Personality Cafe banner
1 - 20 of 54 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
31,261 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Authenticity or sincerity in social relationships. A trend that perhaps extends to more types than just Fi users but I think I see it as a greater trend with that function.
I render that many good acts would go unrecognized by the skeptic of virtue and goodwill. Consider a cynical skeptic, is there much chance that one of high socioeconomic status giving to charity may be granted recognition rather a betraying prejudice? What if I say there was a "genuine" philanthropist, is it not likely that the cynical skeptic of authenticity would question the motives of this philanthropist? Based on what would these questionings be? Induction and past experience?
Distrust seems to be prominent and my question is also why the intentions (conceivably benign to others) are so important in creating a value judgement of a person's character? If the skeptic of the philanthropist relies mostly on attention to the negative possiblity of the philanthropist's intentions being poor, what is to become of the actuality of many people being aided by said philanthropist? This of course extends to more scenarios, others exist that would provoke a call to them being "shallow" or "inauthentic".
How important is this skepticism and challenge to character in evaluating the actions of others and why is it at that level of importance?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,442 Posts
What would a genuine philanthropist look like to you? Maybe this boils down to what genuine, true and essential nature mean in various contexts.

Why not link intentions with character? I would criticize someone's character based on intentions. I think a person who commits an action with veiled intentions is being disingenuous and depending on the intentions, possibly vicious.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
31,261 Posts
Discussion Starter · #3 · (Edited)
What would a genuine philanthropist look like to you? Maybe this boils down to what genuine, true and essential nature mean in various contexts.

Why not link intentions with character? I would criticize someone's character based on intentions. I think a person who commits an action with veiled intentions is being disingenuous and depending on the intentions, possibly vicious.
It deserves a specific context. A matching of stated desires and intentions. The philanthropist may only do his works of charity to "ease his image" and pursue his true purpose of obtaining greater wealth and pleasure.
I question why this is relevant to the actions. Even if the philanthropist was disingenuous in doing something good what relevance would it bear? If thousands recieved financial assistance from a disingenuous philanthropist I would see his "inauthentic" mismatched intentions and actions to be largely unimportant to the result, and I use example of trying to obtain wealth as being a "true motive" because it is relatively benign and has little impact upon others.
I also fail to understand the logic behind rewarding "selflessness" with recognition of the self. By "rewarding" acts that would normally go against someone's self-interest, that is providing an incentive to act in self-interest, one would act altruistically to appear non-self-interested while acting in a self-interested manner, which is to receive that rewarding recognition. It seems that if selflessness is a virtue, it would be best not to reward it in order to not compromise its status of being non-self-interested and thus good.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,442 Posts
I question why this is relevant to the actions. Even if the philanthropist was disingenuous in doing something good what relevance would it bear? If thousands recieved financial assistance from a disingenuous philanthropist I would see his "inauthentic" mismatched intentions and actions to be largely unimportant to the result, and I use example of trying to obtain wealth as being a "true motive" because it is relatively benign and has little impact upon others.
No, you're right to question the connection and I don't think it's relevant to the end result either, unless the end result is somehow impacted by it. But I divide my judgements between intentions, actions and results and maybe I'm just being inconsistent between virtue ethics, deontology and consequentialism. I may think someone is being vicious but that doesn't mean I won't credit their contribution.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
31,261 Posts
Discussion Starter · #5 ·
No, you're right to question the connection and I don't think it's relevant to the end result either, unless the end result is somehow impacted by it. But I divide my judgements between intentions, actions and results and maybe I'm just being inconsistent between virtue ethics, deontology and consequentialism. I may think someone is being vicious but that doesn't mean I won't credit their contribution.
I'm not really staying true to my "kant" here either. Though I have already expanded the conversation out of its original scope.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
986 Posts
I look into that persons character and think of why they would do that. Because giving out ourselves is dangerous. we don't mimic, we are sincere and want other to be sincere. When we are dealing with the world we are presenting our own selves,own values. Not the majority or people's values. Its in us that we don't go with the majority, there has to be skeptics. much like your Ti. This is why we're introverted feelers, not extroverted feelers.But then we're running in a circle, why do we behave in this way?
I don't even understand it myself, my thought gets blocked when I try to find a reason. I guess Fi is all about impressions and own self absorption, much like Ni. There doesn't have to be a reason, thinkers must find reason, but feelers are different. That is my take.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,442 Posts
I'm not really staying true to my "kant" here either. Though I have already expanded the conversation out of its original scope.
It's cool. I've been thinking about this too and I'm admittedly not sure why inauthenticity bugs me like it does.

