do not feel up to the confrontation.
If someone is handicapped in some way that disposes them to rude gossip I might go easy on them. Maybe they are drunk, experiencing extreme emotions, or have a brain disorder, etc.*
Note: children's developing brains are incomplete and therefore would qualify as a temporary brain disorder deserving handicapped status.
It should also be noted that the "good" which seems to be your goal is different from my goal.
I suspect that your goal of "good" is increased happiness? My goal is only to work against ignorance.
I agree.
---------------------------------------------
Calliope: The idea of wanting to reinforce the "us vs. others" concept is unethical. Group unity at the expense of an innocent person's character is unethical. Yes, this is hardwired in genetically, but the point of being a conscious human being is we have the ability to recogniize destructive instinctual behavior and at least try not to act on it.
What I find funny is seeing group unity named as a defense of this behaviour, when I in fact find it the entire problem. I have no problem with critical statements of anyone and their mother, so long as they are accurate and a sensible part of the conversation. Irrelvance is annoying (and I don't like clothes conversations much, for that matter - psht), but the fact that it was "negative" would not bother me at all. What I do have a problem with is people criticising someone for the purposes of social exclusion, to make themselves feel better, to create a group feeling that relies on a target, a group that needs someone to be rejected to feel it exists. I find that nauseating.
1 - 18 of 18 Posts