A philanthropist can behave according to that station's essential nature but in my opinion that isn't what Fi-users like me get bothered about it. It's more about being insincere and/or compromising one's personal values to serve another purpose. I hope that makes sense.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
31,261 Posts
Discussion Starter · #8 ·
I look into that persons character and think of why they would do that. Because giving out ourselves is dangerous. we don't mimic, we are sincere and want other to be sincere. When we are dealing with the world we are presenting our own selves,own values. Not the majority or people's values. Its in us that we don't go with the majority, there has to be skeptics. much like your Ti. This is why we're introverted feelers, not extroverted feelers.But then we're running in a circle, why do we behave in this way?
I don't even understand it myself, my thought gets blocked when I try to find a reason. I guess Fi is all about impressions and own self absorption, much like Ni. There doesn't have to be a reason, thinkers must find reason, but feelers are different. That is my take.
I find it difficult to understand each function separately. So I understand Ti as being skeptical of external "logical" structures and Fi as being external "value" structures, so I can see it's worth in that sense. But I have trouble understanding certain parts of it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,892 Posts
It deserves a specific context. A matching of stated desires and intentions. The philanthropist may only do his works of charity to "ease his image" and pursue his true purpose of obtaining greater wealth and pleasure.
I question why this is relevant to the actions. Even if the philanthropist was disingenuous in doing something good what relevance would it bear? If thousands recieved financial assistance from a disingenuous philanthropist I would see his "inauthentic" mismatched intentions and actions to be largely unimportant to the result, and I use example of trying to obtain wealth as being a "true motive" because it is relatively benign and has little impact upon others
So, in your world, Al Capone should be rewarded for all the good he did? And his evil ignored? Do you think that the good someone does can outweigh the bad? Or that his bad should be forgotten or simply forgiven? Or are you separating the good he has done from the evil he has done? I'm not exactly sure what you are trying to understand or justify here...

I also fail to understand the logic behind rewarding "selflessness" with recognition of the self. By "rewarding" acts that would normally go against someone's self-interest, that is providing an incentive to act in self-interest, one would act altruistically to appear non-self-interested while acting in a self-interested manner, which is to receive that rewarding recognition. It seems that if selflessness is a virtue, it would be best not to reward it in order to not compromise its status of being non-self-interested and thus good.


Well, that is kind of how I think too. I'd rather not receive recognition for anything good I've done. I've helped people in the past, and didn't even get thanked. Others have gotten offended, and I was perfectly fine with it.

And then there are the times I help others from purely self-interest reasons. Why should I receive recognition for that? One instance. Our apartment block's intercom system died. A couple residents who wielded power didn't want to spend the money to fix it using the coop's funds, so after a couple weeks being the one flat on the ground floor who would let people in when they knocked (the other neighbor on the ground floor was also one of the ones who didn't want to pay to fix the system), I got tired of it, and simply paid to have the system repaired out of my own pocket. Ironically, I asked the admins to keep this anonymous and completely secret. Well, this neighbor called a general meeting, and essentially forced the admins to tell what had happened and who had paid. The end result was that this ugly neighbor resigned and moved away, and the whole block rejoiced. They all came to thank me--but I did it out of self-interest, and wasn't at all happy with the "praise." Though, since the two men who were holding back so many improvements to the building ended up resigning and moving out, I am glad that my "contribution" came out, but still, I hated the praise, etc.

That's my perspective.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
31,261 Posts
Discussion Starter · #10 ·
So, in your world, Al Capone should be rewarded for all the good he did? And his evil ignored? Do you think that the good someone does can outweigh the bad? Or that his bad should be forgotten or simply forgiven? Or are you separating the good he has done from the evil he has done? I'm not exactly sure what you are trying to understand or justify here...



Well, that is kind of how I think too. I'd rather not receive recognition for anything good I've done. I've helped people in the past, and didn't even get thanked. Others have gotten offended, and I was perfectly fine with it.

And then there are the times I help others from purely self-interest reasons. Why should I receive recognition for that? One instance. Our apartment block's intercom system died. A couple residents who wielded power didn't want to spend the money to fix it using the coop's funds, so after a couple weeks being the one flat on the ground floor who would let people in when they knocked (the other neighbor on the ground floor was also one of the ones who didn't want to pay to fix the system), I got tired of it, and simply paid to have the system repaired out of my own pocket. Ironically, I asked the admins to keep this anonymous and completely secret. Well, this neighbor called a general meeting, and essentially forced the admins to tell what had happened and who had paid. The end result was that this ugly neighbor resigned and moved away, and the whole block rejoiced. They all came to thank me--but I did it out of self-interest, and wasn't at all happy with the "praise." Though, since the two men who were holding back so many improvements to the building ended up resigning and moving out, I am glad that my "contribution" came out, but still, I hated the praise, etc.

That's my perspective.[/COLOR]
I think if Al Capone did a mass amounts of good things but for bad reasons and those bad reasons didn't really lead to any bad actions, it wouldn't really matter. But obviously he did do bad things so I wouldn't reward him. I'm just imagining a hypothetical political candidate, maybe he decided that he could give parties and throw money in the air so people would support him. His purpose is obviously to win political support and votes which doesn't seem necessarily bad to me, while his appearance was to "give to the people". So I say if he did a good things for "dishonest" reasons, it should not be a big deal, if those reasons were pretty benign.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,767 Posts
I'm skeptical of everyone, because I expect everyone to have a personal agenda. The first question I ask myself is always "What could this person want from me?".
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,568 Posts
I am not an Fi, and my grasps of the functions are not in depth enough to argue or theorize why Fi would feel this way, so I only speak from my point of view.

Why would the criticisms of the philanthropist prevent the goodwill of others? If a philanthropist is genuine in his actions and morals, he would fight for the sake of goodwill in dispense of what others believe in order to help humanity. Recognition is irrelevant. If goodwill and help has been served, that's all that matters. You don't always need a medal or a news story in order to spread goodwill.

If other people are needed in order to fight for the sake of a philanthropic or humanitarian cause , I fail to see how the skeptics would prevent the philanthropist from creating a social network or group to fight for his/her goal. For every skeptic, there is another skeptic criticizing said skeptics. Skeptics create chains. Everyone has different schools of thought, and I imagine a philanthropist would find supporters of their school of thought who are willing to join in harmony to create social change or spread goodwill. When you have a solid foundation of people backing you up, it's easier to fight the commentary of skeptics. A large group of people is a force to be reckoned with, which is why no man is an island.

I strive to find authenticity merely because precision and accuracy are important driving forces in my life. Though you have a point; as long as justice is served, the intentions of the philanthropist are irrelevant. It is, however, good to have a critical, skeptical eye. Trust can kick your ass and harm you. It's better to remain detached and open up until evidence of trustworthiness is served, or a gun in your mouth could be your next designation.

The philanthropist may appear innocent on the surface, but underneath his amiable persona, a dark, hidden agenda could be lurking within. The criticisms of Mother Teresa proposed by Chris Hitchens (I will admit to not reading the book, but Penn and Teller gave me awareness of the main summary of his beliefs) are an excellent example of this, if they're to be taken seriously. Their could be poison in the food supply they're delivering to the homeless for all we know, and if intelligent enough, they may cover their tracks. This is why skepticism is important. If anything, optimistics and skeptics should work together to understand each other, rather than fight against each other or view each other as the enemy, as both have excellent points that could prove groundbreaking towards society.

As always, I over fucking explained.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,892 Posts
I think if Al Capone did a mass amounts of good things but for bad reasons and those bad reasons didn't really lead to any bad actions, it wouldn't really matter. But obviously he did do bad things so I wouldn't reward him. I'm just imagining a hypothetical political candidate, maybe he decided that he could give parties and throw money in the air so people would support him. His purpose is obviously to win political support and votes which doesn't seem necessarily bad to me, while his appearance was to "give to the people". So I say if he did a good things for "dishonest" reasons, it should not be a big deal, if those reasons were pretty benign.
I hate to say it, but you are sounding a bit inconsistent to me. Let's take the politician. He does "good things" to get elected, but once elected, he does things counter to those good things he did. How do you separate the two? Al Capone is another example. He built playgrounds, gave tons to the church, and when he died, the priest said he was a good Christian. How is that? Just because he gave lots of money?

I guess I just don't see how one can truly separate motive from behavior. I suppose you can separate the results--for instance. Kids are playing on the playgrounds--that's good. Bill Gates gives lots of money for education--I suppose that's good. But then I wonder, how many of those kids playing on that play ground lost a relative to drink thanks to Al Capone, or how many had a relative murdered by him? And what if Gates' education efforts are nothing more than to create mindless robots who will not so much as be educated, but schooled on how to be good employees--do their duties--and not think like an independent, intelligent human being?

As I see it, motives always color actions, and even good actions, while they may be good in and of themselves, that in no way means that the doer of that good deserves a write-off for the bad, or a pass just because he did something good.

And the more one praises one's own goodness, the much less I trust their goodness. I think that this more approaches your original point. So, you have the politician or Capones who go out and proclaim all the good they are doing. The more they shout it from the someplaces high how good they are, the less likely that what they are doing is actually good. And the corollary is also true. The more someone shouts from someplace high how great _I_ am, or how wonderful a thing I have done is, then the more I distrust their motives for doing so. People don't just praise other people out of admiration for them. Certainly not to their faces. The people who do that are sycophants, who are doing it to get something else from that person. If you want to say thanks, say it, and be done. If you appreciate something I did, you can tell me in a simple, sincere and honest manner, and be done. The more you repeat it, and the more you expand on it and blow it out of proportion, the more you suggest to me that your intentions are other than simple appreciation. And I have to tell you, I've walked this earth for a number of years now, and I don't think I've ever been wrong on these sorts of judgments. I can tell a sincere person from a fake a mile away. They don't even have to open their mouths any more. I can see in their eyes that they want something from me--and they never get it. Now, I don't just outright refuse them. I always give them enough rope to hang themselves--reveal their hand, and I help them on their way, if necessary. ;-) I should add that there have been a few people I was not sure about, but in those cases, over time, they did reveal themselves, either of the higher caliber or of the lessor sort.

I just thought of something else. I have known people over time, who have thought that by giving to a cause/need that they can wield influence. In my case, they have discovered very quickly that I'm not influenceable. If you give to my cause, you are signing on with my agenda. I'm not signing on to yours. I have also refused money from people or groups which I knew operate in such a fashion. I just politely to give their money to someone who is more "agreeable" to their way of doing things. I don't need them.

And I don't know if this helps you much in understanding this issue...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
31,261 Posts
Discussion Starter · #14 ·
I hate to say it, but you are sounding a bit inconsistent to me. Let's take the politician. He does "good things" to get elected, but once elected, he does things counter to those good things he did. How do you separate the two? Al Capone is another example. He built playgrounds, gave tons to the church, and when he died, the priest said he was a good Christian. How is that? Just because he gave lots of money?

I guess I just don't see how one can truly separate motive from behavior. I suppose you can separate the results--for instance. Kids are playing on the playgrounds--that's good. Bill Gates gives lots of money for education--I suppose that's good. But then I wonder, how many of those kids playing on that play ground lost a relative to drink thanks to Al Capone, or how many had a relative murdered by him? And what if Gates' education efforts are nothing more than to create mindless robots who will not so much as be educated, but schooled on how to be good employees--do their duties--and not think like an independent, intelligent human being?

As I see it, motives always color actions, and even good actions, while they may be good in and of themselves, that in no way means that the doer of that good deserves a write-off for the bad, or a pass just because he did something good.

And the more one praises one's own goodness, the much less I trust their goodness. I think that this more approaches your original point. So, you have the politician or Capones who go out and proclaim all the good they are doing. The more they shout it from the someplaces high how good they are, the less likely that what they are doing is actually good. And the corollary is also true. The more someone shouts from someplace high how great _I_ am, or how wonderful a thing I have done is, then the more I distrust their motives for doing so. People don't just praise other people out of admiration for them. Certainly not to their faces. The people who do that are sycophants, who are doing it to get something else from that person. If you want to say thanks, say it, and be done. If you appreciate something I did, you can tell me in a simple, sincere and honest manner, and be done. The more you repeat it, and the more you expand on it and blow it out of proportion, the more you suggest to me that your intentions are other than simple appreciation. And I have to tell you, I've walked this earth for a number of years now, and I don't think I've ever been wrong on these sorts of judgments. I can tell a sincere person from a fake a mile away. They don't even have to open their mouths any more. I can see in their eyes that they want something from me--and they never get it. Now, I don't just outright refuse them. I always give them enough rope to hang themselves--reveal their hand, and I help them on their way, if necessary. ;-) I should add that there have been a few people I was not sure about, but in those cases, over time, they did reveal themselves, either of the higher caliber or of the lessor sort.

I just thought of something else. I have known people over time, who have thought that by giving to a cause/need that they can wield influence. In my case, they have discovered very quickly that I'm not influenceable. If you give to my cause, you are signing on with my agenda. I'm not signing on to yours. I have also refused money from people or groups which I knew operate in such a fashion. I just politely to give their money to someone who is more "agreeable" to their way of doing things. I don't need them.

And I don't know if this helps you much in understanding this issue...
I'm separating the actions. I can't ignore them because the person who did them was bad in general. I wouldn't omit a person's arguments in a debate just because I didn't like them either, hopefully. Personally, I would only recognize them insofar as the need deal with them if they did something bad. If they did something good along the way, that would be recognized, not them, unless you want to argue that they did something good and weren't all bad, it's not really a free pass, it's just a recognition of extra details. I don't feel remorseful about saying Hitler was a vegetarian. If you even think that's supposed to be a good thing. I wouldn't toss that out because it isn't fitting anyway.
Well, I think it's annoying when people advertise themselves and try to say how good they are.
How do you figure out if someone is trustworthy or not?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
31,261 Posts
Discussion Starter · #15 ·
I am not an Fi, and my grasps of the functions are not in depth enough to argue or theorize why Fi would feel this way, so I only speak from my point of view.

Why would the criticisms of the philanthropist prevent the goodwill of others? If a philanthropist is genuine in his actions and morals, he would fight for the sake of goodwill in dispense of what others believe in order to help humanity. Recognition is irrelevant. If goodwill and help has been served, that's all that matters. You don't always need a medal or a news story in order to spread goodwill.

If other people are needed in order to fight for the sake of a philanthropic or humanitarian cause , I fail to see how the skeptics would prevent the philanthropist from creating a social network or group to fight for his/her goal. For every skeptic, there is another skeptic criticizing said skeptics. Skeptics create chains. Everyone has different schools of thought, and I imagine a philanthropist would find supporters of their school of thought who are willing to join in harmony to create social change or spread goodwill. When you have a solid foundation of people backing you up, it's easier to fight the commentary of skeptics. A large group of people is a force to be reckoned with, which is why no man is an island.

I strive to find authenticity merely because precision and accuracy are important driving forces in my life. Though you have a point; as long as justice is served, the intentions of the philanthropist are irrelevant. It is, however, good to have a critical, skeptical eye. Trust can kick your ass and harm you. It's better to remain detached and open up until evidence of trustworthiness is served, or a gun in your mouth could be your next designation.

The philanthropist may appear innocent on the surface, but underneath his amiable persona, a dark, hidden agenda could be lurking within. The criticisms of Mother Teresa proposed by Chris Hitchens (I will admit to not reading the book, but Penn and Teller gave me awareness of the main summary of his beliefs) are an excellent example of this, if they're to be taken seriously. Their could be poison in the food supply they're delivering to the homeless for all we know, and if intelligent enough, they may cover their tracks. This is why skepticism is important. If anything, optimistics and skeptics should work together to understand each other, rather than fight against each other or view each other as the enemy, as both have excellent points that could prove groundbreaking towards society.

As always, I over fucking explained.
A genuine person does something good and genuine. Why? Because be knows it's the right thing to do? What does that mean?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,568 Posts
A genuine person does something good and genuine. Why? Because be knows it's the right thing to do? What does that mean?
What's the right thing to do? I cannot define that. It's subjective, but in my own terms, it means doing something serving good will, or fighting for the rights, justices, equalities or civil liberties that are being stolen from others. A person will know it's right through their own merit, unless they're sociopathic.

A genuine person is honest. Their actions are not influenced by any personal gain. They're genuinely trying to achieve what they're seemingly attempting to accomplish for the reasons they say they are. You raise good points. Lacking sincerity is unimportant if the actions promote greater good in society, and should be respected through that angle. However, is it really "right" to exploit others for personal gain, even if these people now have food and water? Exploitation creates it's own set of problems. Could these problems deviate from the general goal of welfare, or is that irrelevant because the poor are being supported?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,535 Posts
I'm only skeptical of Fe when it revolves around what people "should" do. Like "We should all go to the pub together!", "Oh yes, we should!" "Blablabla". The word should activates the Negative Emotional Attractor, which gives people a guilty conscience and makes them not want to do something just out of spite and stubbornness. It is based on being on your best behaviour in order to please others, whether you want to or not.
I'm not skeptical of Fe when it's an expression of enthusiasm, like someone talking loudly about their hobbies and smiling happily etc.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
31,261 Posts
Discussion Starter · #18 ·
What's the right thing to do? I cannot define that. It's subjective, but in my own terms, it means doing something serving good will, or fighting for the rights, justices, equalities or civil liberties that are being stolen from others. A person will know it's right through their own merit, unless they're sociopathic.

A genuine person is honest. Their actions are not influenced by any personal gain. They're genuinely trying to achieve what they're seemingly attempting to accomplish for the reasons they say they are. You raise good points. Lacking sincerity is unimportant if the actions promote greater good in society, and should be respected through that angle. However, is it really "right" to exploit others for personal gain, even if these people now have food and water? Exploitation creates it's own set of problems. Could these problems deviate from the general goal of welfare, or is that irrelevant because the poor are being supported?
You cannot treat a person as a means to end. But I don't see why being honest about it unmakes it the same thing. Even if you were honest about your politics you would still be using people for votes. No I just think that despite insincerity good actions could still be accounted for and our bad images of people should not prevent us from observing different actions and their effects.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
31,261 Posts
Discussion Starter · #19 ·
I'm only skeptical of Fe when it revolves around what people "should" do. Like "We should all go to the pub together!", "Oh yes, we should!" "Blablabla". The word should activates the Negative Emotional Attractor, which gives people a guilty conscience and makes them not want to do something just out of spite and stubbornness. It is based on being on your best behaviour in order to please others, whether you want to or not.
I'm not skeptical of Fe when it's an expression of enthusiasm, like someone talking loudly about their hobbies and smiling happily etc.
Should requires a reason in any hypothetical imperative.
I am hungry therefore I should eat.
People can't just say "you should" that's a philosophical problem.

Why would you want not want to please someone, why is it bad to want to please others or what do you mean by that?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,535 Posts
Should requires a reason in any hypothetical imperative.
I am hungry therefore I should eat.
People can't just say "you should" that's a philosophical problem.

Why would you want not want to please someone, why is it bad to want to please others or what do you mean by that?
It is not bad to please others sometimes if they are your friends and they also aim to please you.
It is bad if your whole way of living is aimed at pleasing others. It affects your ideal self and prevents you from growing because it does not provide a positive vision. It is based on the punishment that you will suffer if you don't please another. E.g. if you are fat and you think "I should do this diet, I should do this diet, I should do this diet, fat is ugly, fat is unhealthy, my doctor will tell me off if I don't lose weight." you will sabotage your own diet and not lose weight. If you think "I enjoy [this sport] so much and I want to have more energy and feel better so that I can enjoy my free time more." you will exercise/diet and you will lose weight as a byproduct.
You can even test this on Fe-ers themselves. Ask them: "What kind of person would you like to be in 10 years time?". They will list some aspects in an enthusiastic voice and some in a tired or angry voice. Then concentrate on the aspect where they sounded tired and ask them "Is that something you want for yourself or something you think you should do?" They'll tell you something like "It's what society expects." Then ask them how it makes them feel when society expects them to do this and they will tell you it makes them feel trapped. I only tried this last week with ESFJ best friend because I had a homework to practice Coaching with Compassion. But you can try it yourself without any great kerfuffle.
 
1 - 20 of 54 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top